An investigation into the man behind BlockDAG, his connections to Lanistar and controversial cryptocurrency promotions, and the serious questions surrounding hundreds of millions of dollars in reported presale fundraising.
Published October 8, 2026 | ZenVeganCrypto Investigations
Who Is Gurhan Kiziloz — and Why Should BlockDAG Investors Be Concerned?
For cryptocurrency investors who trusted BlockDAG with their money, one of the most important questions is also one of the simplest: Who was really behind the project, and what did that person do before BlockDAG?
The answer leads to Gurhan Kiziloz, a businessman connected to a string of controversial ventures, including the British financial technology company Lanistar and cryptocurrency projects promoted through the marketing agency WPRO.
His history raises substantial questions about transparency, investor protection, promotional claims, financial accountability, and the credibility of BlockDAG’s leadership.
These concerns are not based solely on anonymous internet accusations. They have been documented in reporting by established financial publications, statements from financial regulators, and investigations by blockchain researchers.
In January 2026, DL News published a major investigation into BlockDAG based on interviews with investors and insiders, internal communications, and thousands of documents.
The publication reported discrepancies in fundraising claims, complaints about undelivered mining equipment, allegations of unpaid employees, and sponsorship disputes.
BlockDAG subsequently denied the reported funding discrepancies and contract-related allegations.
The question is no longer simply whether BlockDAG will fulfill its promises.
It is whether prospective investors were given sufficient information about the people, businesses, and financial history behind those promises.
Source: DL News — Inside BlockDAG’s $442 Million Crypto Maze
1. The Founder Who Remained Out of Public View
For a substantial period, BlockDAG’s public identity centered on former CEO Antony Turner rather than Kiziloz.
According to DL News, Kiziloz’s role as the project’s founder was publicly acknowledged during a December 29, 2025, investor question-and-answer session.
During that discussion, Kiziloz reportedly explained that Turner had been hired partly because of Kiziloz’s previous unsuccessful ventures.
His own reported explanation was revealing:
“The reason we hired Antony was because I had a few failed projects in the past.”
This statement deserves examination.
Business failure alone does not establish misconduct. Entrepreneurs can fail, recover, and build legitimate businesses.
But when a cryptocurrency venture seeks hundreds of millions of dollars from the public, its founder’s business history becomes highly relevant.
Investors should be able to evaluate that history before committing money.
Why was Kiziloz’s involvement not clearly disclosed from the beginning? What information did investors receive about his previous companies? Who exercised actual financial and operational control?
These are reasonable questions about governance, not personal attacks.
Source: DL News investigation and December 2025 leadership disclosures
2. Lanistar: The Previous Financial Venture
Before BlockDAG, Kiziloz founded Lanistar, a British fintech business launched in 2019.
Lanistar promoted an ambitious payment-card concept that would allow consumers to connect multiple cards through a single product.
Its marketing relied heavily on influencers, celebrities, and high-visibility publicity campaigns.
DL News reported that approximately 3,000 influencers were engaged in promoting Lanistar.
The company attracted attention through promotional associations with prominent athletes, television personalities, and luxury vehicles.
But extensive publicity is not the same as a financially sustainable business.
Lanistar eventually encountered regulatory scrutiny, creditor disputes, and liquidation proceedings.
In September 2025, according to DL News, the High Court in London ordered Lanistar Limited into liquidation.
This is a significant fact for investors researching Kiziloz’s commercial history.
It does not mean that every activity associated with Lanistar was fraudulent, or that Kiziloz personally committed a crime.
It does demonstrate that a major earlier business venture associated with him ended in serious financial distress.
Sources:
- Financial News — Lanistar’s Financial and Cryptocurrency Controversies
- DL News — BlockDAG and the Lanistar Connection
3. The UK Financial Conduct Authority Warning
In November 2020, Britain’s Financial Conduct Authority issued a consumer warning concerning Lanistar.
The warning related to concerns about the company’s regulatory status and the promotion of financial services.
There is an important qualification: on November 20, 2020, the FCA confirmed that Lanistar had agreed to amend its marketing materials, clarify its regulatory position, and make website changes.
The FCA then withdrew its consumer warning.
That distinction matters. It would be inaccurate to present the original warning as an outstanding regulatory sanction.
Nevertheless, the incident is part of the company’s documented history and illustrates the importance of verifying regulatory claims independently.
For investors, the lesson is clear: impressive advertising, celebrity endorsements, and financial-technology branding do not establish regulatory authorization.
Primary source: UK Financial Conduct Authority — Official Lanistar Statement, November 20, 2020
4. WPRO and Allegations of Manufactured Cryptocurrency Hype
One of the most concerning elements of Kiziloz’s background involves WPRO, also known as the World Press Release Organisation.
