The Bit Gazette

Tag: lawsuit

Drake, Adin Ross sued for promoting Stake.us as plaintiffs claim $100 million gambling endorsement deal

Rapper Drake, streamer Adin Ross, and content creator George Nguyen have been sued in a class action lawsuit alleging they promoted illegal gambling platform Stake.us while earning over $100 million annually, with plaintiffs claiming the proceeds funded artificial music streaming manipulation.

According to the complaint, Stake.us structured its operations to evade US gambling laws while enabling real value wagering through a dual currency system.

Court filings state that Stake.us offers nearly 2,000 casino style games and allows users to wager using Gold Coins and Stake Cash. While Gold Coins carry no cash value, Stake Cash is redeemable for cryptocurrency or digital gift cards at a one to one ratio with the US dollar, a structure plaintiffs argue constitutes real money gambling.

The mechanics described in the complaint mirror regulatory definitions of gambling outlined under Virginia law, including consideration, chance, and prize, as codified in Virginia Code § 18.2 326.2.

“This platform was intentionally designed to appear compliant while enabling prohibited wagering,” the plaintiffs state in the filing, which characterizes Stake.us as an Illegal crypto casino operating nationwide despite state level bans.

Drake livestreams and alleged Illegal crypto casino funding

Central to the Illegal crypto casino allegations is the claim that Stake.us provided house funds to Drake, Ross, and Nguyen to stage livestreamed gambling sessions that portrayed large wagers without personal financial risk.

The complaint alleges that Drake alone was paid more than 100 million dollars annually to promote Stake.us across livestreams and social media platforms.

During these livestreams, Drake encouraged viewers to gamble on Stake.us, describing it as safe and legal while showcasing high value bets using casino provided credits.

Plaintiffs argue that these promotions violated Federal Trade Commission endorsement rules requiring disclosure of material connections, as outlined in 16 CFR Part 255.

“These endorsements were not entertainment,” the complaint states. “They were paid promotions designed to induce unlawful gambling behavior.”

The lawsuit further alleges that funds circulated through the platform’s internal tipping system were used to transfer value between defendants.

Plaintiffs claim this system was then exploited to jointly finance automated streaming manipulation, commonly referred to as botting, to inflate Drake’s music play counts across major platforms.

Artificially boosting streams can distort royalty calculations and recommendation algorithms, a practice that violates platform policies such as Spotify’s prohibition on artificial streaming activity detailed in its Platform Rules. Plaintiffs argue that the Illegal crypto casino promotions directly funded this alleged manipulation.

Stake.us disputes Illegal crypto casino characterization

Stake.us and its parent company Easygo have publicly denied the Illegal crypto casino allegations, asserting that the platform operates lawfully as a social casino.

The company maintains that Stake Cash functions as a promotional reward rather than a gambling currency and claims that no tipping feature exists in the form described by plaintiffs.

However, plaintiffs counter that redemption mechanics alone establish monetary value, citing Internal Revenue Service guidance on convertible virtual currency as property with real world value under IRS Notice 2014 21.

Adin Ross has also dismissed similar allegations in prior litigation, but the current lawsuit escalates claims by seeking five million dollars in damages and court ordered prohibitions on further promotion.

Ridley and Hines allege that Drake’s endorsements influenced their decision to gamble on Stake.us, leading to substantial financial losses and increased exposure to gambling addiction.

The complaint emphasizes that the Illegal crypto casino model thrives on celebrity trust, algorithmic amplification, and regulatory gray areas. It argues that without enforcement, similar platforms will continue exploiting digital currencies and influencer marketing to bypass gambling laws.

As scrutiny of crypto gambling intensifies, the outcome of this case could shape how regulators address celebrity promotions, virtual currencies, and online wagering structures.

For policy makers, the lawsuit raises questions about enforcement consistency. For investors, it highlights mounting legal risks surrounding platforms operating at the edge of US gambling law.

If upheld, the case may set a precedent limiting how crypto based casinos operate and how public figures engage with them, redefining accountability in the digital asset economy.

01/06/2026
Wintermute CEO denies lawsuit plans against Binance following $19 billion market crash

The CEO Wintermute, Evgeny Gaevoy, has denied widespread speculation that the company intends to sue Binance following the October 11 market crash that wiped out billions across the crypto ecosystem.

Addressing the fast-spreading Wintermute Binance lawsuit rumors on November 4, Gaevoy clarified that the firm remains operationally stable and has “no reason” to pursue legal action.

“We never had plans to sue Binance, nor see any reason to do it in future,” — Evgeny Gaevoy, Founder and CEO, Wintermute, said in a public post responding to the allegations.

The Wintermute Binance lawsuit story began circulating earlier in the day after an X (formerly Twitter) account named WhalePump Reborn — with about 14,000 followers — claimed that Wintermute was preparing legal action to recover losses allegedly worth “hundreds of millions.” The account described the situation as “going to be bad” if Binance did not find a way to compensate major market makers for their losses during the crash. It even likened the event to the now-infamous FTX collapse.

Gaevoy, however, called the claims false and labeled them a “larp” — internet slang suggesting the information was fabricated to provoke controversy. His response effectively quashed the Wintermute Binance lawsuit speculation but also reignited discussions about transparency and risk exposure among top market makers.

