ai16z · 149

ElizaOS founder accuses daos.fun founder of making $6.6 million profit through ai16z insider deal

According to Twitter, Shaw, founder of ElizaOS, wrote an article accusing baoskee, the founder of daos.fun, of using internal information transactions during the renaming and migration of the ai16z project, and claimed that it made a profit of about 6.6 million US dollars by selling ai16z. Shaw said that in June 2025, the project party promised to launch a Snapshot vote to allow the community to decide whether to change the name. Previously, a16z had asked the project to change its name to avoid trademark disputes. Shaw said that while the voting mechanism was slow to go live as promised, Baoskee sold all ai16z in the daos.fun execution wallet after learning about the pressure to change the name and subsequent migration arrangements, and continued to sell until the project moved to ElizaOS, causing the token price to drop. Shaw believes that Baoskee had information that other holders did not have at the time. In response, Baoskee posted an article denying the relevant claims, saying that Snapshot voting has actually been launched, and that daos.fun has also increased and locked in AI16z liquidity of more than 1 million dollars at its own expense. At the same time, he pointed out that Shaw had serious problems with project operation, token migration, and use of development funds. Currently, there are clear differences between the two sides. Shaw said that the relevant Solscan chain records will be attached at the end of the article.

6d ago

The wave of crypto shutdowns has entered a deep bear stage: over 60 well-known projects have left the market, and the cleaning of the bear market has accelerated

Comparing the news, as time entered the second half of the bear market, the cryptocurrency market experienced a clear round of industry clearance. Today, Shaw Walters, founder of ElizaOS (formerly ai16z), announced that the AI16z/ElizaOS token has completely died, and the associated foundation will gradually cease operations. This is another iconic exit event following the shutdown of over 60 well-known crypto projects in the first half of the year. According to statistics, in 2026, more than 60 well-known crypto projects, public chain/Layer2, DeFi protocols, wallets, NFT platforms, and DAO tools have announced that they have stopped operations or filed for bankruptcy, and the pace of shutdown accelerated markedly in late July. This round of exit covered almost every track. On the PT1 side of centralized trading, derivatives pioneer BitMEX announced on July 23 that it will officially close on September 23, ending 11 years of operation; AscendEX stopped trading on July 1 due to failure to obtain an EU MiCA license; and BitMart initiated a phased shutdown. In Layer1/Layer 2 and infrastructure, Polygon zkEVM, Botanix, Sophon, Powerloom, MilkyWay, etc. have been suspended one after another. In the DeFi sector, Radiant Capital, Step Finance (after being hacked for around $40 million), Ionic Protocol, Everclear, etc. withdrew due to security incidents or liquidity exhaustion. Wallet tracks include Secondfi, Ctrl Wallet, and Leap Wallet closed due to security breaches or strategic adjustments. NFTs, games, and tool projects such as Foundation, Fishing Frenzy, Tally, and Zapper have not been spared. The main reasons focus on three points: the business model fails to generate sustainable revenue (even if some projects have had high monthly activity or transaction volume), the outflow of users and funds due to the cooling of the racetrack, and hacker attacks directly cut off the funding chain. Many projects have received millions to tens of millions of dollars in financing, but it is difficult to prove the product's market fit after the market retracted. Unlike a series of explosions in leverage in 2022, this round was more about starving to death — orderly or forced exits after running out of funds. This article is sponsored by GENG, Build Your Fortune on GENG (https://geng.one)

17d agoburnking
How did AI16z, the leader of AI Agent tokens in the past, come to an end?

How did AI16z, the leader of AI Agent tokens in the past, come to an end?

