If your balance is growing but you can’t withdraw a cent, you don’t have an investment — you have a story being told to you on a screen. That’s where this investigation begins.

For months, investors were promised regular distributions. When payments slowed or stopped, they were told delays were temporary. While money failed to arrive, dashboards continued to update, balances continued to rise, and investors were encouraged to wait just a little longer. Many did, because the system was designed to make waiting feel rational.

I’ve been warning about Goliath Ventures since September. What you’re about to see is what happens when patience runs out and evidence replaces hope.

THE DASHBOARD I WAS GIVEN ACCESS TO

An investor, whose identity is protected, handed over full backend access to his investor account portal. Not screenshots. Not summaries. Direct access to what investors themselves see when they log in.

Inside the portal, everything looks legitimate at first glance. Contracts. Identity documents. Assigned partners. Contribution records. Distribution entries. Month after month marked as “hyper-compounded.” It tells a complete story — but only if you don’t try to leave.

What’s missing is control. There is no self-service withdrawal function. No crypto transfer button. No bank initiation. Every attempt to exit must go through a human gatekeeper.

That design choice matters when money stops flowing.

WHEN HYPER-COMPOUNDING REPLACES PAYOUTS

Hyper-compounding is presented as growth. In reality, it becomes a holding pattern.

Even after withdrawals fail, balances continue to rise on-screen. The message is subtle but powerful: waiting feels safer than acting. But numbers you can’t access aren’t money. Liquidity is money.

When balances grow while exits are blocked, hyper-compounding stops being a strategy and becomes a retention mechanism.

THE WITHDRAWAL THAT CHANGED EVERYTHING

The investor formally requested a withdrawal under the terms of the contract.

That contract, which every investor signs, states that withdrawal requests should be processed within a defined window of five to seven business days, with delays allowed only under limited and specific circumstances. In this case, that window passed. No qualifying exception was cited. No funds were returned.

At that point, this stopped being about technical delays or explanations. It became non-performance under a written agreement.

Despite that, the account continued to show balance growth. Hyper-compounding entries kept appearing while the withdrawal remained unresolved. That’s not neutral accounting. It’s the appearance of progress without delivery.

WHAT THIS PATTERN TELLS US

This is not an isolated experience. Across multiple investors, the same pattern repeats. Withdrawals require permission, not execution. Timelines shift. Some people are paid while others stall. Communication tightens. Balances keep growing while access disappears.

No single data point proves fraud. Patterns do.

And once you see the pattern from inside the portal, it’s impossible to unsee.

WHY THIS MATTERS NOW

This investigation isn’t about theory or hindsight. It’s about what investors were shown versus what actually happened. It’s about contracts, timelines, and systems that continue to display growth while failing to meet their own obligations.

If you’re still staring at a dashboard and waiting for reassurance, understand this: waiting doesn’t improve your position. Delay only benefits the people holding your money.

Buy Me a Coffee
I’m on @buymeacoffee. If you like my work, you can buy me a coffee and share your thoughts.

Support the show

On 12 December 2025 at 8:13 PM, I received an unsolicited commercial email from Robert Rolls, identifying himself as Founder and Chief Executive of Afirmo NZ Ltd. I had no prior relationship with him or the company, had not requested contact, and had not consented to receive marketing of any kind.

THE EMAIL ARRIVES

The message was promotional and lacked an unsubscribe mechanism. Under New Zealand law, a single unsolicited commercial email can be unlawful if it does not meet basic requirements around consent, sender identification, and opt-out. That omission mattered, and it prompted a closer look.

THE DOMAIN THAT DIDN’T MATCH

The email did not come from afirmo.com, the company’s established domain. It was sent from robertr@winafirmo.com, a domain registered just weeks earlier and not referenced anywhere on Afirmo’s official website. When accessed, that domain redirected to an unrelated third-party site with no visible connection to accounting or tax services. Domain provenance matters, especially in regulated environments.