Gaevoy reaffirms Wintermute’s stability after $19B market crash

In his November 4 statement, Gaevoy referenced an earlier post he made shortly after the October 11 crash, emphasizing that Wintermute was “perfectly fine, business as usual.” That reassurance remains unchanged, he said, despite what online commentators have claimed.

The Wintermute Binance lawsuit rumor came in the aftermath of a $19 billion market-wide crash that led to significant liquidations. Gaevoy later confirmed that the company did experience “unusual liquidations” during the sell-off but stopped short of disclosing the total losses. He mentioned during a podcast with The Block that certain positions were liquidated at “completely ridiculous” prices — though he refrained from blaming Binance directly.

Despite questions about whether Binance compensated Wintermute, no public confirmation has been made. On-chain data indicates that Wintermute transferred roughly $700 million to Binance prior to the market crash, underscoring its position as one of the exchange’s most active liquidity providers. This connection likely fueled online discussions around the alleged Wintermute Binance lawsuit, even as the firm insists no legal action was considered.

Social media claims challenge Binance’s market role

The post from WhalePump Reborn also questioned whether Gaevoy had signed a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) with Binance after reportedly requesting compensation. It further accused him of organizing other market makers to support an impending lawsuit — assertions that Gaevoy swiftly denied.

At the center of the Wintermute Binance lawsuit chatter is growing investor sensitivity to transparency in market-making relationships following the Oct. 11 incident. The event, which saw a cascade of leveraged liquidations, raised concerns that technical vulnerabilities on Binance’s Unified Account margin system may have been exploited.

As previously reported by crypto.news, independent analysts, including Wu Blockchain, alleged that the crash may have been triggered by a coordinated exploit that manipulated Binance’s oracle price adjustment mechanism. This timing, occurring within the exchange’s update window, created opportunities for attackers to force mass liquidations — prompting speculation and the subsequent Wintermute Binance lawsuit rumors.

Binance compensation efforts leave unanswered questions

In response to the crash, Binance issued payouts totaling $283 million to users affected by the depegging of several assets, including Ethena’s USDe, wBETH, and BnSOL. The exchange also launched a $400 million relief initiative, with $100 million reserved for low-interest loans to help institutional traders resume operations.

While these steps demonstrated Binance’s willingness to address fallout from the event, it remains unclear whether Wintermute was part of the compensation effort. That uncertainty continues to feed online speculation about the Wintermute Binance lawsuit, even after Gaevoy’s categorical denial.

For now, both Binance and Wintermute appear focused on restoring normal market operations. Yet, the persistence of the Wintermute Binance lawsuit narrative reflects broader investor concerns about liquidity concentration and the fragility of large-scale trading systems during high-volatility events.

Despite the rumors, Gaevoy’s assurance that Wintermute is financially sound has offered some relief to market participants rattled by the October crash. “Perfectly fine, business as usual,” he reiterated — signaling confidence amid one of the most turbulent months for digital assets in 2025.

11/04/2025
Tether hit with $44M lawsuit over ‘unlawful’ fund freeze as it blocks another $13M

Tether is facing a lawsuit from Texas-based Riverstone Consultancy alleging the stablecoin issuer unlawfully froze $44.7 million in USDT by bypassing international legal protocols. The complaint, filed just one day before Tether blocked another $13.4 million across 22 wallets, claims the company ignored Bulgarian treaty requirements and caused severe financial damage. The case highlights growing tensions between Tether’s role as a compliance enforcer—having frozen $3.2 billion in criminal funds—and concerns over centralized control in what’s marketed as a decentralized financial system.

Pattern of blockchain freezes under global scrutiny

The recent Tether USDT freezing operation follows a growing pattern of freezes over the past year. In June 2025, Tether blocked $12.3 million in USDT on the Tron network, and in April, it froze 28.6 million USDT across 13 addresses.

Source: MistTrack

One of its most notable actions occurred in March 2025, when Tether halted $28 million in funds tied to Russia-based exchange Garantex, which is under U.S. sanctions. Despite the freeze, blockchain intelligence firm Global Ledger reported the exchange retained around $15 million in active reserves.

These actions underline Tether’s dual role as both a private stablecoin issuer and a de facto compliance gatekeeper for blockchain transactions. Critics argue that while the firm’s cooperation with law enforcement enhances global financial security, it also grants Tether significant centralized control over user funds.

Every Tether USDT freezing operation walks a fine line between compliance and censorship, said David Gerard, a blockchain policy researcher. The power to freeze assets unilaterally challenges the core ideals of decentralization.

Lawsuit accuses Tether of unlawful freezing

Just one day before the latest Tether USDT freezing operation, Texas-based Riverstone Consultancy filed a lawsuit against the company, alleging it unlawfully froze $44.7 million in USDT, leading to major investment losses.

The lawsuit claims that in April 2025, Tether froze eight wallets belonging to Riverstone at the request of Bulgarian authorities. Riverstone contends the firm bypassed the official channels defined under the Bulgarian International Judicial Assistance Treaty, which requires cross-border cooperation to flow through central diplomatic authorities.

