Last Updated: December 5, 2025 | Word Count: ~4,200 | Reading Time: 17 minutes
Quick Facts
| Specification | Value |
| Project Name | Confido |
| Token Symbol | CFD |
| Status | ❌ Exit Scam |
| Category | Supply Chain / Escrow |
| ICO Date | November 6-8, 2017 |
| Amount Raised | ~$375,000 |
| Exit Scam Date | ~November 20, 2017 |
| Time to Exit | ~2 Weeks |
| Token Price Collapse | -90%+ in hours |
| Founders Identified | Never confirmed |
| Legal Action | None successful |
| Funds Recovered | $0 |
Table of Contents
- Executive Summary
- What Was Confido?
- The ICO
- The Disappearance
- Investigation Attempts
- Why Confido Matters
- Lessons Learned
- Frequently Asked Questions
- Sources & References
Executive Summary
In early November 2017, a cryptocurrency project called Confido raised approximately $375,000 in a small ICO. The pitch was straightforward: blockchain-based escrow for e-commerce transactions, protecting buyers and sellers from fraud.
Two weeks later, Confido vanished.
The website returned errors. The Twitter account was deleted. The founder’s LinkedIn disappeared. Telegram, Medium, Facebook—all gone. The CFD token, which had briefly traded at over $1, crashed by more than 90% in a matter of hours.
Unlike many crypto scams, Confido was never satisfactorily explained. The supposed founder, “Joost van Doorn,” described as a Dutch former eBay employee, appears to have been either a real person whose identity was stolen or a complete fabrication. No perpetrators have ever been publicly identified, arrested, or prosecuted.
Confido raised a relatively modest amount—$375,000 was small even by 2017 ICO standards—but it became emblematic of ICO-era risks. A project could appear legitimate, raise money, and disappear within weeks, with no accountability whatsoever.
For investors, Confido proved that in the unregulated ICO wild west, your money could simply vanish—and there might be nothing anyone could do about it.
What Was Confido?
The Claimed Product
Confido marketed itself as a solution for trust in online transactions:
The Problem (as Confido described it):
- Online buyers risk receiving nothing after payment
- Sellers risk chargebacks and fraud
- Escrow services are slow and expensive
- Cryptocurrency transactions are irreversible
Confido’s Solution:
- Smart contract-based escrow
- Funds held until delivery confirmed
- Shipment tracking integration
- Automatic release upon successful delivery
- Dispute resolution mechanism
The pitch combined two hot 2017 narratives: blockchain technology and e-commerce trust.
The Team (Allegedly)
Joost van Doorn – Founder/CEO
- Claimed to be Dutch
- Supposedly a former eBay employee
- Background in e-commerce and logistics
- LinkedIn profile existed (briefly)
Other Team Members
- The website listed several team members
- Social media profiles existed for some
- Later investigation suggested these may have been fabricated
Marketing and Presence
Confido had:
- A professional-looking website
- A detailed whitepaper
- Social media accounts (Twitter, Telegram, Medium)
- A YouTube explainer video
- Listings on ICO tracking sites
For a project of its size, it appeared legitimate and well-organized.
The ICO
Token Sale Details
| Detail | Value |
| Token | CFD (ERC-20) |
| ICO Date | November 6-8, 2017 |
| Duration | ~2-3 days |
| Amount Raised | ~$374,000-375,000 |
| Currency | ETH primarily |
| Platform | TokenMarket (hosting) |
The ICO was not large by 2017 standards—many projects raised tens of millions. Confido’s modest target may have actually increased trust: it seemed realistic rather than greedy.
Escrow Arrangement
Confido used TokenMarket as an ICO platform, which included an escrow arrangement:
- A portion of funds were held by a law firm
- Intended to protect investors from immediate exit
- Funds were supposed to be released in tranches
However, the escrow arrangement had limitations that would become apparent.
Post-ICO Trading
After the ICO, CFD tokens began trading on smaller exchanges:
- Initial price: ~$0.60
- Brief peak: ~$1.10-1.20
- Normal trading continued for about two weeks
There was no obvious sign of problems.
The Disappearance
The Warning Signs
Around November 19-20, 2017, red flags appeared:
First Message Confido posted a message claiming they were “in a tight spot” due to “issues arising from a contract” with legal implications. They said development would halt indefinitely.
The message was vague and alarming but stopped short of admitting failure.
Then: Total Disappearance Within hours:
- Website: Error messages, then offline
- Twitter: Account deleted
- Telegram: Channel deleted
- Medium: Posts removed
- LinkedIn: Founder profile deleted
- Facebook: Page removed
Every trace of Confido was systematically erased.
Token Price Collapse
As the disappearance became obvious, CFD token holders panicked:
| Timeframe | CFD Price |
| Before news | ~$1.00 |
| Hours later | ~$0.10 |
| Final | Near zero |
A 90%+ collapse happened in a single day.
Community Reaction
Crypto communities reacted with a mix of:
- Shock: It happened so fast
- Anger: At the scammers and at themselves
- Resignation: “Another one”
- Investigation attempts: Trying to identify culprits
Investigation Attempts
Who Was Joost van Doorn?