A June 2024 Financial News investigation examined links between WPRO, Lanistar, Kiziloz, and cryptocurrency promotions.
The publication interviewed former employees who described an aggressive system for producing promotional articles about digital assets.
According to those accounts, writers were directed to generate large volumes of publicity designed to attract attention to cryptocurrency projects.
Former staff alleged that promotional material was distributed through online publications without clearly identifying the business relationships behind the articles.
Financial News also reported that the promotional operation sought to overwhelm negative coverage with favorable stories.
If accurate, those practices would raise serious questions about transparency and the independence of online financial information.
There is an important difference between legitimate public relations and presenting commercially motivated promotional material as independent reporting.
A prospective investor searching for information about a cryptocurrency should not have to wonder whether the positive articles appearing in search results were produced by people financially connected to the project.
Source: Financial News — How Lanistar Boss’s Crypto Coin Blitz Left Investors Out of Pocket
5. Big Eyes and Other Controversial Cryptocurrency Promotions
Financial News also investigated Kiziloz’s reported involvement in promoting cryptocurrency projects including Big Eyes and Huh Token.
Former employees described promotional activities involving several meme coins.
Big Eyes attracted substantial presale publicity, but its market performance ultimately disappointed many investors.
DL News reported that the token had lost approximately 98% of its value from inception at the time of its investigation.
A token losing value does not, by itself, establish fraud. Cryptocurrency prices can decline dramatically for many reasons.
However, a history of aggressive promotion followed by substantial investor losses is relevant when evaluating the credibility of later investment marketing.
The central question is whether promotional statements accurately represented the project’s development, risks, financial position, and prospects.
Another important question is whether individuals directing promotional activity disclosed their financial interests.
Investors deserve to know who benefits from the promotion of a digital asset.
Sources:
6. BlockDAG: The $442 Million Fundraising Question
One of the most striking findings in the January 2026 DL News investigation concerned BlockDAG’s fundraising figures.
The publication reported that BlockDAG’s website claimed approximately $442 million in fundraising.
Yet CEO Nic Van Den Bergh told DL News that the project had raised more than $200 million.
These figures are not necessarily mathematically incompatible: more than $200 million could include $442 million. But the CEO’s statement did not independently substantiate the larger advertised total.
That leaves important questions unanswered.
What was the actual amount of money received from investors?
How much was received in cryptocurrency versus conventional payment methods?
How much was spent on marketing, sponsorships, development, employees, mining equipment, and other operating costs?
How much remained under the control of BlockDAG or related entities?
And were investors provided with independently audited financial statements supporting the project’s public claims?
DL News reported that BlockDAG disputed the suggestion of funding discrepancies.
The appropriate way to resolve such questions is through independently verifiable financial documentation.
Source: DL News — Fundraising and Internal Operations Investigation
7. The Seychelles Regulator Issued a Formal BlockDAG Warning
Unlike some of the allegations surrounding BlockDAG, this matter is supported by an official regulatory notice.
On March 19, 2025, the Financial Services Authority of Seychelles published a warning concerning BlockDAG and DAG SYSTEMS LTD.
The regulator stated that the company did not have authorization for the coin issuance and had not submitted the required application.
A subsequent Seychelles regulatory update reported that DAG SYSTEMS LTD. had been dissolved on October 18, 2025, and had not held authorization under the relevant virtual-asset legislation.
These are serious regulatory disclosures.
They do not automatically establish that every BlockDAG transaction was unlawful in every jurisdiction. They do, however, raise questions about the legal entities responsible for the project and the regulatory protections available to investors.
Investors should ask which entity currently controls BlockDAG’s funds and obligations, where that entity is registered, and what legal remedies are available if promised payments are not delivered.
Official sources:
8. Unpaid Workers, Mining Equipment and Sponsorship Disputes
The DL News investigation also documented allegations extending beyond token purchasers.
The publication reported complaints from investors who said they had not received mining equipment.
It also described sponsorship arrangements involving football clubs that allegedly ended amid payment disputes.
Separately, a former executive assistant responsible for payroll told DL News that approximately 24 employees were owed more than $140,000 for work performed in December.
DL News noted that it could not independently verify certain employee-payment claims.
These are allegations reported by a news organization, not findings established by a court.
BlockDAG later strongly disputed the publication’s claims concerning funding and contracts, maintaining that the project was continuing development and operating transparently.
Nevertheless, the range of complaints is important.
When questions arise simultaneously about investor deliveries, employee compensation, commercial agreements, and corporate funding, they warrant a detailed accounting.
A credible response would include documented payment records, delivery records, clear explanations of contractual obligations, and independent verification where appropriate.
Source: DL News — Missing Miners, Employees and Contracts
9. ZachXBT’s Allegations About Investor Funds
Blockchain investigator ZachXBT has publicly criticized BlockDAG and Kiziloz.