Tether’s actions ignored established judicial protocols and caused severe financial damage, said a Riverstone legal representative in a court filing.

According to Riverstone, Tether redirected the company to contact Bulgarian law enforcement directly, but those agencies reportedly failed to respond.

The case could set a major precedent for how stablecoin issuers respond to international law enforcement requests particularly as such requests increasingly rely on cross-border digital evidence and blockchain tracing.

Tether’s compliance defense and law enforcement cooperation

In a September 15 statement, Tether revealed that its Tether USDT freezing operations have frozen more than $3.2 billion in tokens linked to criminal activity, in partnership with 290 law enforcement agencies across 59 countries. The company said it blocked a total of 3,660 wallets during that period.

Tether remains committed to working closely with global regulators to protect users and preserve integrity across the crypto ecosystem, the firm stated.

Experts note that such large-scale freezes demonstrate how centralized control in stablecoins can enhance anti-crime efforts but also raise privacy and sovereignty concerns.

Stablecoin issuers like Tether are becoming enforcement tools in the international financial system, said Sarah Meiklejohn, Professor of Cryptography at University College London. However, transparency about when and why these freezes occur remains essential for user trust.

Tether frequently monitors blockchain transactions for ties to sanctioned entities, darknet marketplaces, or obfuscation tools like Tornado Cash, which the U.S. sanctioned in 2022 for facilitating money laundering.

Such proactive monitoring forms the foundation of each Tether USDT freezing operation, ensuring the firm stays compliant with anti-money-laundering frameworks like the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) standards.

Balancing transparency, control, and decentralization

The growing number of Tether USDT freezing operations highlights a deep tension in crypto governance: the need to balance user autonomy with regulatory accountability. While Tether’s ability to intervene has helped curb illicit flows, it also exposes a centralization risk in what is often described as a decentralized system.

Analysts warn that as stablecoins become integral to global payments and DeFi ecosystems, these freeze mechanisms could evolve into powerful regulatory levers, potentially shaping the direction of digital asset policy worldwide.

“Freezes like these may be necessary,” Meiklejohn added, “but they underscore how much trust the crypto ecosystem has placed in a single private entity.”

For now, the Tether USDT freezing operation remains both a compliance tool and a flashpoint in the ongoing debate over who truly controls digital money.

10/17/2025
Qualcomm faces £480M UK lawsuit over alleged inflated royalties on Apple and Samsung phones

San Diego-based semiconductor giant Qualcomm is facing a £480 million ($647 million) lawsuit in London over allegations it abused its market dominance to impose unfair royalty fees on iPhone and Samsung smartphone makers.

The case, filed by UK consumer advocacy group Which?, could see nearly 29 million British consumers eligible for compensation. Which? alleges Qualcomm exploited its monopoly through a controversial ‘no license, no chips’ policy that inflated smartphone prices across the market.

According to Which?, this practice “functioned like an industry-wide private tax,” artificially inflating smartphone prices and boosting Qualcomm’s profit margins at consumers’ expense.

“Millions of people in the UK may have paid more than they should have for their iPhones and Samsung devices,” said Anabel Hoult, CEO of Which?. “We believe Qualcomm’s behavior unfairly distorted the market and left consumers footing the bill.”

If successful, the Qualcomm inflated royalties lawsuit could result in one of the largest consumer compensation payouts ever seen in the UK tech sector.

Qualcomm defends long-standing licensing model amid legal fire

In its defense, Qualcomm has denied any wrongdoing, calling the Qualcomm inflated royalties lawsuit “meritless” and a misrepresentation of its business practices. The company argues that its licensing framework requiring manufacturers to obtain rights to use its standard essential patents (SEPs) is consistent with global industry norms and essential to maintaining innovation.

Our licensing model has been upheld in courts around the world and remains fundamental to how technology standards operate, a Qualcomm spokesperson said in a statement shared with Reuters. We are confident the claims in this case will be dismissed.

The company further rejected allegations that it selectively charged Apple and Samsung higher fees due to their financial capacity, dismissing the argument as “speculative and baseless.”

The Qualcomm inflated royalties lawsuit will undergo an initial review at the Competition Appeal Tribunal, where judges will assess whether Qualcomm’s licensing practices breached UK competition law. If found liable, a subsequent trial will determine the total amount of consumer damages.

Legal experts note that the case mirrors a growing trend of antitrust actions targeting dominant U.S. tech firms in Europe, where regulators have taken a more aggressive stance on consumer protection and market fairness.

A history of global antitrust battles over royalties

The Qualcomm inflated royalties lawsuit in the UK is the latest chapter in the chipmaker’s long-running legal saga over its patent licensing model. In the United States, Qualcomm faced a similar challenge in In re: Qualcomm Antitrust Litigation, heard in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (case number 3:17-md-02773).

In that case, a group of consumers alleged that Qualcomm’s licensing deals with device manufacturers inflated smartphone prices and violated U.S. antitrust law. However, U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that the plaintiffs attempted to introduce new evidence from an earlier phase of the case that had already concluded.

If the court were to accept the plaintiffs’ arguments, it would result in an endless cycle of retrials, Judge Corley wrote in her decision, siding with Qualcomm.

