Meme Token platform in crisis: from frenzy to collapse

In July 2025, a star platform that once revolutionized the Meme track with its "one-click Token issuance" model is facing an unprecedented trust crisis and market challenges. This platform, created by three founders born after 2000, was once described as "the most interesting place on the internet." Today, this phrase sounds more like dark humor.

The company is not only facing commercial pressure from competitors eroding its market share and a significant decline in key data but is also mired in legal troubles from securities fraud and even RICO felony charges in the United States. This story began in fervor and is currently undergoing the trials brought on by that fervor.

Trust Crisis Erupts

In July 2025, the platform announced the issuance of its own Token, with a fully diluted valuation of up to $4 billion. This was supposed to be a milestone in the platform's development, but it became a turning point that shook the community's trust.

Ironically, the platform's founder previously gained credibility for the platform with the declaration "every presale is a scam." Now, they have turned around to launch a large-scale presale for the Token, an act seen by the community as blatant hypocrisy and betrayal.

A well-known venture capital founder publicly pointed out that this is a high-risk "exit liquidity event" and believes that raising funds at a valuation of 40 billion dollars during the down cycle of altcoins has severely overdrawn the future. Market concerns quickly became reality.

According to the data, the price of the Token plummeted by 75% within hours of its launch. As of the time of writing, the Token price has fallen by more than 30% compared to the public sale price.

The data behind is even more shocking: 340 large wallets collaborated to sell off, controlling over 60% of the presale share. According to on-chain data, only two wallets related to the private placement round sold tokens worth $141 million, making a profit of nearly $40 million.

On social media, the atmosphere shifted from celebration to despair. "We thought this was a chance to change our fate, but it turned out to be just fuel for their luxurious yacht parties." This feeling of being tricked and harvested spread rapidly, seriously damaging the community foundation on which the platform relies.

The business model is facing challenges

The loss of trust is directly reflected in the dismal market data.

Competitors are eroding its market position at an astonishing rate. According to the data, in just one month, the platform's share in the new coin issuance market plummeted from 90% to 24%, while competitors surged from 5% to 64%. Behind this is a clash of two entirely different philosophies.

The platform model is centralized extraction, while the success of competitors lies in using 58% of platform revenue for buybacks and destruction of ecological Tokens, building a strong value and trust flywheel through real profit sharing.

In the face of difficulties, reports have indicated that the team announced a large-scale buyback using tens of millions of dollars, which was mocked by the market as "using retail investors' money to buy back at a high price." Analysts pointed out that the project side sells at 0.004 dollars and then uses platform revenue to buy back at 0.0064 dollars, essentially paying a 60% premium for market value management.

This move may temporarily boost the coin price, but it cannot restore the severely damaged value foundation and market confidence. Meanwhile, the global regulatory network is tightening.

In December 2024, after receiving a warning from the UK's Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), the platform was forced to block UK users who accounted for 9% of its traffic.

This is not an isolated incident, but rather a regulatory scrutiny that is inevitably caused by its "viral" growth model. The platform is caught in a serious negative feedback loop: increased competition erodes revenue, declining revenue weakens buyback ability, falling coin prices damage confidence, ultimately leading to accelerated user loss.

Legal Risks Intensify

More serious challenges come from the legal level. Initially, multiple class action lawsuits accused all Meme coins on the platform of being unregistered securities. Some law firms proposed the "joint issuer" theory, arguing that the platform was deeply involved in the creation, trading, and liquidity process of the tokens, rather than being a neutral technology provider.

In July 2025, the legal battle escalated sharply. According to the amended documents of a case, the plaintiffs added charges based on the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) — a law typically used to combat organized crime.

The scope of the defendants has also expanded, with certain public chain foundations, laboratories, and even their co-founders being listed as the "architects, beneficiaries, and accomplices" of the fraud. This move is far more damaging than the project itself, as it directly questions the boundaries of responsibility within the entire ecosystem.

As fundamental infrastructure, do public chains have an obligation to review or supervise the star projects within their ecosystem? This lawsuit has made all public chain platforms aware that their relationship with ecological projects may be far more dangerous than they imagined. The underlying acts of the RICO charges include telecommunications and securities fraud, unlicensed money transmission, and aiding money laundering.

The most explosive allegation is that a hacker organization once used the platform to issue Meme coins to launder the funds stolen during a hack at a certain exchange.

Internal Governance Deficiencies

However, perhaps the most shocking is the betrayal from within.

On May 16, 2024, the platform was attacked, and approximately $1.9 million in funds was stolen. However, the attacker was not an external hacker but a disgruntled former employee.

A former employee named "Stacc" publicly admitted responsibility on social media, with motives pointing to personal revenge and disdain for "terrible bosses." Technical analysis indicates that the attack stemmed from abuse of management privileges rather than a flaw in the smart contract.

The employee exploited their privileged position to illegally obtain withdrawal authorization, and then quickly bought out the supply of multiple Tokens through flash loans, ultimately intercepting the initial liquidity that should have entered the exchange. While publicly claiming to address the risk of Meme coin runaways, their internal "backdoor" had already been wide open for disgruntled employees.

This incident is like a mirror, reflecting the platform's astonishing neglect of internal security and corporate governance amid rapid development.

From solving the "runaway" to "running away" myself

The story begins with the Meme coin frenzy that swept the globe in early 2024. Countless developers and speculators flocked to a certain public chain ecosystem, eager to create or capture the next hundredfold coin. However, the process of creating a Token and providing its initial liquidity pool (LP) is both expensive and complex, often requiring thousands of dollars in costs and expertise, which keeps countless creative and "grassroots" players out.

The main characters are three founders born after 2000: CEO Noah Tweedale (21 years old), CTO Dylan Kerler (21 years old), and COO Alon Cohen (23 years old, under a pseudonym). They have keenly captured this core pain point and claim to solve the exit risk of Meme coins, with the vision of creating the most interesting place on the Internet.

The platform will debut in January 2024, with its core innovation: "One-click Token issuance", simplifying the originally complex process to just a few clicks and costing only a few dollars. This disruptive innovation has brought explosive growth.

But this talent quickly became a speculative tool. The entire business model amplified speculative sentiment. The $4 billion valuation presale of the Token pushed this speculation to its peak.

The disregard for business rules runs throughout. They once won trust with an anti-pre-sale stance, only to launch a large-scale pre-sale. When faced with regulation, they chose to cut ties with the UK operating entity. The CEO denied that the platform is a UK company, while the COO argued that an employment relationship does not represent ownership. To the public, these actions seem calculated rather than ignorant.

Technical geniuses, speculators, and rule-breakers, this complex portrait presents the complete trajectory of the platform's rocket-like rise and rapid fall. The young founders did not anticipate that this project, intended to bring fun, would push them into a complicated whirlpool of legal and business issues.

Standing at the Crossroads

The platform is at a crossroads. Pending litigation, declining market share, and damaged user trust have put it in a predicament.

This seems to be another brutal performance of "DeFi Darwinism": a species that thrives rapidly due to its unique adaptability (low threshold, high spread) ultimately faces challenges because it cannot evolve the ability to cope with a complex environment (regulation, trust, security).

For the entire cryptocurrency industry, the dilemma posed by this case raises a serious question: to what extent should the platform be responsible for the actions within its ecosystem when innovation walks the fine line of legality?

As regulatory scrutiny shifts from centralized exchanges to more complex DeFi applications, the next similar case may be brewing.

For every participant, the ability to discern fun from traps has never been more important than it is today. This story of rising from the grassroots to the peak and then falling from the peak may be laying the groundwork for the next chapter of the crypto world.