WILLEMSTAD – The controversy surrounding QuickPromo has sparked a broader debate about poverty, household debt, and the rising cost of living in Curaçao. While questions continue to surround the money invested in the controversial platform, a public commentator argues that the large number of residents who participated reflects the financial difficulties facing many families on the island.
In a statement shared on social media, the commentator said the involvement of so many mothers, fathers, and young people in QuickPromo should prompt a serious discussion about the economic circumstances that may have encouraged them to take financial risks.
According to the statement, the situation cannot be viewed solely as a matter of individuals making poor investment decisions. Instead, it should also be examined against the background of households struggling to meet their monthly financial obligations.
The commentator referred to figures attributed to the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS), claiming that 60 percent of Curaçao's population is unable to pay all its bills by the end of the month.
Although the figure was cited in the statement, the specific CBS report supporting the claim was not identified.
The commentator argued that financial pressure may help explain why residents were attracted to QuickPromo, hoping to generate additional income to cover everyday expenses and outstanding debts.
The statement comes amid growing public discussion about QuickPromo and the financial consequences for individuals who deposited money into the platform.
Prime Minister Gilmar Pisas has previously indicated that the government cannot reimburse residents who lost money through QuickPromo. He has encouraged affected individuals to file police reports so that the authorities can investigate possible wrongdoing.
However, the social media commentator emphasized that the government should not be held directly responsible for the QuickPromo situation.
Instead, the criticism focused on what the government could do to ease the financial burden on households.
According to the statement, the government has a responsibility to provide relief by reducing the turnover tax, known as OB, on imported food products and lowering gasoline and diesel prices.
The commentator argued that these measures would help families retain more of their income and reduce the pressure created by essential living expenses.
Particular attention was directed toward government revenue from turnover tax.
The statement suggested that rising consumer prices can also increase the amount of tax collected by the government, especially when the tax is calculated as a percentage of the selling price.
The commentator criticized what was described as a situation in which the government benefits from additional tax revenue while households struggle with increasing expenses.
The statement drew a sharp comparison between residents who invested money in QuickPromo in the hope of paying their bills and the government, which continues to collect tax revenue as consumer prices rise.
The argument is that although the government has no obligation to compensate individuals for private financial decisions, it does have a broader responsibility to address the economic conditions that leave residents financially vulnerable.
The remarks introduce a social and economic dimension to the QuickPromo controversy, shifting attention from the platform itself to the financial pressures experienced by participating households.
They also raise questions about whether existing government measures are sufficient to protect purchasing power, particularly among lower-income families.
The statement did not provide an estimate of how much government revenue would be affected by the proposed tax reductions or how such measures could be financed.
Nevertheless, the central message was that the QuickPromo controversy should serve as a warning about the financial difficulties confronting a significant portion of Curaçao's population.
Rather than focusing exclusively on who invested in the platform and how much money may have been lost, the commentator called for greater attention to why so many residents were willing to take the risk in the first place.