This followed Qualcomm’s victory in a 2020 antitrust lawsuit brought by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which accused the company of anti-competitive licensing behavior. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court ruling against Qualcomm, finding that its business practices did not constitute illegal monopolization.

“Qualcomm has repeatedly demonstrated that its licensing practices are pro-competitive,” said Don Rosenberg, Executive Vice President and General Counsel of Qualcomm, in an earlier company statement. “We remain committed to transparent and fair business conduct across all markets.”

Broader implications for consumers and regulators

The Qualcomm inflated royalties lawsuit could set a major precedent for how UK and EU courts handle claims of indirect consumer harm in the technology supply chain. Legal analysts suggest that a victory for Which? could open the door for similar class-action suits against multinational firms accused of overcharging end users through licensing arrangements.

According to James Webber, a competition lawyer at Shearman & Sterling LLP, the case underscores the tension between intellectual property rights and antitrust enforcement. “This lawsuit raises critical questions about how far companies can leverage patent portfolios without crossing into anti-competitive territory,” he told Financial Times.

For consumers, the outcome of the Qualcomm inflated royalties lawsuit could determine whether smartphone buyers are entitled to retroactive compensation for overpayment potentially setting a new standard for consumer restitution in technology markets.

If Which? prevails, Qualcomm may also face pressure from other jurisdictions, including the European Commission and U.S. Department of Justice, to revisit its global licensing strategy.

The results of this case could ripple far beyond the UK, added Webber. It could redefine how global tech firms manage intellectual property in an increasingly regulated world.

10/07/2025
Coinbase hit with data-breach, lawsuit alleges bribery and cover-up

The ongoing Coinbase data breach has taken a new turn, as an amended class-action lawsuit filed by Greenbaum Olbrantz places a TaskUs employee at the center of the alleged conspiracy. According to court documents filed Tuesday, the breach affected more than 69,000 Coinbase customers and exposed confidential personal and financial information.

Coinbase first disclosed the incident in May, confirming that it had reimbursed affected users, notified regulators, and severed ties with TaskUs, a third-party customer support provider. The exchange also announced strengthened internal security controls in response to the breach.

“Coinbase acted quickly to mitigate the impact, reimburse customers, and protect its platform,” the company said in a prior statement.

Bribery scheme within TaskUs

At the heart of the Coinbase data breach is Ashita Mishra, a former TaskUs employee accused of stealing confidential data between September and January. Mishra, alongside unnamed accomplices, allegedly sold sensitive customer records to hackers. These hackers then impersonated Coinbase staff to siphon crypto assets from unsuspecting victims.

The amended complaint describes Mishra’s role as part of a “hub-and-spoke conspiracy” designed to funnel Coinbase customer data from TaskUs systems to organized cybercriminals.

“Ms. Mishra was part of a sophisticated hub-and-spoke conspiracy that funneled Coinbase customer data from TaskUs computers to criminals at the center of the conspiracy,” — lawsuit statement citing a TaskUs investigator.

Hackers reportedly paid Mishra $200 for each stolen photo containing customer data. At times, she is alleged to have taken up to 200 photos a day, with her phone later discovered to contain information on more than 10,000 Coinbase customers.

The lawsuit claims Mishra and her team intentionally compartmentalized employees into isolated groups, preventing each circle from knowing others were involved. This structure, according to filings, allowed the exfiltration of highly sensitive personal identifiable information (PII) to continue undetected.

Allegations of TaskUs cover-up

Beyond employee misconduct, the lawsuit also accuses TaskUs of concealing the full extent of the incident. Court documents suggest that the company fired nearly 300 employees at its Indore, India office, citing its inability to identify all individuals tied to the conspiracy.

The amended complaint further alleges that TaskUs disbanded its HR team and terminated staff who were investigating the breach which is a move plaintiffs describe as a “pattern of concealment.”

“Upon information and belief, TaskUs terminated those employees to conceal the true extent of its security failures,” — Amended lawsuit filing.

TaskUs also came under scrutiny for its February Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Despite the unfolding scandal, the filing claimed the company was “not aware of any material data breaches” which is a statement now challenged by the plaintiffs as misleading to both regulators and investors.

Broader implications for crypto investors

Although Coinbase has stressed that no direct loss of customer funds occurred during the Coinbase data breach, cybersecurity experts warn that the exposure of sensitive information poses long-term risks.

“The real danger isn’t just immediate theft,” said Michael Bennett, cybersecurity researcher at Chainalysis, in an interview with Decrypt. “Identity theft, phishing attacks, and long-term fraud could follow users for years.”

Hackers tied to a group identifying as “the Comm” are suspected of orchestrating the campaign. With identity data now potentially in the hands of organized criminals, affected users remain vulnerable despite Coinbase’s reimbursements.

For crypto investors, the case underscores the risks of relying on third-party service providers for customer support and data handling. It also places pressure on exchanges like Coinbase to tighten oversight of contractors.

“Incidents like the Coinbase data breach reveal a systemic issue: outsourced vendors often hold the keys to customer data, yet may lack the rigorous security infrastructure expected of financial institutions,” — Sarah Johnson, senior analyst at CryptoPolicy Institute.

