Nigeria-focused crypto platform Patricia has moved aggressively to secure funding to quell the dissatisfaction among its user base. Weeks after admitting to a loss of $2 million worth of customer assets due to a cyberattack last year, the firm aims to use fresh capital to refund its aggrieved customers. However, trust seems to be in short supply. In a virtual meeting last Friday, Hanu Fejiro, the company’s CEO, indicated that some financing had been obtained, although specifics about the investment were not divulged.
Additionally, Hanu Fejiro revealed that Patricia Plus, the company’s app, is currently under beta testing and slated for a relaunch soon. A previously launched version in April led to a financial scramble as customers sought to withdraw their funds en masse. Consequently, Patricia imposed a freeze on withdrawals, further alienating an already skeptical customer base.
Controversial debt tokens and legal woes
Cryptopolitan reported that Patricia converted its customers’ remaining assets into Patricia Tokens (PTK), described as debt management tokens. This abrupt shift led to an outcry, prompting the firm to issue a detailed clarification regarding these tokens.
Although Patricia has touted its repayment plan as tied to platform profitability, it hasn’t provided a timeline for financial sustainability. Furthermore, Patricia’s management admitted that the repayment plan’s success depends heavily on the new capital raised.
Moreover, these debt management tokens haven’t won the confidence of the company’s users. Customers are demanding more transparency, with some even considering legal action. The atmosphere of mistrust is exacerbated by Patricia’s delay in disclosing the cyber breach, affecting its ongoing efforts to secure full customer buy-in.
In an echo of global crypto platform Bitfinex’s strategy, Patricia seems to be employing a similar tactic with its debt tokens. Bitfinex, having lost around $72 million to hackers in 2016, also offered its users debt tokens as a liability obligation. However, the key difference lies in the prevailing mistrust and skepticism towards Patricia, which makes the adoption of such a model a risky endeavor.
Significantly, the discord among Patricia’s customers extends beyond mere dissatisfaction. An anonymous customer suggested in the virtual meeting that aggrieved users should stage a protest while others are contemplating legal recourse.
The company is clearly at a crossroads, facing a trust deficit that fresh funding alone may not bridge. As it prepares for the relaunch of Patricia Plus and touts its new funding, the onus lies squarely on Patricia to demonstrate its commitment to making amends. While the recently acquired funding may be a step in the right direction, whether it can mend fences with a wary customer base remains an open question.
