First, the claim:

Tokencard.io at the time of its ICO, marketed itself under false pretenses.

Now, you might be thinking I’m referring to this article.

(Linking directly to the article seems to intermittently ask you to subscribe.)

The article referenced above got this statement from a VISA spokesman.

“At this point I’m unable to establish any business relationship between Visa and this company (Tokencard). Our lawyers are looking into this and I will come back to you if I have any further insight.”

After the article was published, Tokencard removed all references to VISA from their website.

But that’s old hat. It’s a start, but not the whole story.

Now, this was explained away in the Tokencard slack as a misunderstanding/ misrepresentation on the reporter’s side.

Tokencard was not partnered directly with VISA. It was partnered with a VISA issuing service, namely Wavecrest.

The reason for scrubbing all mention of VISA from their product was a cautionary measure, in case of litigious issues that might arise from the misunderstanding.

At the time, this seemed to me a reasonable explanation for what had transpired. It explained the events, at least. However, the question remained.

Why not clear up the misunderstanding?

Why not make a public statement verifying that Tokencard was partnered with Wavecrest and not with VISA directly?

It would do a lot to clear up the bad air, and it was a question that was asked again and again on the Tokencard slack and subreddit.

Because this.

So. Huh. Hmmm.

Not yet a customer of the company.

The ICO crowdsale took place on May 2, 2017.

I received this email on May 12, 2017. Ten days after the conclusion of Tokencard’s ICO.

What this indicates is clear.

At the time of the crowdsale, Tokencard.io was not partnered with Wavecrest or VISA.

Tokencard.io was in no position to promise or produce VISA cards at the time of their ICO.