What comes next

The lawsuit against TaskUs continues to unfold, with plaintiffs seeking damages for affected customers and stronger accountability from both Coinbase and its vendors. Regulators may also revisit disclosure obligations for publicly listed companies, given TaskUs’s contested SEC filing.

For now, Coinbase insists its platform remains secure. Still, the Coinbase data breach serves as a stark reminder for both exchanges and investors: protecting sensitive data is just as critical as safeguarding funds on-chain.

09/17/2025
Washington, D.C. sues Athena Bitcoin over alleged crypto ATM fraud scheme

The Washington, DC, Attorney General’s Office has filed a lawsuit against Athena Bitcoin, a major crypto ATM operator, alleging the company charged undisclosed fees and failed to prevent transactions it knew were linked to scams. The complaint, filed Monday, claims that 93% of deposits made on Athena’s kiosks during its first five months of operations in the district were the “direct result of scams.”

Attorney General Brian Schwalb accused Athena of profiting at the expense of vulnerable residents.

“Athena knows that its machines are being used primarily by scammers yet chooses to look the other way so that it can continue to pocket sizable hidden transaction fees,” Schwalb said in a statement.

The lawsuit adds to mounting concerns over the growing crypto ATM scam problem, which has triggered regulatory responses across the United States.

FBI and states raise alarms over crypto ATM scam surge

The DC complaint follows alarming national trends. The FBI reported nearly 11,000 fraud complaints tied to crypto ATMs in 2024, with losses totaling more than $246 million. At least 13 states including Arizona, Colorado, and Michigan have since imposed transaction limits on the kiosks in an effort to curb the crypto ATM scam epidemic.

“Athena’s ineffective oversight has created an unchecked pipeline for illicit international fraud transactions,” the attorney general’s office said in its filing. One DC resident reportedly lost $98,000 through a scam facilitated at an Athena machine, while the median victim age was 71 and median transaction loss was $8,000.

Consumer advocates warn that older adults are being disproportionately targeted.

“Crypto ATMs are marketed as fast and easy, but that convenience is being exploited by fraudsters to drain life savings,” — Karen Hobbs, Deputy Director for Consumer Protection at the National Consumer Law Center.

Hidden fees deepen the crypto ATM scam problem

The lawsuit claims Athena charged customers up to 26% in fees per transaction without clearly disclosing the costs. Instead, the company allegedly masked the charges under the term “Transaction Service Margin” in its Terms of Service, avoiding direct reference to fees.

Source: Brian Schwalb

According to the attorney general’s office, Athena “pocketed hundreds of thousands of dollars in undisclosed fees” from scam victims between May and September 2024 alone. These practices, the complaint argues, violate consumer protection laws and statutes designed to protect seniors from financial exploitation.

“Athena has permitted and profited from transactions in which victims are coerced, misled, and manipulated into depositing their life savings into Athena’s machines under fraudulent pretenses,” the lawsuit stated.

Athena has not yet issued a response to the allegations.

How to avoid falling victim to a crypto ATM scam

Officials urge consumers to take extra precautions when using crypto ATMs. Attorney General Schwalb warned that anyone being asked to deposit funds into a machine by someone they do not know should treat it as a red flag.

Common crypto ATM scam tactics include fraudsters posing as crypto tech support agents claiming a victim’s funds are at risk, or impersonating traders promising guaranteed returns. Experts say consumers should avoid sending money to unknown parties and instead verify requests through official channels.

“There’s no legitimate reason for someone you’ve never met to ask you to send money through a crypto ATM,” — FBI Cyber Division spokesperson, in a January fraud alert.

There are currently around 26,850 crypto ATMs operating across the United States, according to CoinATMRadar. Bitcoin Depot controls the largest share at 27.6%, followed by CoinFlip at 13.6% and Athena at 13%. With their expanding footprint, consumer watchdogs warn that crypto ATM scam schemes will remain a serious risk unless stronger protections are enforced.

Source: CoinATMRadar

Wider industry plagued by hidden fee scandals

The case also highlights a familiar problem in traditional banking undisclosed fees. Regulators have repeatedly penalized financial institutions for similar practices. In April, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ordered Discover Bank to return $1.2 billion in improperly charged fees. Wells Fargo paid $3.7 billion in penalties in 2022 for imposing illegal charges, while Bank of America was fined $250 million in 2023 for so-called “junk fees.”

For regulators, the parallels underscore why crypto firms like Athena are coming under increased scrutiny. As the crypto ATM scam crisis worsens, officials are signaling that consumer protection rules applied to banks will also be enforced on digital asset businesses.

09/10/2025
Pump.fun buyback hits $62M as lawsuit heat mounts

The Pump.fun token buyback program has crossed $62.6 million, according to data from Dune Analytics, as the Solana-based memecoin launchpad intensifies efforts to stabilize its native asset, PUMP. Since launching the initiative, the platform has repurchased more than 16.5 billion tokens at an average cost of $0.003785.

The strategy is funded directly through platform-generated revenue, primarily user fees for launching memecoins. Daily buybacks have ranged from $1.3 million to $2.3 million over the past week, demonstrating consistency despite fluctuating market conditions.