TECHNICAL CHECKS

A WHOIS and DNS review showed the two domains were registered, hosted, and configured independently. The established domain dates back to 2017; the newer domain was registered in late September 2025. These differences don’t prove misconduct on their own, but they are relevant to questions of sender identification and traceability.

SEEKING CLARITY

Before publishing anything, I attempted to verify the situation and provide a right of reply. I phoned the publicly listed office number, called the mobile number associated with Mr Rolls, left voicemail messages, and sent written questions by email. One response arrived from the newer domain, asserting compliance and “deemed consent,” but it did not answer where my email address was sourced, why a separate domain was used, or why no unsubscribe was included.

INDUSTRY CONTEXT

In my reporting on electronic spam, I’ve repeatedly encountered a pattern where companies outsource cold outreach to third-party lead generators and use secondary domains to protect the reputation of their primary brand. When issues arise, responsibility still sits with the company whose services are being promoted.

THE LEGAL CONTEXT

Even where “deemed consent” is claimed, New Zealand law still requires a functional unsubscribe mechanism. The facts here are simple and observable: the message was unsolicited, the domain was not publicly associated with the company, and no opt-out was provided.

REFERRAL TO REGULATORS

Given the lack of resolution, I referred the matter to the Department of Internal Affairs, providing the original email, full headers, and a timeline of correspondence. The referral itself is now a matter of record.

ON THE RECORD

This investigation documents verifiable facts and unanswered questions. It does not allege fraud or criminality. If clarification is provided on the record—about the domain used, the source of my email address, or the absence of an unsubscribe—it will be published in full.

Buy Me a Coffee
I’m on @buymeacoffee. If you like my work, you can buy me a coffee and share your thoughts.

Support the show

This investigation looks at what existed before Goliath Ventures Inc ever collapsed — before missed payouts, before silence, before the excuses. It examines how trust was established, how credibility was borrowed, and how millions were raised long before anything verifiable was ever built.

This is not a hindsight critique. It’s a reconstruction of origins.

HOW TO REPORT GOLIATH VENTURES INC

dehek.com/general/scam-fraud-investigations/how-to-report-goliath-ventures-inc-and-take-action-if-youve-lost-money/

THE FOUNDATION BEFORE THE MONEY

Goliath Ventures did not begin with a functioning product, a proven trading operation, or verifiable revenue. What it began with was proximity — to people, to narratives, to perceived success. Introductions mattered more than evidence. Associations mattered more than documentation. Early confidence replaced early proof.

From the outset, there were ambitious claims about crypto mining, liquidity pools, and sophisticated strategies. Yet there is no clear record of mining ever being operational, no evidence of mined bitcoin sold to the market, and no independently verifiable proof that any promised strategy was producing external revenue.

That distinction matters.

THE SHIFT IN THE STORY

As time went on, the narrative evolved. Bitcoin mining faded into the background. Liquidity provision became the new explanation. The language grew more technical, more abstract, and harder for the average investor to challenge. Contracts referenced specific mechanisms, but public explanations rarely matched how those mechanisms actually work.

At the same time, fixed rates of return were offered — monthly, quarterly, yearly. That is not how legitimate mining or liquidity provision typically operates. Profit-sharing is variable. Risk is explicit. Guarantees are rare.

BORROWED CREDIBILITY

What did work was trust by association. People trusted people who trusted other people. Social proof traveled faster than verification. Questions were softened by familiarity. Skepticism was reframed as negativity. The absence of proof was masked by confidence and repetition.

In environments like this, belief spreads faster than facts.

WHEN PAYMENTS STOPPED

Once payouts became delayed, then missed entirely, the tone changed. Communication shifted. Responsibility blurred. Investors were told to be patient. Explanations multiplied, but clarity did not.

Crucially, despite repeated claims that investments were “fully insured,” there has been no evidence presented that any insurance claim was ever filed to cover missed payouts — raising serious questions about whether such insurance ever existed in the first place.