Author: David, Shenchao TechFlow Original title: Drowning Tide, the End of “Cryptographic XAI” pioneer ai16z, ai16z, do you remember the name? If you remember, it means you experienced the AI coin boom in the cryptocurrency industry at the end of 2024. If you don't remember, it's normal. The AI Agent token category has been quiet for a long time. Cryptography x AI seems too much like a fake concept and an old-fashioned toy in the current version of AI tools that are gradually being implemented and rapidly progressing. Today, Shaw Walters, the founder of the Eliza OS project, wrote a long, long article to the effect that the ai16z token is completely dead, the foundation is closed, there will be no repurchases, and the holders will handle it themselves. He suggests you either sell it or “get a bunch of people to fry it up,” but don't expect him to do anything more. The tone of this letter isn't like a founder politely announcing the termination of the project, but more like a person falling down the door in disappointment after scolding everyone. He called the crypto community “a bunch of used to crying bags,” saying that a law firm sued him from the standpoint of the token holder. However, the Eliza OS Foundation had no money to file a lawsuit and lost all the rest of the money. Shaw also said that he used to have 25 million dollars of AI16z tokens in his wallet, but not a single one was sold and went all the way back to zero; now he lives on his savings, lives in a small, dilapidated bedroom in San Francisco, and writes code every day. From his point of view, he probably thought he was standing in a smoky market and using idealistic colors to develop, ultimately leaving behind a heart full of ruin, disappointment, and anger. I have no intention of judging these personal feelings. However, standing at the crossroads of changing hot spots, shifting industry focus, and the rise of AI, the shutdown of Eliza OS inevitably made people feel emotional about encryption X AI. It really started early in the morning and caught up in the evening episode. One step ahead. In October 2024, ai16z launched crowdfunding on DAOS.fun. The goal is to raise 420.69 SOL, equivalent to about 75,000 US dollars, to become an investment fund managed independently by AI. 420.69. Anyone familiar with crypto culture knows this is a rough number. Starting with the selection of the amount of capital raised, the undertones of this matter have already been decided. But it actually flew. In less than three months, ai16z's market capitalization reached $2.6 billion. It also brought in an entire category. Before GOAT, after VIRTUAL, various Agent concept coins were constantly emerging, and the entire AI Agent circuit grew from zero to close to 10 billion US dollars. Cryptography is conceptually one step ahead of others. What will the AI market look like at the end of 2024? ChatGPT has just turned two, and is often criticized for answering various illusions; Claude doesn't have the tools to directly operate a computer, and most people's understanding of an “AI Agent” is still at the conceptual level. The crypto market has already set a price for this concept. But there is one detail that not many people cared about at the time. Less than a week after ai16z went live, some cryptographic media published reports questioning it, saying that the AI agent at the core of the ai16z project, the “Marc IndReessen,” which claims to be able to make independent investment decisions, is actually a person operating, not the real agent himself. This question later also occurred on AIIxBT, a well-known crypto market analysis agent. At the time, it was difficult for such questioning to cause any uproar and FUD. The market capitalization continues to rise, the community continues to shout, and new AI Agent tokens continue to be issued... Looking back, this is probably the most accurate microcosm of the entire cryptographic AI narrative. True or false, it doesn't matter. In an environment of excessive fluidity, a leading version of the narrative is enough to cause a wave of speculation. The concept is realistic, the direction is right, but the token exists before the product, and the price comes before the technology. This is the essence of cryptography being one step faster. The future has arrived, but Rain Girl won't help but in 2026, AI Agent will actually arrive. There are CodeX and Claude in the west, and Workbuddy in the east, which are more suitable for domestic physiques. Looking back at the white paper's narratives living in the hype boom of cryptographic AI, such as helping people automatically analyze market conditions, process workflows, monitor public opinion, etc., have actually completely become reality. This is probably one of the few real-world stories in the crypto industry other than stablecoins. But the people who redeemed them...

17d agoburnking#agent #AI #AI agent #token

Founder of ElizaOS: The ai16z token has completely died, and related foundations are gradually ending operations

Comparing news, ElizaOS founder Shaw posted an article saying that the ai16z token has completely died and the relevant foundation is gradually ending operations. Currently, there are no funds for token buybacks, and there will be no additional capital or token supply to support the market; he no longer holds any related tokens and will not support the launch of Eliza tokens in the future. Shaw said that Burwick previously filed a lawsuit against the project, and the team held legal defenses due to lack of funds, and eventually reached a settlement with some of the owners and handed over the remaining treasury and funds. He stated that he never sold AI16z and did not profit from the project other than a salary comparable to that of other engineers. It said the team will continue to develop Eliza and the underlying operating system, and plans to restart without being affected by price pressure from the token, Launchpad, and community. Eliza's related intellectual property rights are still held by it, and the future will focus on localization, privacy protection, and smart technology that supports cryptographic functions. Shaw also said that while he still endorses blockchain technology, he is pessimistic about the industry's current culture of focusing too much on speculation, predictive markets, and meme coins; in contrast, he believes the AI community is more focused on building products.

17d ago
After testing 159 tokens, it was discovered that with the exception of Hyperliquid, repurchases and destruction are mostly just stories

After testing 159 tokens, it was discovered that with the exception of Hyperliquid, repurchases and destruction are mostly just stories