“Token buybacks are one of the few levers platforms like Pump.fun can pull to maintain price stability,” — Michael Bentley, DeFi researcher at TokenLogic. “They create an artificial floor that reassures retail investors, at least in the short term.”

Pump.fun has generated over $775 million in revenue since inception, per DefiLlama, though earnings dipped sharply between July 28 and Aug. 3, when the platform logged just $1.72 million in weekly revenue as its weakest performance since March 2024.

Price and participation show signs of recovery

The Pump.fun token buyback appears to be having its intended effect. PUMP has risen more than 12% over the past month and about 9% in the last week, now trading at $0.003522. That marks a 54% rebound from its August low of $0.002282.

Source: Dune Analytics

On-chain data points to stronger community participation as well. The number of unique PUMP holders has climbed to more than 70,800. Smaller wallets those holding fewer than 10,000 PUMP now make up 46% of all ownership, suggesting a widening retail base.

“Expanding token distribution to smaller holders strengthens the project’s community foundation,” — Sarah Chen, analyst at Solana Foundation. “It reduces concentration risk and helps establish more organic liquidity.”

The retail uptick could prove critical as Pump.fun works to reassert dominance in the crowded Solana memecoin ecosystem.

Competition from LetsBonk challenges market share

Despite recent gains, Pump.fun has faced intensifying competition. On July 7, LetsBonk, a rival Solana launchpad briefly overtook Pump.fun in 24-hour revenue, according to aggregator Jupiter. The newcomer maintained momentum through July, capturing chunks of market share.

However, recent data shows Pump.fun has regained ground. In the last seven days, it secured a 73% market share with $4.5 billion in trading volume. By contrast, LetsBonk’s market share has slipped to below 9%, with only $543 million in volume.

Source: Jupiter

The recovery, paired with the Pump.fun token buyback, suggests the platform is still able to leverage its scale and liquidity advantage. Yet analysts warn that innovation among competitors could test Pump.fun’s staying power.

Class-action lawsuit casts a shadow

Even as the Pump.fun token buyback bolsters price and user metrics, the platform is under mounting legal scrutiny. A class-action lawsuit filed January 30 alleges Pump.fun engaged in “guerrilla marketing” to artificially hype tokens.

On July 23, the complaint was amended to describe the platform as an “unlicensed casino,” comparing its model to a “rigged slot machine” where early participants profit at the expense of later entrants. Plaintiffs estimate total investor losses at $5.5 billion.

The legal battle could determine whether Pump.fun’s model of fee-driven token launches remains viable under regulatory oversight. Analysts note that the Pump.fun token buyback may buy time for investor confidence, but litigation risk is an overhang.

“Investor protection concerns are increasingly front and center in DeFi,” — Elizabeth Rossiello, CEO of AZA Finance. “Pump.fun’s lawsuit could become a landmark case in how regulators and courts treat meme-driven token platforms.”

Outlook for investors

For crypto investors, the Pump.fun token buyback represents both a stabilizing mechanism and a potential warning sign. While it has supported token prices and broadened participation, it also underscores reliance on revenue-driven interventions rather than organic demand.

With 70,000 holders, a $775 million revenue history, and renewed market share leadership, Pump.fun remains a heavyweight in the Solana ecosystem. Yet the outcome of the lawsuit and its broader regulatory implications could shape whether the Pump.fun token buyback is remembered as a stabilizing innovation or a temporary patch on deeper structural risks.

09/01/2025
Unicoin fights back: crypto firm challenges SEC fraud case in New York court

Crypto investment platform Unicoin has mounted a strong defense against the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the ongoing unicoin sec fraud case, urging a federal judge in New York to dismiss the lawsuit.

In a filing submitted on Wednesday, the company argued that the SEC had distorted routine financial statements and risk disclosures in order to frame its allegations.

“The SEC plucks snippets of communications and distorts their meaning and context; treats routine financial projection and optimism as fraud; and ignores Unicoin’s sober warnings about risk,” — Unicoin’s legal team wrote in its motion to dismiss.

Source: PACER

The SEC first sued Unicoin, its CEO Alex Konanykhin, board member Silvina Moschini, and former investment chief Alex Dominguez in May, alleging the firm misled investors and raised more than $100 million through certificates tied to future Unicoin tokens and company stock.

SEC’s core allegations against Unicoin

At the center of the unicoin sec fraud case are claims that Unicoin misrepresented the value of assets backing its forthcoming tokens. The SEC alleged that the company promoted its project as being supported by billions of dollars in real estate and pre-IPO equity, when the true value was significantly lower.

The regulator also claimed that Unicoin exaggerated its fundraising, telling investors it had sold more than $3 billion in rights certificates when the actual figure was closer to $110 million. Further, the SEC accused the company of marketing the certificates and future tokens as SEC-registered, which it says was false.

“These kinds of misrepresentations strike at the heart of investor protection,” — SEC spokesperson said in a statement at the time of the filing.