INTENT, FAILURE, AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Some argue that if Goliath began with legitimate intent, then this is simply a failed business, not a crime. That question matters legally. But intent is not proven by good storytelling — it’s proven by actions, records, and outcomes.

A project that never gets off the ground, never produces verifiable external revenue, and yet consistently offers fixed returns while raising new funds does not automatically become legitimate simply because failure is claimed after the fact.

This investigation does not declare guilt. It documents what can — and cannot — be shown.

And what’s missing is just as important as what’s claimed.

WHY ORIGINS MATTER

If the found

Buy Me a Coffee
I’m on @buymeacoffee. If you like my work, you can buy me a coffee and share your thoughts.

Support the show

A short promotional video appeared on GOLIATH VENTURES INC’s official social media accounts. Four hours later, it was gone. Before it disappeared, we secured the video and preserved the transcript. What it revealed was not transparency — it was a glimpse into how the narrative is being rewritten while investors remain unpaid.

THE VIDEO THAT SHOULDN’T HAVE LASTED

The video confidently spoke about the future — 2026, expansion, stability, and strength. It again referenced the previously disclosed $8.5 million investment into the downtown Florida Chase Building, presenting it as part of a renewed “global HQ” vision. On the surface, it looked like reassurance. In context, it raised immediate red flags.

THE CORPORATE SHIFT

On 3 September, the original Florida entity tied to GOLIATH VENTURES INC was shut down. A new company was registered in a different U.S. state. As far as we can determine, there are no operational offices tied to that new entity. Yet the video promoted a Florida-based headquarters narrative as if nothing had changed. That contradiction matters.

THE REPACKAGED ASSET

The Chase Building itself is not new information. It was purchased months earlier from Mark Nejame. What changed was how it was being presented — recycled as proof of momentum and future growth at a time when withdrawals had been frozen for months. Assets don’t equal liquidity, and buildings don’t pay investors.

THE SILENCE

Around the same time, public engagement across GOLIATH VENTURES INC’s social media quietly disappeared. Comments were disabled. Older posts were removed. Communication shifted from open promotion to controlled messaging. This is not the behaviour of a transparent operation addressing investor concerns in real time.

THE SELECTIVE PAYMENTS

We received independent intel from one individual claiming they received their initial investment back plus dividends in November, after earning more than 5% per month for over a year. This allegedly occurred while other investors — and even internal agents — had their withdrawals frozen. Selective liquidity during a freeze is never accidental.

THE CONTRACT QUESTION

Many investors believe they are protected by contracts. The uncomfortable question is simple: which company are those contracts actually with? Were they reissued after the September shutdown? And how enforceable are they against an entity that no longer exists in that jurisdiction?

THE NARRATIVE PIVOT

The removed video subtly introduced a shift away from crypto, toward “other ventures” framed as more stable. This is a familiar pattern. When promised returns collapse and liabilities mount, the story changes. The future is pushed further out. Responsibility is softened. Accountability is delayed.

THE FINAL FRAME

The last frame of the deleted video showed a Trump / JD Vance 2024 image. That wasn’t accidental. It appeared designed to signal future political cover — suggesting current failures are about timing, regulation, or the “wrong administration,” not the company’s conduct. The message was clear: hold the line now, help comes later.

The problem is that later doesn’t pay today’s bills, and deleted videos don’t erase obligations.

This video wasn’t removed because it reassured investors. It was removed because it revealed too much about how the story is being reframed while money remains missing.

Buy Me a Coffee
I’m on @buymeacoffee. If you like my work, you can buy me a coffee and share your thoughts.

Support the show

For weeks, investors were told payments were imminent. Specific dates were given. Confidence was projected. Assurances were repeated. Then the money didn’t arrive. What followed was silence, a luxury event, and eventually a carefully worded newsletter that raised more questions than it answered.

This is a chronological breakdown of what actually happened, using Goliath’s own communications, timelines, and public behaviour.

Read the full story about GOLIATH VENTURES INC on dehek.com

If you’d like to support what Danny de Hek does, you can do so here: https://ko-fi.com/dehek. Your support is truly appreciated.