Author: Connor King Compiled by: Shenchao TechFlow Original Title: 159 Tokens Tested: With the exception of Hyperliquid, most of the tokens that were repurchased were losing money Guide: This article tested the 6 token value accumulation mechanisms of 159 agreements and found that the revenue scale is more important than mechanism design — the average return of agreements with daily revenue exceeding $500,000 was +8%, and the lowest level was -81%. More importantly, many mechanisms that seem to be “winning” are reversed immediately after removing one or two leading projects, which has direct reference value for investors in choosing tokens. We mapped 6 value accumulation mechanisms for 159 tokens and tested which mechanisms actually translate into rewards for token holders. The crypto industry's narratives about the accumulation of token value are mostly wrong. Two weeks before the study was set up, we published the “2026 Investor Relations and Token Transparency” report. One of the findings: 38% of crypto protocols actively accumulate value, and 62% don't return any value to token holders. This article is a companion analysis. We took a data set of 159 protocols, classified each coin according to an accumulation mechanism, and pulled 1-year price performance from Artemis. The question is: What mechanisms actually translate into rewards? We identified 6 models: direct cost allocation, buyback and destruction, buyback holding, vote hosting (ve model), pure governance, and other/hybrid models. Here's what we found: Active Accumulation led 10 percentage points over pure governance. The 49 agreements of direct costs, buyback destruction, buyback holding, and ve models had an average return of -55% over the past year. The 48 pure governance agreements averaged -65%. The gap widens further when limited to pure governance tokens that generate revenue, such as Uniswap, Arbitrum, and Morpho. These agreements generate real revenue, but not a single penny is distributed to token holders. Opportunity costs are the most visible part of the data set. Pure governance is equivalent to an investor relations strategy where a listed company neither pays dividends nor buys back shares. The final installers stopped pretending that it was a continuing operation and began pricing it as an option that management realized. Hyperliquid is a repurchase and destruction category. Judging from superficial data, repurchase and destruction won this year (average -35%), and repurchase holding ranked second (-52%). This looks like a complete victory for destruction. But after removing Hyperliquid, the story reverses. Excluding HYPE, repurchases destroyed an average of -56%, and repurchase held averaged -52%. A single token determines an entire category. Meteora is the cleanest buyback holding case. $10 million buyback program, Novora investor relations score 95/100, transparent treasury accumulation. This year, it fell by about 40%, below the similar median. Tokens held for repurchase in a transparent treasury retain the right to choose, creating visible and audited circulation. Destruction destroyed the right to choose in exchange for a marketing headline. The revenue scale is the real signal. The 50 agreements with clear Artemis revenue data are ranked by daily revenue. The model is clearer than any mechanism. The top one-fifth agreement ranked by revenue had an average return of +8%. The minimum one-fifth average is -81%. Two agreements with daily revenue of over $500,000 are Hyperliquid and Polymarket. Both are prominent performers in the data set. They have different accumulation models, but they have the same revenue trajectory. The dYdX Paradox vs Hyperliquid Paradox Direct Expense Allocation is the easiest model for institutional allocators to read because it clearly maps to dividends. dYdX runs the textbook version: 100% transaction fees to stakers, 75% net revenue buyback, and the best investor relations infrastructure. dYdX is down 82% over the past 12 months. The mechanism worked exactly as promised, but the business did not. Hyperliquid is the opposite. Through aid fund buyback and destruction (99% fee), zero traditional investor relations infrastructure, +193% per annum. If you are an allocator, this is the clearest interpretation in the data set: you are buying part of the protocol's revenue, and if revenue falls, the token will also fall. The mechanism is a basic requirement; the revenue trajectory is everything. The ve model requires permanent bribes to run Aerodrome and is the only ve model token in the data set with a positive 1-year return (+5%). The mechanism relies on Base...

116d agoLuxurytracy

The creators of AI16Z and ELIZAOS face a class action lawsuit involving false publicity and improper profit

According to the news, crypto law firm Burwick Law has filed a federal class action lawsuit against defendants such as Walters, the creator of AI16Z and ELIZAOS, in the Southern District Court of New York, accusing them of allegedly violating consumer protection laws, false advertising, and improper profits. According to legal documents, the defendant was accused of borrowing the Andreessen Horowitz brand reputation package project and issuing AI16Z tokens on Solana on October 24, 2024, which was later renamed ELIZAOS. According to the lawsuit, the project claims to have an AI agent that can invest independently, was actually operated by hand, and did not generate revenue during the lawsuit. On January 2, 2025, the token's price reached an all-time high of around $2.47, with a market capitalization of over $2.6 billion, before falling due to major holdings reduction. On-chain data shows that the most profitable traders have made around $39 million in profits.

123d ago

Data: GMGN's popular sector BadBunny rose +7.98K% in 24h

Comparative news, according to GMGN data, the top 5 trending sector tokens in the past 24 hours are as follows: 1. BadBunny (HBQB... ump): Current report of $0.0003, market capitalization of US$210,000, 24h increase +7.98K%, 24h turnover of US$14.17 million, transaction number 191,982; 2.ai16z (dHgY... GeC): Current report of $0.0001, market capitalization of $51,000, 24h increase of -45.8%, 24h turnover of USD 8.5 million, number of transactions 134,347; 3. PENGUIN (8Jx8... ump): Current report of $0.0286, market capitalization of US$28.6 million, 24h increase +38.6%, 24h turnover of US$14.53 million, number of transactions 43,838; 4. SHT (2NGB... ump): Current report of $0.0007, market capitalization of 620,000 US dollars, 24h increase +37.4%, 24-hour turnover of 5.32 million US dollars, number of transactions 62,351; 5. LIQUID (71mf... ump): Currently reported at $0.0016, market capitalization of 1.52 million US dollars, 24h increase +47.1%, 24h turnover of 6.81 million US dollars, 56,655 transactions;

