- Trending
- Comments
- Latest
European Parliament member Michał Dworczyk and journalist Mikołaj Kunica clashed over Poland’s handling of the Zondacrypto collapse during an Aug. 28, 2026 interview on Onet Rano. Wiem, with Dworczyk arguing the state failed to act preventively and Kunica pointing to prior legislative attempts as evidence otherwise.
The dispute comes as scrutiny surrounding Zondacrypto continues to involve questions about the cryptocurrency exchange, its former CEO Przemysław Kral, political connections and the state’s response to concerns affecting users.
Dworczyk, a member of the European Parliament representing the Rozwój Plus association, said the central issue was not political responsibility alone but the number of people potentially affected by the situation.
“We have many thousands of people affected,” Dworczyk said during the interview.
He argued that the government should have taken preventive measures before the situation escalated.
Dworczyk said the Zondacrypto controversy should be viewed primarily through the experiences of people who lost significant amounts of money.
He also rejected suggestions that members of the Rozwój Plus association had any involvement in projects or activities connected to the case.
“None of us were involved in any projects or matters related to this story,” Dworczyk said, adding that members of the association had declared they had nothing to do with the area.
He said the group was therefore approaching the matter with distance but also concern.
One issue raised during the interview was Kral’s cooperation with prosecutors. Dworczyk was asked which figures on the political right might feel uncomfortable about the former Zondacrypto chief cooperating with investigators.
The MEP said he could not identify anyone who might feel personally threatened by the development, but argued that there were broader political implications.
Dworczyk also highlighted the decision by Roman Giertych to represent Kral as his defence lawyer. He said his principal concern remained the people who had suffered financial losses.
“I’m thinking about the victims, because they are the most important ones here, the victims who lost a lot of money,” Dworczyk said.
He added that the victims could have concerns about whether justice would ultimately be delivered if a prominent member of the parliamentary majority and close associate of the prime minister represented the main accused.
The comments add a political dimension to the continuing Zondacrypto controversy, although Dworczyk’s remarks were framed around concerns over victims and institutional accountability rather than an allegation of wrongdoing by Giertych.
The strongest disagreement between Dworczyk and Kunica concerned whether the Polish state had genuinely failed to respond to risks in the cryptocurrency sector.
Dworczyk maintained that authorities did not act preventively when they should have. Kunica challenged that assessment by pointing to four attempts to advance legislation intended to regulate Poland’s cryptocurrency market.
The journalist argued that the legislative record contradicted the claim that the government had simply done nothing.
Dworczyk responded that the cryptocurrency legislation under discussion should not be interpreted as legislation specifically designed to address Zondacrypto.
Instead, he argued, the proposed crypto-assets bill would have facilitated Zonda’s operations on the Polish market.
“The crypto-assets bill in question wasn’t intended to address Zondacrypto, but rather to facilitate Zonda’s operations on the Polish market,” Dworczyk said.
He further argued that the president’s veto of the legislation was appropriate.
“That’s why the president vetoed it, and that’s a good thing,” he said.
The disagreement highlights a key question surrounding Zondacrypto: whether broader cryptocurrency regulation would have prevented or mitigated the problems now attracting scrutiny.
Kunica also referred to a second vote concerning the president’s veto of the crypto-assets market bill, further illustrating the continuing political dispute over how Poland should regulate digital assets.
Another major point of contention was a closed session of Poland’s Sejm held in April.
Kunica cited the session and statements attributed to Prime Minister Donald Tusk as evidence that the government had attempted to warn lawmakers about the consequences of blocking the relevant legislation.
The journalist argued that this made it inaccurate to say the state had simply failed to act.
Dworczyk rejected that interpretation, drawing a distinction between political discussions in parliament and direct intervention by state institutions.
“The state didn’t act because the state shouldn’t act by convening closed sessions of the Sejm,” Dworczyk said.
He argued that government services should independently investigate activity that appears illegal or poses a potential threat to citizens.
“The state has its own services, which, when they see illegal activities being carried out or activities that could pose a threat to citizens, should take action. In this case, that wasn’t the case,” he added.
The disagreement places the Zondacrypto case within a wider debate over the respective roles of parliament, regulators and law-enforcement agencies in responding to emerging financial risks.
For Dworczyk, legislative debate alone does not constitute preventive action if authorities have information suggesting that citizens may be at risk.
The interview ended with discussion of whether a parliamentary investigative committee should examine the circumstances surrounding Zondacrypto.
Kunica suggested that such a committee could investigate the actions of public institutions and establish whether the authorities responded appropriately to warnings and developments surrounding the case.
Dworczyk welcomed the proposal, although he stopped short of saying that such an investigation had already been established.
“It’s a good idea, and if such a concept were to emerge, our parliamentarians would seriously consider the project,” he said.
A parliamentary inquiry could potentially bring greater scrutiny to the chronology of events, including the government’s attempts to advance cryptocurrency legislation, the presidential veto, the April Sejm session and the actions or alleged lack of action by relevant state services.
The political debate also comes as attention remains focused on Kral, the former Zondacrypto chief, and his reported cooperation with prosecutors.
The case has attracted interest beyond the immediate cryptocurrency sector because of questions about political relationships and the protection of people who use digital-asset platforms.
For now, the competing accounts remain clear. Dworczyk argues that the state failed to take preventive action and that victims should be the priority. Kunica, meanwhile, points to attempts to regulate the cryptocurrency market as evidence that the government did take steps before the controversy escalated.
The continuing Zondacrypto debate will therefore turn not only on what happened within the cryptocurrency sector, but also on whether Poland’s political and institutional response was sufficient.
Copyright © 2025 - The Bit Gazette.
