Title: Data Withholding and Platform Architecture: Obstruction of Procedural Transparency under FADP
Author: Joe L. White, Jr.
Date: July 01, 2025
Reference: Conciliation Request – Nexo AG, Canton of Zug
Purpose
To document structural barriers to data access within the Nexo platform that violate lawful rights under the Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection (FADP, SR 235.1), impair procedural equity, and suggest deliberate system design choices that preclude investor recourse.
Factual Background
In the aftermath of my account liquidation, I attempted to reconstruct a complete, accurate, and auditable timeline of my account activity, including loan-to-value thresholds, liquidation triggers, and collateral movements. Nexo does not allow external API access to account data and manual, periodic exports are possible but unclear how thorough they are.
Based on a comprehensive review, the Nexo account export feature offers only partial datasets and omits critical transactional metadata required under FADP Art. 25. Notably:
- Post-liquidation logs are truncated, preventing time-based reconstruction of platform behavior;
- Historical loan-to-value (LTV) ratios, key to liquidation mechanics, were neither disclosed in advance nor retrievable retroactively;
- Data exports lack precision timestamps, event sequencing, or pricing linkage, obstructing factual and legal verification.
These deficiencies appear not as accidental gaps but as embedded design constraints that structurally prevent harmed users from validating key decisions, thereby undermining their ability to assert claims or seek redress under FADP and ZPO.
Evidence of Structural Information Asymmetry
Nexo maintains full internal access to:
- Margin engine logic and triggers;
- Time-stamped asset prices at moment of liquidation;
- Full collateralization ratios and lending protocol thresholds.
Meanwhile, claimants like myself are denied this information even when explicitly requested in writing, including via Swiss FADP-compliant data requests.
To this day, I have not received a full transactional log, pricing history, LTV details, or visibility into platform-side events leading to the collapse of my position.
This information asymmetry contradicts the principle of transparency (FADP Art. 4 para. 2) and violates the right of data subjects to obtain meaningful insight into data processing that has materially affected them (FADP Art. 25).
Procedural Impact
This lack of transparency and data inaccessibility has created multiple procedural disadvantages:
- Material disadvantage in legal preparation: I am unable to independently reconstruct what occurred without access to a full transactional record. My legal counsel remains reliant on internal Nexo disclosures that have not been forthcoming.
- Increased risk of delay and cost: The absence of proper documentation complicates the conciliation and any potential litigation stages, as essential facts are only accessible to the respondent.
- Under the revised FADP (entered into force 1 September 2023), Nexo AG has a statutory duty to provide a full copy of personal data processed (Art. 25), including underlying triggers, metadata, and event history. Nexo AG’s ongoing refusal constitutes a breach of that obligation.
- Ethical and reputational concern: Nexo’s platform design allows it to control all post-liquidation narrative and evidence. That power imbalance makes it impossible for harmed users to challenge what occurred, resulting in a one-sided evidentiary environment where Nexo AG retains exclusive access to the very data necessary for lawful contestation, thus raising the appearance of procedural suppression and undermining the rule-of-law presumption of fair contestability.
Statement of Intent
This annex is submitted in support of a good-faith civil conciliation request under ZPO Art. 202–204. The claimant asserts that the conduct described herein warrants regulatory attention and damages due to misrepresentation and unsupervised financial intermediation. No proprietary platform information is disclosed, and all references are based on claimant usage, public materials, and industry guidelines.
Disclaimer
This document is submitted in good faith, based solely on the claimant’s personal experience and publicly available facts. No confidential or privileged information has been disclosed. All statements reflect the claimant’s beliefs or recollections unless otherwise indicated. Names of third parties are anonymized or redacted where not publicly implicated. The purpose of this release is transparency, accountability, and resolution not defamation or harm.
Legal Context Note
This annex was authored solely by the claimant as part of a lawful civil conciliation filing under Articles 202–204 of the Swiss Civil Procedure Code (ZPO). It does not contain any confidential statements made during the conciliation hearing, nor does it disclose settlement terms or other protected materials governed by ZPO Art. 205.
The annex is based exclusively on:
- Personal experience,
- Publicly available information, or
- Facts the claimant is legally entitled to share.
Its purpose is to document the legal and factual basis for the claimant’s grievance, promote transparency, and serve the public interest where legal oversight may be insufficient.
The annex adheres to Swiss privacy and defamation standards under ZGB Art. 28, the Data Protection Act (DSG), and applicable banking/professional secrecy provisions (BankG, StGB Art. 321).
It is not an official court document, and no information disclosed herein was obtained through the hearing process.