194d ago

Bithumb: AI16Z was listed as a transaction alert currency by South Korea's DAXA member transactions

In comparison, Bithumb announced that AI16Z was listed as a transaction alert currency by DAXA member transactions of the Korea Digital Asset Exchange Joint Negotiating Agency. The reason is that the project party is untimely, opaque, and unreasonable in disclosing important matters that may affect the value of the token. Currently, AI16Z recharge has been suspended. Whether to extend transaction attention, cancel, or terminate transaction support in the future is expected to be announced in the second week of January.

241d ago
From skyrocketing to getting out of control: Breaking down the trading logic of the five major demon coins recently

From skyrocketing to getting out of control: Breaking down the trading logic of the five major demon coins recently

Author: Wenser, Planet Daily Original title: Five recent “monster coins”, who controls the market? The crypto market continues to fluctuate and decline, yet even when the market is lukewarm, a few coins are bucking the trend and maintaining their own independent rhythm of “rising and falling.” In this article, Odaily Planet Daily will sort out the “monster coins” that have performed well in recent years, try to summarize the commonalities, and help discover the next investment target that is expected to skyrocket. PIPPIN: The orphan of the AI Agent craze. “Insider Market” represents the AI Agent token once occupied the absolute focus of the crypto market from the end of last year to January of this year. Tokens such as ai16z (ELIZAOS) and swarms are often at the top of the token growth list. PIPPIN is also a product of the same batch of AI concept tokens at the time. However, now, almost a year later, there is only PIPPIN left or has been selected by Yesang due to its convenient control, and has risen all the way up in almost half a month. You need to know that on November 23, its price was only around $0.05. After just one week, its price had already skyrocketed to over $0.17: On December 1, PIPPIN bucked the trend and rose by more than 60%, and the price rose to close to $0.18; at that time, analyst @frontrunnersx warned that PIPPIN showed the characteristics of centralized position opening, in part The address continued to attract funds and showed no obvious selling behavior, causing the price to continue to touch short positions during the upward process and trigger chain liquidation. An address bought about $200,000 of PIPPIN 6 days ago, sold it after doubling the price, and is currently taking similar action on ARC. On December 2, Bubblemaps monitored that 50 associated addresses purchased PIPPIN tokens worth $19 million, and also discovered that 26 addresses withdrew 44% of the PIPPIN token supply from the Gate platform within two months, totaling $96 million. Most wallets were recently recharged. The majority of PIPPIN token withdrawals occurred on October 24 and November 23. At the time, the price of the PIPPIN token had risen by as much as 1000%, and its insiders controlled half of the token supply, worth $120 million. In other words, PIPPIN opened a position even a month earlier, and the real violent rise occurred about a month or a week after opening the position. Immediately, a diamondhand cleared the 24.8 million PIPPINs that had previously been hoarded, and the floating profit shrunk from a peak of $7.6 million to $3.65 million. On December 6, Onchain Lens monitored that a giant whale spent 23,736 SOL (worth about US$3.3 million) in 3 days to buy 16.35 million PIPPINs at a price of $0.20. At that time, its surplus exceeded 740,000 US dollars. On December 16, Bubblemaps issued another reminder that although the price of PIPPIN continues to rise, internal addresses now hold about 80% of the supply, worth about US$380 million. Bubblemaps pointed out that since the last disclosure (December 2), 16 new wallets have the same model (funds by HTX, similar SOL collection, no history, large withdrawals of PIPPIN from CEX); they also identified a group of 11 wallets linked to Bitget, holding about 9% of the total supply. The flow of funds is highly consistent with the time window, and is suspected to be controlled by the same entity. On the same night, as the price of PIPPIN fell below $0.3, the “Monster Coin Award” announced the phased closure of the network. However, the next day, on December 17, PIPPIN once pulled up to around $0.5, and once again exploded on a large scale. I have to say that Kumaichino's violent methods can be described as cruel. At the time of writing, the price of PIPPIN was tentatively reported at $0.44, up more than 15% in 24 hours, and its performance continues. FOLKS: Cross-chain DeFi protocol token, rose nearly 24 times due to the low point of the S2 incentive announcement. As a cross-chain DeFi protocol that provides lending, staking, and trading services and mainly operates on the Algorand chain, not many people originally followed Folks Finance, but with the launch of the officially announced S2 incentive campaign, the market...

246d agoLuxurytracy#AI agent