Comment: Trust has always been one of our greatest strengths in the Pacific. It may also be one of our greatest vulnerabilities.
Across the region, more people are being drawn into crypto schemes with promises of fast returns, financial freedom and new economic opportunities. Through social media, messaging groups and community networks, crypto promoters are presenting digital investment platforms as pathways to wealth and independence.
What is increasingly concerning is how some of these promoters seek legitimacy by associating themselves with respected public figures, community leaders and government officials. Reporting by PMN highlighted concerns after individuals linked to crypto investment platform BG Wealth were photographed with Samoan ministers, despite the Central Bank of Samoa later warning that the platform was neither licensed nor approved, and displayed characteristics consistent with a scam.
In Pacific societies, relationships matter. Visibility matters. Respectability matters. A photograph with a minister or senior leader carries social meaning. It creates trust. Trust is the greatest asset many crypto promoters gain in the Pacific, which they then use to get money. Regulators across the Pacific are issuing increasingly serious warnings. This year, New Zealand’s Financial Markets Authority and the National Reserve Bank of Tonga issued warnings about BG Wealth/DSJ EX, describing it as a scam targeting Tongan communities in Tonga, New Zealand and across the diaspora. The Central Bank of Samoa subsequently issued its own advisory, warning the public not to invest in or promote the scheme.
What makes this issue difficult is that crypto itself is often presented as trustworthy because blockchain transactions are visible on a digital ledger. But visibility is not the same as protection. A system can still be manipulated, withdrawals can still be blocked, and entire platforms can still collapse overnight. Reports from regulators, Pacific media organisations and international investigations into BG Wealth/DSJ EX demonstrate how quickly such schemes can spread across borders despite repeated warnings.
The deeper problem for the Pacific is risk, their understanding of risk. Or perhaps their lack of understanding of risk. When schemes like these spread through family, church and community networks built on trust, Pacific communities are particularly at risk. Not because Pacific people are more vulnerable than others but because relationships play such an important role in how information, opportunities and recommendations circulate within our communities.
In many of our communities, we understand the language of reward because we’re constantly trying to improve our lives, support our families and create opportunities where few exist. But we don’t spend enough time talking about risk with the same seriousness people might in Western communities, even in New Zealand. We hear stories about people making money, but hear far less about volatility, fraud, market collapse or the possibility of losing everything.
For many families already facing rising living costs, housing pressures and remittance obligations, the promise of a financial breakthrough can be hard to resist. When opportunities are limited, the prospect of a new pathway to financial security can feel less like speculation and more like hope.
Crypto promoters understand this; they sell hope before they explain risk.
And in the Pacific, hope travels through relationships. People don’t join these schemes because they have carefully studied blockchain technology or financial markets. They join because someone they trust invited them. A cousin. A church member. A respected community figure. A friend overseas.
In Pacific communities, financial decisions are rarely purely individual. Trust and relationships are central to how information moves.
Many of these schemes spread through relational networks long before regulators can respond, and by the time warnings are issued, entire communities may already be emotionally and financially invested. Shame then keeps many victims silent, even when losses are significant.
I am not suggesting the Pacific should reject digital innovation or new financial technologies. There may be legitimate uses for blockchain systems in areas such as remittances, aid distribution or financial inclusion. But there is a major difference between responsible innovation and speculative systems targeting communities with limited regulatory protection and uneven financial literacy.
Around the world, governments are still grappling with how to regulate cryptocurrencies, protect consumers and respond to fraud. The European Union has introduced comprehensive crypto regulations, and countries such as Singapore, Australia and New Zealand continue to strengthen oversight of digital asset markets. Yet even these jurisdictions are still responding to scams, platform failures and consumer losses. That should give us pause.
Pacific communities should not become testing grounds for financial systems that even wealthy nations are still struggling to regulate.
The challenge Pacific communities need to address is ensuring people are entering these systems with genuine understanding, proper protections and informed consent. If we don’t, then once again we are carrying most of the risk while others benefit from the reward.
Addressing this issue will need action at multiple levels. Banks, regulators and governments across Aotearoa and the Pacific cannot afford to treat these schemes as isolated incidents. They need to respond faster, communicate more clearly, and invest in financial education that reflects how information actually moves in our communities; through churches, families and trusted relationships.
Warnings cannot sit quietly on official websites. They need to reach people where they are, in the languages they understand, and in ways that speak to the realities of Pacific life. There is also a responsibility to hold to account those who promote or profit from schemes that mislead communities, particularly when trust and cultural connection are being used as tools of persuasion.
At the same time, our own communities need to create more space to talk not just about opportunity, but about risk; openly, without shame, and before harm is done.
That starts with slowing down. Before committing money, we can ask simple but important questions. Do I understand how this actually works, beyond what I have been told? Where is the risk, and who is carrying it? Can I access my money if I need to? Has this platform been recognised by any credible financial authority? And would I feel the same level of confidence if this opportunity came from a stranger rather than someone I trust?
Trust is one of the foundations of Pacific life. It strengthens families, sustains communities and binds us to one another. But trust should never replace due diligence.
Protecting our collective future means learning when to trust, but also when to pause, ask the hard questions and properly understand the risks before we commit ourselves, our families and our communities.