THE PROMISES

In early December, investors were explicitly told distributions would be paid on December 15 and December 18. Those dates came and went without payment. There was no advance warning, no immediate explanation, and no direct communication when the funds failed to arrive.

When payments don’t show up on promised dates, the clock starts ticking.

THE SILENCE

After the missed payouts, communication slowed dramatically. There was no live address, no Q&A, no transparent engagement. Instead, investors were left waiting while uncertainty spread and private conversations intensified.

Silence at this stage is not neutral. It changes behaviour.

THE EVENT

While investors were waiting on delayed distributions, Goliath had no visible difficulty spending millions on a high-production promotional event. There were no signs of restraint, no austerity, no indication that liquidity was a concern.

The contrast was impossible to ignore.

THE NEWSLETTER

Eventually, an “Operational Update” was released. It attempted to reset expectations without addressing the core issue: promised payments that didn’t happen.

Rather than providing first-party proof — trades, wallet activity, performance data — the letter relied on generalised language, third-party examples, and future assurances. Investors weren’t shown what had been earned or where funds were. They were told to be patient.

BANKING VS CRYPTO

One of the biggest contradictions in the explanation was the reliance on banking delays, despite the fact that investor payouts were made in crypto. Crypto payments don’t require wire transfers or traditional banking rails. That inconsistency was never reconciled.

THIRD-PARTY EXAMPLES

Instead of showing their own results, the newsletter pointed to large decentralised exchanges and industry-wide data to argue that the model could generate revenue. The problem is simple: proving that someone else makes money is not proof that you do.

SOCIAL MEDIA GOES QUIET

Around the same time, Goliath’s social media presence was effectively wiped. Historical posts disappeared. Engagement was disabled. Only a single post remained visible.

When companies are confident, they communicate more. When they’re under pressure, they reduce visibility.

DISTANCING BEGINS

As scrutiny increased, third parties began quietly cutting ties. Names were removed. Affiliations disappeared. Due diligence suddenly mattered.

This is usually the phase before things escalate.

THE CALM BEFORE THE STORM

Behind the scenes, investor behaviour shifted. Screenshots were preserved. Conversations turned legal. People stopped waiting and started preparing.

This isn’t panic. This is the calm before the storm — the moment when confidence collapses quietl

Buy Me a Coffee
I’m on @buymeacoffee. If you like my work, you can buy me a coffee and share your thoughts.

Support the show

The December 15–18 payout window was promised in writing. October catch-ups. November payouts. Everything owed. Normal schedule. As this window opened, investors began asking the same question at the same time: where is the money? What should have been a routine payout cycle instead exposed silence, confusion, and a growing list of red flags that can no longer be ignored.

THE PROMISE

On December 3, 2025, Goliath Ventures Inc sent a newsletter assuring investors that the company was “fully back to its regular rhythm” and that the December 15–18 cycle would include all missed payouts going back to October. This message was clear, confident, and written. It was meant to restore trust after months of delays. But written promises mean nothing without verifiable payments, and as the window arrived, transparency vanished.

THE SILENCE

As investors waited, no public confirmation of payouts appeared. No transaction proofs. No statements. No explanations. Instead, something else began happening. Social media accounts connected to Goliath Ventures Inc and its leadership were quietly scrubbed. Executives began distancing themselves. One senior figure removed Goliath Ventures Inc entirely from his business profiles. This was not the behaviour of a company preparing to pay everyone what they owed.

THE STRUCTURE

As more information surfaced, a disturbing pattern emerged. Multiple sources described a payout system where the company itself did not pay investors directly. Instead, executive partners were allegedly instructed to send funds themselves, often in crypto, to the people they personally recruited. These payments appeared to come from personal LLCs, not from Goliath Ventures Inc. If true, this structure would insulate the company, obscure the source of funds, and recycle money internally while creating the illusion of legitimate dividends.

