Last updated: December 2025
In July 2017, the Ziber ICO promised to revolutionize international phone calls using blockchain technology. Within hours of launching its fundraiser, approximately $200,000 vanished. The team blamed hackers. Then they went silent. No one was ever charged.
This is what happened.
Editor’s Note: This article replaces a broken link from Crypto-News.net. We’ve compiled this account from blockchain records, archived forum discussions, and ICO tracking databases.
What the Ziber ICO Promised
Ziber marketed itself as “The First Blockchain Mobile Operator.” The pitch: download an app, make international calls for almost nothing.
The idea was that the app would route calls through other users’ phones instead of traditional phone networks. Ziber would pay those users in cryptocurrency tokens for lending their unused call minutes. In theory, this would undercut services like Skype and Viber.
Ziber LTD, a UK-registered company, launched its ICO (initial coin offering, essentially a cryptocurrency fundraiser) on July 27, 2017. They aimed to raise between £1 million and £10 million.
They never got close.
Ziber ICO Warning Signs
Before the ICO even launched, cryptocurrency community members flagged problems:
The team couldn’t be verified. Reviewers on Steemit and BitcoinTalk reported that most team members’ social media profiles appeared to have been created days before the ICO. Searches for their professional histories came up empty. No one on the team had any apparent telecommunications experience.
The code looked incomplete. Analysts who examined Ziber’s public code repository found disorganized files and minimal development activity, not what you’d expect from a project asking for millions.
Critics were silenced. When YouTubers and bloggers posted negative reviews, Ziber filed copyright claims to have the videos removed. They attacked the critics rather than addressing the concerns.
The Ziber ICO “Hack”
On July 27, 2017, the same day the ICO launched, Ziber announced their fundraising contract had been hacked.
According to analysis posted on BitcoinTalk’s Scam Accusations forum, the vulnerability was simple: anyone could call a function in Ziber’s code and reassign ownership of the funds to themselves. Within hours, approximately 1,000 ETH (worth roughly $200,000 at the time) was drained.
Community investigators documented the money trail:
The original fundraising address (0xf0a924661b0263e5ce12756d07f45b8668c53380) showed only 37 ETH remaining. A secondary address held just 8.7 ETH. The rest moved to wallets controlled by the “hijacker.”
Technical reviewers were split on whether this was gross incompetence or an intentional backdoor. Either way, the Ziber team blamed an outsourced developer (smartcontracteam.com) and published the developer’s contact information publicly.
Then communication stopped.
What Happened to the Ziber Team?
The Ziber website listed five people: Mark Braun (CEO), Michael Kaufman (CTO), Jason White (Operations), Michael Cordy (Co-founder), and Nick Rozhdestvensky (Marketing).
Community investigators couldn’t verify most of them. As one reviewer noted: “there is very little info that I could find online about anyone on the core team apart from Mark Braun, none of the other 3 seem to exist on LinkedIn or other social sites.”
After announcing the hack, the team posted one message blaming the third-party developer. Then they vanished. The official BitcoinTalk account went silent. No team member has been publicly traced since.
Why No One Was Prosecuted
Unlike larger ICO frauds such as Centra Tech ($25 million, founders sentenced to prison) or REcoin (founder charged in 2017), Ziber’s smaller scale likely kept it below the threshold for major investigations. The “hack” narrative, however suspicious, provided legal cover. Cross-border jurisdiction between the UK and Russia complicated any potential enforcement.
As a result, Ziber is now listed with “SCAM ALERT” warnings on ICOholder. The website is defunct. The team never built a product.
Lessons From the Ziber ICO
The Ziber case illustrates patterns that repeated throughout the 2017 ICO boom:
Verify the team. If you can’t find team members’ professional histories through basic searches, that’s a problem. Legitimate projects have people willing to stake their reputations.
Check the code. An active development repository with meaningful commits suggests real work. Sparse or disorganized code is a red flag.
Watch how they handle criticism. Teams that attack critics instead of addressing concerns are hiding something.
Understand the technology. If you can’t explain how a project would actually work, don’t invest. “Blockchain” is not a magic word.
For a comprehensive framework on protecting yourself from similar schemes, see our complete guide on how to avoid dangerous Web3 projects and prevent crypto scams.
Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or legal advice. Cryptocurrency investments carry significant risk. Always conduct independent research before investing.
Information compiled from ICOholder, BitcoinTalk forums, Steemit archives, and Etherscan blockchain records. We have made reasonable efforts to verify accuracy but cannot guarantee all historical details.
Sources
- ICOholder Ziber listing, SCAM ALERT designation
- BitcoinTalk announcement thread, original ICO post
- BitcoinTalk Scam Accusations, technical analysis of exploit
- Etherscan, contract address transaction history
- Steemit community analysis by @o1o1o1o and @rplescia (2017)
- DOJ: Centra Tech sentencing
- SEC: REcoin charges
Affected by a crypto scam? Report to the FBI’s IC3 or your local financial regulator.
