$Eliza & $ELIZA, The AI Agent Token With A Shady Launch

How Logan (@futjr_) engaged in insider trading and both he and Shaw (@shawmakesmagic) lied to the community. (@ai16zdao team)

TL;DR:
What I truthfully think happened is: Shaw and Logan of ai16z realized how extremely popular the community-launched $Eliza was. It grew to over $40M+ market cap in just 2 days. This was one of the hottest AI agent coins to hit the scene. They *wanted a piece of the pie* (video #2 below proves this motive). So, they screwed everyone by doing what Shaw explicitly said they would not do: launch a new $ELIZA token. They lined up at launch time and bought a sh*t-load of it, before anyone else could do so, with advance knowledge that it would be a success. They knew it would be a success because the original $Eliza acted as a free trial-run to test the market. They knew money would pile in after them and make them rich, all at the expense of regular investors.

Backdrop with more details:

9 November 2024, Shaw DIRECTLY states @ai16zdao will NOT be launching their own token for Eliza (their ai), and that he suggested the community launch a coin and he'd be okay with that. (see image)

Source: x.com/shawmakesmagic…

And that is exactly what happened.

16 November 2024 (just one week later), the community launched the $Eliza ai agent coin on Solana through vvaifu.fun

It grew MASSIVELY in popularity, reaching $40M+ market cap within the first *2 days*. Shaw claims ai16z were just days away from changing their mind and launching their own $ELIZA token right when this community version launched. That brings us to the first lie: Shaw said very clearly that they would NOT be launching their own token.

Seeing this popularity and *an opportunity to make a lot of money*, Shaw changed his mind and @ai16zdao decided to go against his earlier statement.

19 November 2024 (3 days after the wildly successful community launched token), ai16z launches their own "official" $ELIZA token, throwing the community into confusion, with investors not knowing what to do. Investors had already put their money in the first token. Were they investing in the wrong thing this whole time? This is a $40M market cap, mind you. A lot of money had been fooled.

There are a couple of super shady facts about this.

1. Logan sold 7-figures-worth (80% of his entire stack of the original $Eliza coin), knowing they are about to re-launch their own version. He said he had been selling for 24 to 36 hours prior to the giga-dump (as mentioned in this podcast: x.com/pastagotsauce/…). He nets *7 figures* and then only puts in 10 SOL (worth only about $2,400) into the new project within the very first moments of its launch. **Where did the remainder of the 7-figures go?** In his pocket. Logan became rich off this and exited with insider knowledge. He pretends like he just sold his entire stack because "he felt it was the top". This is the second lie. It was because he is on the very team that was just about to re-launch this coin, and he knew it.

2. Upon the re-launch of the new $ELIZA, this time Logan and the @ai16zdao team front-ran the buying and immediately bought up a MASSIVE number of tokens, for as cheap as possible, knowing the popularity of the token in advance. Shaw admitted this motive in the podcast (see video clip): "But there's also just like a 'Fuck yeah, if this is going to come out, I want to get some. Like, I want some of the token, too." [10:16 timestamp in the original video].

It was the safest investment one could make. The community-launched token had already proven itself. Now they got to front-run the market, because now THEY were in control of the re-launch, and already knew it would be popular. This time they could be FIRST in line. This is what a scammer does to his community: Lies, then changes course and capitalizes on the lie.

Logan simultaneously claims to have 10 years of experience in the industry as a dev/exec, yet is ignorant enough that he would sell 80% of his extremely large bag using insider knowledge right before the release of a new coin, and then slammed only 10 SOL into the new token in the very first moments of its creation, to get as much of the token supply for as cheap as he possibly could?

Shaw stated they will be doing an airdrop to make original investors good.

Based on their shady, money-grab actions, it would not surprise me if they give very little back to original $Eliza investors during the airdrop. (I wrote that last paragraph before the airdrop went live)

The airdrop just went live moments ago.

Personally speaking, I can see that I am only able to claim, up-front about 0.78% of the tokens that I originally held, with the remaining locked up and vesting, with the total adding up to about 3.9% of what I originally held. Totally pitiful.

The 3.9% is after waiting a long time.
0.79% was the initial airdrop claim amount.
You read that correctly: less than 1 percent.

This was a money grab. And investors paid the price.

Beware of these guys. Correction to the first source link listed. It's actually this:

https://x.com/shawmakesmagic/status/1855353233822339201

Super unpopular opinion:

The Bilderberg Group, the Federal Reserve central bank and Mastercard compromised #BTC

Bitcoin Maxis will become livid defending this and claim they are lies, yet it's public knowledge available to all. twitter.com/i/web/status/1… A lot of effort was made to re-write bitcoin's history and cover this up via censorship on discussion forums at the time.

But the truth remains the truth and nothing can change that.

There are many of us out there who know what happened because we lived through it.

2/x

My friend came up with this very interesting question for @stablekwon and TFL (TerraFormLabs) regarding #Terra $LUNA sold privately to investors. I said I didn’t know and I’d ask.

👇👇 Start of thread🧵 👇👇

1/12 I apologize for the rant but here we go: Anchor is the heart of LUNA— not some secondary promotional feature or perk. The majority of UST exists to gain Anchor yield. It makes LUNA scarce whereby it wouldn't be otherwise.

2/12

Unpopular opinion:

From a technical standpoint, #BCH's CODEBASE is far superior than #BTC's— it’s just that it lost the ticker symbol & thus had to start over with network effect.

👇👇 thread 🧵👇👇 If #BTC had #BCH’s code, it would have stopped the need for many altcoins that blossomed in 2017/2018 due to BTC’s congestion.

BCH would run the Lightning Network far better than BTC ever could because LN runs *better* with non-full blocks.

2/

The subject of "1T1V" on #EOS, clearly answered by Dan Larimer.



Timestamp 2:22:30-2:24:44 (last 5 minutes of video)

Take-aways:

• Dan re-confirms that he does want 1T1V. • B1 has already implemented the code that makes it an easily adjustable parameter (to change how many votes there will be per token).