Community investigators attempted to trace the founder:
The LinkedIn Profile
- Existed briefly during and after ICO
- Showed professional history (eBay, logistics)
- Photo appeared to be a stock image or stolen
- Connections appeared fake or minimal
Dutch Business Records
- No company registration matching Confido found in Netherlands
- No verifiable “Joost van Doorn” matching the profile
Possible Scenarios:
- Complete fabrication: “Joost van Doorn” never existed
- Identity theft: A real person’s identity was used without consent
- Deliberate opacity: Real person using fake name
TokenMarket Escrow
Questions arose about the escrow arrangement:
- Some funds were released before the exit
- Escrow law firm held funds only briefly
- The protection wasn’t as robust as investors assumed
- No mechanism to recover funds after release
Why No Prosecution?
Multiple factors prevented legal action:
- Jurisdiction: Dutch? International? Unknown
- Identity: No confirmed perpetrator to charge
- Amount: $375K was significant to victims but low priority for law enforcement
- Resources: Crypto investigations required expertise few had in 2017
Outcome
No one was ever publicly identified, charged, or prosecuted for Confido. The perpetrators got away clean—a stark contrast to larger scams where founders were eventually caught.
Why Confido Matters
The Speed
Confido demonstrated that exit scams could happen fast:
- ICO: November 6-8
- Exit: ~November 20
- Total time: ~2 weeks
There was barely time to react.
The Simplicity
The scam required minimal sophistication:
- Create fake personas
- Build a website and whitepaper
- Run a small ICO
- Collect funds
- Delete everything
- Disappear
No complex smart contract exploits. No elaborate long cons. Just classic fraud adapted to crypto.
The Impunity
Perhaps most disturbing: the scammers were never caught. In traditional finance, raising $375,000 fraudulently would trigger investigations. In 2017 crypto:
- No regulator was watching
- No exchange did KYC on the project
- No platform verified team identity
- No mechanism existed for recourse
The Template
Confido became a template for dozens of similar exit scams in 2017-2018. The playbook was proven: raise money, disappear, face no consequences.
Lessons Learned
For Investors
1. Verify Team Identities Reverse image search photos. Check LinkedIn connections. Verify claimed employers. If you can’t confirm a team exists, don’t invest.
2. Small Doesn’t Mean Safe Confido’s modest raise seemed trustworthy. In reality, smaller scams are often easier to execute because they attract less scrutiny.
3. Escrow Isn’t Magic “Escrowed funds” can still be released to scammers. Understand the specific terms and limitations.
4. Speed of Exit Two weeks from ICO to exit. Don’t assume you have time to evaluate.
5. Unregulated Means Unprotected In 2017, there was no safety net. Today is marginally better, but crypto remains risky.
For the Industry
1. Identity Verification Platforms hosting ICOs should verify team identities before listing.
2. Better Escrow Multi-signature escrow with milestone-based releases could prevent immediate exits.
3. Post-ICO Monitoring Exchanges listing new tokens should monitor for suspicious activity.
For Regulators
Confido illustrated why regulation eventually came:
- Investors had no protection
- Fraudsters faced no consequences
- Market confidence suffered
- Legitimate projects were tainted by association
Frequently Asked Questions
What was Confido?
Confido was a cryptocurrency project that claimed to offer blockchain-based escrow for e-commerce transactions. It raised approximately $375,000 in a November 2017 ICO before disappearing completely within two weeks.
What happened to Confido?
About two weeks after its ICO, Confido posted a vague message about “legal issues,” then deleted all social media, took down its website, and vanished. The team was never heard from again, and the token became worthless.
Who was behind Confido?
The listed founder was “Joost van Doorn,” supposedly a Dutch former eBay employee. However, this identity was never verified and is widely believed to be either fabricated or stolen. The real perpetrators remain unknown.
Was anyone arrested for Confido?
No. Despite the obvious fraud, no one was ever publicly identified, arrested, or prosecuted for Confido. The perpetrators escaped with the funds.
How much money was lost?
Approximately $375,000 was raised in the ICO. All of it was effectively stolen. Additionally, investors who bought CFD tokens after the ICO and before the exit lost their investments.
Did investors get any money back?
No. No funds were recovered. The escrow arrangement that was supposed to protect investors proved insufficient once the scam was executed.
Can I still find CFD tokens?
The CFD token technically still exists on the Ethereum blockchain, but it has zero value and no utility. The contract address exists as a historical artifact of the scam.
Why is Confido significant?
Confido became emblematic of ICO-era risks: fast execution, anonymous teams, no accountability, and total impunity for perpetrators. It demonstrated that anyone could run a crypto scam with minimal consequences.
Sources & References
- TechCrunch – “Company Raises $347K in ICO, Vanishes” – techcrunch.com
- The Next Web – “Cryptocurrency Exit Scam: Confido” – thenextweb.com
- NL Times – “Dutch Man Behind ICO Disappears” – nltimes.nl
- Bitcoin.com – “Trustless Payment Startup Confido Makes Off with $375K” – news.bitcoin.com
- TrustNodes – “Confido ICO Vanishes” – trustnodes.com
- Fudzilla – “Ethereum Startup Was a Successful Scam” – fudzilla.com
Disclaimer
This article is for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute financial, investment, or legal advice. Cryptocurrency investments carry significant risk. Always conduct your own research (DYOR).
Article by: LAB Blockchain Summit Research Team Category: Exit Scams | ICO Fraud Tags: confido, CFD, exit scam, ICO fraud, 2017, joost van doorn