In statements published through his investigative channel, ZachXBT alleged that cryptocurrency funds associated with BlockDAG and another presale project were commingled and that funds were subsequently connected to payments promoting a separate casino venture.
He reported tracing at least $25 million through blockchain transactions associated with the projects and related payment infrastructure.
These are serious allegations that require independent examination of the underlying transaction records, wallet attribution, ownership, and the contractual terms governing the funds.
A blockchain transaction can establish that assets moved between addresses. It does not necessarily establish who controlled every address, why the transaction occurred, or whether it violated a legal obligation.
Accordingly, ZachXBT’s analysis should be treated as investigative evidence and allegations, not as a judicial finding that Kiziloz personally misappropriated funds.
Even with that qualification, the allegations raise a critical question:
Were BlockDAG investors adequately informed about how presale proceeds could be used, including any transfers involving related businesses?
A detailed independent treasury audit could help answer that question.
Source: ZachXBT — Public Investigations and On-Chain Allegations
10. A Recurring Pattern Worth Investigating
Viewed together, these events reveal several recurring issues across ventures associated with Kiziloz:
- Heavy reliance on promotional campaigns and publicity.
- Questions about the disclosure of business relationships.
- Previous ventures experiencing significant financial or operational difficulties.
- Regulatory concerns involving financial products or cryptocurrency offerings.
- Investors or business counterparties raising questions about promised outcomes.
- Unresolved demands for independently verifiable financial information.
These similarities do not prove that every venture operated identically or that misconduct occurred in each case.
They do justify closer scrutiny.
The strongest criticism is not that Kiziloz has experienced business failures.
It is that investors deserve to know whether the risks, financial arrangements, leadership relationships, and previous business history were adequately disclosed before their money was accepted.
11. Questions Gurhan Kiziloz and BlockDAG Should Answer
A meaningful response from Kiziloz and BlockDAG should address the following:
- Why was Kiziloz’s founder role not prominently disclosed earlier in BlockDAG’s fundraising history?
- What is the independently verified total amount raised through the BlockDAG presale?
- Which legal entities received and controlled the proceeds?
- What is the current status of all outstanding investor payment and token-delivery obligations?
- What happened to investor funds associated with mining equipment that customers report not receiving?
- What documentation can BlockDAG provide concerning the Seychelles regulatory notices and subsequent corporate arrangements?
- Have any BlockDAG presale proceeds been transferred to related ventures, and, if so, were those transfers authorized and disclosed?
- Will the company publish an independent financial and blockchain treasury audit?
- What is the procedure for investors seeking refunds, contractual payments, or resolution of disputed allocations?
- Will Kiziloz and current management answer these questions publicly, with supporting documentation?
These questions are specific, answerable, and directly relevant to investor confidence.
12. What Investors Should Do
Investors who believe that promised payments or deliveries have not been honored should preserve their records.
Relevant evidence may include purchase confirmations, wallet transaction hashes, account screenshots, correspondence with company representatives, promotional representations, contractual terms, and any subsequent changes to payment or allocation arrangements.
Investors should distinguish the original terms they accepted from later promotional announcements or proposed modifications.
Where substantial sums are involved, qualified legal advice may be appropriate, particularly where transactions cross international jurisdictions.
Public discussion is also important, but allegations should be supported by documents whenever possible.
Sharing evidence responsibly is more useful than repeating unverified accusations.
Conclusion: Accountability Must Replace Promotion
Gurhan Kiziloz’s business history deserves scrutiny because it intersects with the financial interests of a large number of cryptocurrency investors.
The documented record includes Lanistar’s regulatory controversy and subsequent liquidation, reporting about aggressive cryptocurrency marketing, a formal Seychelles warning concerning BlockDAG, and serious allegations regarding the project’s finances and operations.
BlockDAG has disputed significant portions of the critical reporting, and those responses should be considered alongside the evidence.
But promotional assurances alone cannot settle questions about investor money.
Financial records, corporate disclosures, transaction evidence, contractual performance, and independent audits are what matter.
Investors deserve answers supported by evidence — not another publicity campaign.
Until those answers are provided, the questions surrounding BlockDAG’s leadership, fundraising, and obligations remain matters of legitimate public interest.
Editorial disclosure
This article is an independent critical analysis based on publicly available reporting, regulatory notices, and attributed investigative allegations. It does not assert that Gurhan Kiziloz has been convicted of fraud or that every allegation discussed has been independently proven.
The article distinguishes regulatory findings, reported facts, allegations, and unanswered questions. Readers should consult the original linked sources.
Gurhan Kiziloz and BlockDAG are invited to provide documented corrections, responses, or additional evidence for publication.
ZenVeganCrypto.com — Cryptocurrency Education, Investor Awareness and Accountability.