THE PRESSURE

Alongside this structure came pressure. Investors reported being told that withdrawing funds showed distrust. That compounding was the loyal choice. That better returns would be offered if money was left inside. Some were promised returns as high as eight percent per month for not withdrawing. These tactics are familiar to anyone who has studied collapsing Ponzi schemes. They are designed to slow withdrawals when liquidity is failing.

THE CRASH

In October, more than 380 billion dollars was wiped out of the crypto market in a single day. Shortly after, Christopher Delgado hosted a brief twelve-minute webinar telling investors to “calm the farm” and insisting Goliath Ventures Inc was not affected. Since that moment, confirmed payouts have become harder to find, not easier. Industry insiders began raising questions about whether investor funds had been deployed into high-risk ETH liquidity pools paired with altcoins and meme coins, or diverted into mining and leveraged trading.

THE WARNING SIGNS

Verified information indicates that some executive partners ensured their families’ passports were ready at the same time payouts were failing. This behaviour is not normal during routine operations. It is, however, a pattern repeatedly seen in financial collapses just before investigations begin.

THE QUESTION THAT REMAINS

If payouts were promised, where are they? If everything was back on schedule, why the silence? Why are individuals paying investors instead of the company? Why are executives distancing themselves, erasing online footprints, and preparing to leave jurisdictions? These are not abstract questions. They are the questions regulators, banks, and law enforcement ask when

Buy Me a Coffee
I’m on @buymeacoffee. If you like my work, you can buy me a coffee and share your thoughts.

Support the show

Hours before Goliath Ventures Inc’s big Miami dinner, the company’s inner circle shifted from hype to panic. Instead of confidence, we suddenly saw a loyalty sermon from Tomo Marjanovic, wrapped in the new hashtag #GoliathStrong, urging his “brothers” not to walk away. It was clear something inside the organisation had fractured, and this message was attempting to hold together what was already slipping apart.

THE MESSAGE THAT CHANGED EVERYTHING

I woke up to Tomo’s post and immediately recognised the tone. It wasn’t motivation. It wasn’t leadership. It was a man trying to keep an organisation from falling apart on the eve of its most important public appearance. When someone in his position starts warning people not to “disappear when things get difficult,” it means people already are. The façade was cracking, and the timing was too precise to ignore.

THE SCAM BEGINS

Goliath Ventures built itself on the illusion of strength — the events, the dinners, the staged luxury. But real strength doesn’t need constant reminders. Real companies don’t need hashtags to reassure their own members. As the cracks widened, the language changed. Business updates were replaced with emotional rhetoric. The organisation stopped talking about growth and started talking about brotherhood, loyalty, and codes that must be honoured. That’s when I knew this wasn’t a message aimed at the public. It was aimed at insiders preparing to step away.

THE MIAMI DINNER UNRAVELS

The Miami Casino Royale dinner had been marketed for months as a show of power. But as the date approached, people began backing out. Quietly. Nervously. Some told friends they didn’t want to be photographed with a company now covered in red flags. Others had already been speaking to investigators. Some simply sensed the end coming. And instead of reassuring them, the leadership tried to guilt them into turning up. Tomo’s message was a pressure valve — a last attempt to plug the holes before the ship rolled over.

THE LIEUTENANT STEPS FORWARD

In a legitimate company, the founder would be the one addressing the concerns. But Christopher Delgado vanished from the conversation, leaving Tomo to do the emotional heavy lifting. That’s what collapsing organisations do: the founder retreats, and a lieutenant steps forward to manage the fear. Tomo’s role shifted from “Director of Partner Services” to spiritual enforcer almost overnight. And once he stepped into that role, the language became unmistakably desperate.

THE CODE OF SILENCE

The idea of a “code” is not part of any compliant financial structure. It is part of a control mechanism — something used to keep people from asking questions at the exact moment they should be asking the most. When Tomo said the code must be honoured “even when it’s inconvenient,” he revealed how serious the internal doubt had become. This wasn’t about ethics. It was about survival. And he was begging supporters to ignore their instincts, ignore the evidence, and ignore the growing whispers.