Unicoin calls case “mischaracterization”

Unicoin’s latest filing argues that the SEC has built its complaint on semantics rather than substance. The company said its executives never claimed that unicoins which have yet to be minted would be fully collateralized by real-world assets. Instead, it maintains that references to being “asset-backed” related to Unicoin’s broader corporate strategy, not the tokens themselves.

“At no point did any Defendant claim that unicoins would function as a fully collateralized investment,” the filing stated.

The company added that the SEC was attempting to punish it for not delivering tokens that had not yet been created, calling the case a premature and unfair interpretation of forward-looking business plans.

“Where, as here, the very risks the SEC identifies were disclosed openly and repeatedly, those elements cannot be met,” — Unicoin filing.

Industry implications of the unicoin sec fraud case

The unicoin sec fraud case comes amid heightened regulatory scrutiny of digital assets in the United States. Analysts say the outcome could shape how token pre-sales and corporate treasury disclosures are treated by the SEC in future cases.

“The SEC has taken an increasingly aggressive stance on crypto fundraising mechanisms, and this case highlights how even nuanced language around asset backing can become a liability,” — Angela Walch, Professor of Law at St. Mary’s University, told CoinDesk.

For Unicoin, the case has effectively stalled its plans to issue tokens and back them with assets, a move the company insists it was preparing to execute before the SEC intervened. Executives argue the regulator is holding it liable for future actions that remain incomplete, creating what they describe as an impossible legal standard.

Unicoin has asked the court to dismiss the SEC’s complaint with prejudice, which would prevent the regulator from re-filing. A ruling on the motion is expected later this year.

What comes next

For crypto investors, the unicoin sec fraud case underscores the risks of early-stage projects navigating uncertain regulatory frameworks. While Unicoin has positioned itself as a pioneer in asset-backed crypto products, the SEC’s claims raise questions about transparency, disclosure, and investor protection.

Whether the court sides with Unicoin or the SEC, the case will likely set an important precedent for how token-based fundraising and asset-backing claims are judged in U.S. courts.

As one industry observer noted: “This is less about Unicoin itself and more about the rules of the game for everyone raising capital in crypto.”

08/29/2025
EminiFX founder hit with $228M restitution order in Crypto Ponzi case

A federal judge in New York has ordered Eddy Alexandre, founder of the collapsed trading platform EminiFX, to pay more than $228 million in restitution after ruling the company was a crypto Ponzi scheme that defrauded tens of thousands of investors.

The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) secured a summary judgment against Alexandre and his company, with US District Judge Valerie Caproni holding them jointly liable for more than $228 million in restitution and an additional $15 million in disgorgement, according to a Tuesday court filing.

“Defendants Alexandre and EminiFX are jointly and severally liable to pay restitution in the total amount of $228,576,962,” the court wrote. “Defendant Alexandre is liable to pay disgorgement in the amount of $15,049,500.”

A snapshot of the case ruling. Source: CourtListener

The decision arrives more than three years after Alexandre was first charged and more than a year after he pleaded guilty in a parallel criminal case. For investors, the ruling highlights the legal and financial risks tied to fraudulent schemes in the rapidly evolving digital asset sector.

How the crypto Ponzi scheme unfolded

Founded in 2021, EminiFX raised more than $262 million from over 25,000 investors in just eight months. The company claimed it could deliver weekly returns between 5% and 9.99% through a proprietary “Robo-Advisor Assisted Account,” allegedly powered by automated trading strategies in cryptocurrency and foreign exchange markets.

Court documents revealed a starkly different picture. Instead of using trading technology, the company suffered at least $49 million in net losses while operating as a crypto Ponzi scheme. Alexandre diverted more than $15 million for personal expenses, including luxury vehicles, credit card bills, and large cash withdrawals. Investor payouts were made not from legitimate profits but from funds contributed by new participants.

“The evidence clearly demonstrated that EminiFX was a fraudulent enterprise designed to enrich Alexandre at the expense of ordinary investors,” said Ian McGinley, Director of Enforcement at the CFTC, in a statement.

Parallel criminal and civil penalties

Alexandre’s downfall began in May 2022, when prosecutors and the CFTC filed parallel actions against him. In the criminal case, Alexandre admitted to commodities fraud and was sentenced to nine years in prison along with a $213 million restitution order.

The civil case, now concluded with Judge Caproni’s ruling, reinforces that restitution and disgorgement will remain central tools in tackling crypto Ponzi schemes. Any funds Alexandre pays toward restitution will offset his disgorgement obligation.

A court-appointed receiver has overseen the recovery and distribution of assets since 2022. Earlier this year, after a court-approved distribution plan, the receiver began returning recovered funds to victims.

“Our priority is maximizing recovery for those defrauded in this crypto Ponzi scheme,” the receiver’s office stated in a public update.

Wider implications for crypto investors

The EminiFX ruling reflects broader concerns in the industry about fraudulent digital asset platforms. Losses from hacks, scams, and exploits totaled $2.47 billion in the first half of 2025, according to blockchain security firm CertiK. While Q2 losses fell to $800 million, a 52% decline from Q1 the year’s total is already nearly 3% higher than the same period in 2024.

Legal experts say the case could serve as a reference point for regulators worldwide.

