cryptoregulation

American rapper Soulja Boy, famous for hits like Crank That, has officially apologized for promoting dozens of crypto and NFT projects that were later flagged as scams by blockchain sleuth ZachXBT.

“I Didn’t Know What I Was Getting Into”
Posting on X early Monday morning, Soulja Boy — real name DeAndre Cortez Way — admitted to promoting paid projects between 2021 and 2023 without properly vetting them. Many of these projects either collapsed, disappeared, or were blatant rug pulls.
“I want to be honest. I had no idea someone named Sahil was behind this or that I was promoting anything fraudulent. Back then, I did paid promos without understanding the crypto/NFT space like I do now,” the rapper-turned-crypto-enthusiast said.
He added:
“I’m genuinely sorry to my fans. It was never my intention to support scam projects. I take full responsibility for not doing deeper due diligence back then. Growth means learning from mistakes.”

ZachXBT: “This Wasn’t Just a One-Time Thing”
According to well-known blockchain investigator ZachXBT, Soulja Boy promoted at least 73 crypto and NFT projects during that two-year window. Of those, 16 NFT collections were later deemed scams or failed ventures.
🔹 RAPDOGE – A token Soulja hyped in 2021 alongside rappers Lil Yachty and Quavo. The project rug pulled within hours of their promotions, and investor liquidity vanished overnight.
🔹 Orion & The Life Token – Both projects used sensitive topics like cancer and suicide prevention to artificially inflate interest. Orion’s Twitter was deleted within a month, and Life Token was abandoned by early 2022.
🔹 Flokinomics – This project falsely claimed ties to Elon Musk and paid for media coverage to appear legit. It eventually rugged, leaving investors with losses.
ZachXBT estimates that Soulja Boy made over $730,000 from these promotions.

SEC Scrutiny Over TRX and BTT Promotions
Soulja Boy also faced legal trouble with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for unlawfully promoting TRX and BTT tokens without disclosing he was paid to do so. The SEC also named Lindsay Lohan, Jake Paul, Akon, and Ne-Yo in the complaint.

Logan Paul Clears Cryptozoo Case
While Soulja Boy tries to clean up his crypto image, another celebrity — Logan Paul — has recently closed the chapter on the infamous Cryptozoo NFT scandal. A U.S. district judge dismissed a lawsuit that accused Paul of misleading investors in a failed NFT game promising profits from digital animal breeding. The court ruled the claims lacked sufficient legal grounds.

Summary
Soulja Boy has admitted his mistakes, apologized to fans, and vowed to act more responsibly in the crypto space. But many in the community warn: in the age of paid promotions, “sorry” isn’t always enough. Dozens of projects collapsed, and thousands of investors were left with nothing.

#Cryptoscam , #CryptoFraud , #nft , #SEC , #CryptoRegulation

Stay one step ahead – follow our profile and stay informed about everything important in the world of cryptocurrencies!
Notice:
,,The information and views presented in this article are intended solely for educational purposes and should not be taken as investment advice in any situation. The content of these pages should not be regarded as financial, investment, or any other form of advice. We caution that investing in cryptocurrencies can be risky and may lead to financial losses.“

Paul Grewal, Chief Legal Officer of Coinbase, has publicly criticized The New York Times for what he describes as a misleading and contradictory narrative surrounding the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) pullback from crypto enforcement actions.
According to Grewal, the Times’ own reporting undercuts its headline and overarching implication—that political interference may have influenced the SEC’s retreat from aggressive crypto regulation.
Grewal Calls Out the Gap Between Facts and Framing
In a post on X, Grewal pointed to a critical disclosure buried in the online version of the Times’ December 14 investigation into the SEC’s evolving stance toward digital assets following Donald Trump’s return to the White House in January 2025.
The article explicitly states that reporters found:
No indication that President Trump or the White House pressured the SEC to ease enforcement against specific crypto firms, and
No evidence that crypto companies attempted to influence SEC cases through political donations or business ties to the Trump family.
“I appreciate the reporter’s candor in the comments to the online version of the story,” Grewal wrote. “But it only makes the headline and overall narrative look even more twisted.”
Grewal’s criticism centers on what he sees as a disconnect between the facts acknowledged within the article and the implication suggested by its framing—namely, that the enforcement rollback was suspicious or politically motivated.
What the NYT Report Actually Found
The Times investigation documented a sharp decline in crypto enforcement activity under the SEC during Trump’s second term. According to the report, the agency has paused, settled, or abandoned more than 60% of the crypto-related cases it inherited, including actions against several high-profile firms.
Notable examples include:
Gemini, operated by the Winklevoss twins, and
Binance, whose case was reportedly dropped entirely.
The paper characterized the scale of the pullback as unusual, noting that it is rare for the SEC to retreat so broadly from enforcement against a single industry.
However, the article simultaneously acknowledged that there was no evidence of improper influence, even while mentioning that some firms involved had executives or affiliates who donated to Trump’s political campaign.
The SEC itself rejected any claims of favoritism, stating that the shift was driven by legal and policy concerns, particularly unresolved questions about the agency’s statutory authority over large portions of the crypto market.
Critics Say the Rollback Was Inevitable—Not Political
Grewal’s comments echo a broader critique from crypto policy analysts who argue that the Times failed to provide essential historical and regulatory context.
Alex Thorn, Head of Firmwide Research at Galaxy, argued that the article rests on a flawed premise: that the Biden-era SEC’s aggressive enforcement campaign represented a normal or settled regulatory approach.
According to Thorn, the previous SEC leadership advanced novel and highly contested interpretations of securities law to pursue crypto firms—an approach that faced:
Sustained bipartisan criticism,
Multiple court challenges, and
Public dissents from Republican commissioners Hester Peirce and Mark Uyeda.
When those commissioners moved from a dissenting minority to a governing majority following Gary Gensler’s resignation in January, a policy reversal was not only likely—it was inevitable.
“It’s not ‘irregular’ at all for the SEC to drop these cases,” Thorn wrote. “If you overturn the underlying legal premises, the enforcement actions built on them naturally collapse.”
Even the Times acknowledged that the SEC’s current Republican commissioners had opposed many of the crypto lawsuits long before Trump returned to office. Critics argue, however, that this key context was overshadowed by a narrative that subtly implied political impropriety without substantiating it.
Media, Regulation, and the Crypto Narrative Gap
The controversy highlights a growing divide between traditional media coverage and the crypto industry’s interpretation of regulatory developments in Washington.
As the SEC shifts away from “regulation by enforcement” toward clearer rulemaking, the debate raises a central question for U.S. crypto policy discourse:
Can legitimate legal and philosophical changes inside a regulatory agency be discussed without defaulting to insinuations of political influence?
For industry leaders like Grewal, the answer matters—not just for public perception, but for the credibility of regulatory reporting itself.
👉 Follow for more deep-dive crypto regulation analysis, policy updates, and institutional market insights.
#CryptoRegulation #SEC