BROTHERHOOD AS A WEAPON

The message wasn’t simply about unity. It was about preventing defection. Every line was aimed at those considering walking away: the promoters who had stopped recruiting, the team members who no longer wanted to attend the dinner, the insiders who had seen enough to question everything. By redefining loyalty as honour, and doubt as betrayal, the organisation tried to shame people into silence. But messages like this only appear when collapse is close.

Buy Me a Coffee
I’m on @buymeacoffee. If you like my work, you can buy me a coffee and share your thoughts.

Support the show

On 18 November 2025, I watched Andrew Tate’s Hyperliquid balance collapse in real time. Months of reckless, high-leverage trading came to a brutal end as his account dropped to just $984. More than $727,000 of his own money and around $75,000 in referral bonuses had been wiped out with no withdrawals ever recorded.

Four days earlier, GOLIATH VENTURES INC — a “quant fund” promoted across the same influencer ecosystem — suddenly froze payouts and claimed a “forensic audit” had begun. Their 14 November distribution never arrived. No transparency, no timeline, just familiar excuses.

The timing alone doesn’t prove a direct connection. But when two collapses unfold within days of each other inside the same circle of influencers, people start asking questions.

THE ON-CHAIN COLLAPSE

Before that final liquidation, Tate had already racked up an astonishing list of losses: a $597,000 ETH long in June, a $67,500 WLFI wipeout in September, a $93,000 BTC liquidation shortly after, a $235,000 BTC loss on 14 November, and then the $112,000 final blow that drained his account entirely.

Across more than 80 trades, his win rate sat around 35%.
Behind the motivational speeches and alpha branding, the blockchain told a very different story.

THE GOLIATH FREEZE

While Tate’s losses were playing out on-chain, GOLIATH VENTURES INC was telling investors everything was “healthy” — even as they locked the doors.

Less than 1% of their claimed trading activity ever touched a blockchain.
Their audit firm remains unnamed.
Whistleblowers reported insiders withdrawing millions just before the freeze.

That behaviour does not belong to a legitimate trading operation. It matches the collapse pattern of every modern Ponzi I’ve investigated.

THE SHARED ECOSYSTEM

Goliath’s leadership has repeatedly appeared within Andrew Tate’s wider influencer network. They’ve praised him, networked with him, replicated his “brotherhood” aesthetic, and even surfaced in his promotional yacht videos — though their faces are blurred across their own website.

Tate’s “War Room” sells itself as a global network of elite men operating behind the scenes.
Goliath sells itself as a private, high-yield investment circle.
The language is similar.
The secrecy is similar.
The imagery is nearly identical.

None of this proves their money flowed together, but it proves they move through the same influencer machinery — and that matters.

WHAT WE CAN PROVE

Tate lost roughly $802,000 on Hyperliquid with no withdrawals.
GOLIATH VENTURES INC froze payouts and refuses to provide evidence of actual trading.
Less than 1% of their claimed activity appears on a blockchain.
Their leadership occupies the same social and promotional orbit as Tate’s network.

Those are facts.

WHAT REMAINS THEORY

There is no confirmed evidence that Goliath investor funds were placed into leveraged trades.
There is no proof that Tate’s liquidation directly triggered the freeze.
There is no documented formal partnership between the two operations.

But the behaviour, secrecy, timing, and shared ecosystem tell a story worth following.

When luxury yachts, blurred identities, whispered networks, and promises of effortless returns collide, the ending is rarely surprising.
I’ve watched this pattern unfold too many times to pretend otherwise.

READ THE FULL INVESTIGATION:

https://www.dehek.com/general/scam-fraud-investigations/andrew-tates-hyperliquid-wipeout-and-why-goliath-ventures-investors-should-pay-attent

Buy Me a Coffee
I’m on @buymeacoffee. If you like my work, you can buy me a coffee and share your thoughts.

Support the show