“This ruling illustrates how US courts are willing to treat digital asset fraud on the same scale as traditional financial crimes,” said Angela Walch, Professor at St. Mary’s University School of Law.

For investors, the lesson is clear: promises of outsized returns, especially those packaged as “automated” or “guaranteed” trading strategies, remain a red flag for a crypto Ponzi scheme.

What comes next

While Alexandre serves his prison sentence, the focus will remain on asset recovery and distribution to victims. The ruling also strengthens the CFTC’s position as one of the most aggressive regulators of crypto-related fraud.

For the wider crypto industry, the case underscores the need for more robust due diligence. With South Korea, the EU, and the US all moving toward stricter regulatory frameworks in 2025, cases like EminiFX will likely shape how enforcement strategies evolve.

As fraudulent projects continue to surface, the EminiFX saga demonstrates that courts are prepared to pursue restitution aggressively, ensuring that victims of a crypto Ponzi scheme have a path, however limited, to recover some of their losses.

08/21/2025
Logan Paul’s CryptoZoo case faces setback as judge questions viability

The high-profile Logan Paul CryptoZoo lawsuit took another turn on Thursday after U.S. Magistrate Judge Ronald C. Griffin recommended dismissing much of the case unless plaintiffs amend their claims. The lawsuit, filed in 2023, accuses YouTuber Logan Paul of fraud and other violations tied to the collapse of his non-fungible token (NFT) project, CryptoZoo.

In a 75-page report, Judge Griffin said the plaintiffs had not provided sufficient evidence linking Paul directly to their financial losses. However, he stopped short of a complete dismissal, instead granting plaintiffs an opportunity to revise 26 of their 27 claims. One allegation commodity pool fraud was permanently struck down.

“The mental gymnastics required to come to this conclusion are truly dizzying,” Griffin wrote, rejecting the argument that CryptoZoo NFTs functioned as option contracts.

A case hinging on evidence of Paul’s role

The Logan Paul CryptoZoo lawsuit centers on allegations that Paul and his associates misled investors with promises of unique NFT perks that never materialized. Plaintiffs accuse Paul of fraud, negligence, unjust enrichment, conspiracy, and multiple breaches of state consumer protection laws.

Griffin, however, emphasized that the complaint relied on vague attributions and incomplete evidence.

“Plaintiffs must provide details of misconduct, not fragmented facts strung together without showing Paul’s direct benefit,” the judge noted.

Legal experts say the ruling reflects the judiciary’s caution in extending liability without stronger evidence.

“This illustrates the difficulty of holding celebrity endorsers accountable unless there is a clear paper trail of benefit,” — Sarah Kim, Partner at Seoul-based law firm BKL.

Paul shifts blame to co-founders

Paul has consistently argued that CryptoZoo’s collapse was due to the actions of its co-founders, Eduardo Ibanez and Jake Greenbaum. In 2023, he filed a countersuit accusing them of misleading him and sabotaging the project.

But Judge Griffin rejected Paul’s bid to separate his liability from the co-founders, warning it could lead to “inconsistent judgments.” He stressed that Paul, Ibanez, and Greenbaum remain jointly implicated in the alleged misconduct.

“The Logan Paul CryptoZoo lawsuit cannot simply pin blame on absent co-founders while absolving Paul of responsibility,” Griffin wrote.

In response, Paul has pointed to his decision to refund buyers 0.1 ETH the initial mint price in 2023 as proof of good faith. Critics, however, argue that refunds fell short of covering investors’ actual losses given the project’s collapse.

Wider implications for celebrity-led crypto projects

The Logan Paul CryptoZoo lawsuit highlights broader concerns for crypto investors about accountability in NFT ventures led by influencers and public figures. Celebrity-backed projects often draw significant attention but carry heightened risk when oversight and delivery falter.

“This case underscores the importance of due diligence,” — James Lee, analyst at Blockworks Research. “Investors should not assume that celebrity involvement equals reliability. Courts will demand evidence of intent and benefit before assigning liability.”

The outcome could influence how future cases test the boundaries of fraud and negligence in digital asset markets. With regulators and courts under pressure to adapt legal frameworks to NFTs, the ruling may shape how similar class actions proceed.

What’s next for the case

For now, plaintiffs in the Logan Paul CryptoZoo lawsuit must revise their complaint with stronger evidence connecting Paul directly to investor losses. If they fail, most of the claims could be dismissed outright.

Legal observers expect the case to continue into 2025, especially given its potential to clarify liability standards for celebrity-led crypto projects. For investors, the trial remains a test of whether courts can hold high-profile promoters accountable in the volatile NFT space.

For investors, the outcome of this lawsuit carries weight far beyond the CryptoZoo ecosystem. If the courts establish that celebrities can be legally responsible for the projects they endorse, it may set a powerful precedent that reshapes how influencers, athletes, musicians, and actors approach crypto promotions.

Already, regulators like the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have fined celebrities such as Kim Kardashian and Floyd Mayweather for failing to disclose payments related to crypto endorsements. However, this case differs in that it seeks to establish direct liability for damages, not just disclosure violations.

08/19/2025

Are you sure want to unlock this post?

Unlock left : 0

Are you sure want to cancel subscription?