Bridgewater Associates founder Ray Dalio says the US government needs to rethink how it comes up with its economic data.

Over the weekend, President Donald Trump fired the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Erika McEntarfer, because of a large downward revision of job numbers.

On Friday, the BLS revised down the job growth figures for June from 147,000 to 14,000, a 90% drop.

Figures for May were also revised down from 144,000 to 19,000, bringing the combined two-month downward revision to 258,000 jobs.

Some analysts at US banks began citing the data as possible evidence suggesting the economy was slowing down and flashing potential recession signals.

Despite the controversy over firing the BLS Commissioner, in a post on the social media platform X, Ray Dalio says he would have fired her, too.

“I probably would have fired the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics too.

That’s because its process for making estimates is obviously obsolete and error-prone, and there is no good plan in the works for fixing it. The huge revisions in Friday’s employment numbers are symptomatic of this, especially because the revisions brought the numbers toward private estimates that were in fact much better.

I assure you that this is something that I know a lot about because of how I use data to follow the economy and bet on where it’s going.”

Dalio says if Trump indeed fired the BLS chief purely for political reasons, that may be a “big problem.”

Therefore, the investor says, “It would be good if President Trump made his thinking clear.”

“In any case, we do need big renovations to the ways the government estimates what’s going on in the economy to make them more, not less, accurate.”

Follow us on X, Facebook and Telegram

Don’t Miss a Beat – Subscribe to get email alerts delivered directly to your inbox

Check Price Action

Surf The Daily Hodl Mix

&nbsp

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed at The Daily Hodl are not investment advice. Investors should do their due diligence before making any high-risk investments in Bitcoin, cryptocurrency or digital assets. Please be advised that your transfers and trades are at your own risk, and any losses you may incur are your responsibility. The Daily Hodl does not recommend the buying or selling of any cryptocurrencies or digital assets, nor is The Daily Hodl an investment advisor. Please note that The Daily Hodl participates in affiliate marketing.

Generated Image: Midjourney

A routine $10,000 prediction market on Polymarket covering Sunday’s NASCAR Cup Series race erupted into a dispute in UMA’s history after the oracle rejected an early settlement proposal, despite it being accurate. 

As reported by the X user known as Domer on July 24, the clash has revived questions about how UMA’s optimistic‑oracle process balances speed, clarity, and fairness.

How a $10k market became a $60k fight

When the checkered flag fell at 6:58 p.m. ET, Denny Hamlin crossed the line first and was later confirmed as the winner following NASCAR’s post‑race inspection. 

One minute after the finish, a veteran Polymarket trader, known as “GeopoliticsWizard,” posted 40 settlement proposals to UMA, one for each driver contract, paying the required 750 USDC bond on each. 

Ninety minutes later, other users challenged every proposal, arguing the submitter had not waited for inspection. Under UMA’s rules, each dispute also required a 750 USDC bond.

With 40 proposals and 40 disputes, total staking ballooned to $60,000, six times the underlying market size. The ultimate split is predetermined: the winning side collects its 40 bonds ($40,000) while UMA keeps the remaining $20,000 as protocol revenue.

UMA’s published documentation does not require proposers to wait for inspections. Instead, it directs them to use an “authoritative public source.” 

NASCAR’s leaderboard showed no caveats or asterisks. Even so, on-chain voters judged the submissions “Too Early,” siding unanimously with the disputers. The vote came after NASCAR confirmed Hamlin’s win at 8:26 p.m., and disputes were lodged at 8:27 p.m.

The ruling wiped out roughly $30,000 in net value for the proposer, turning a previously profitable account into a negative one, according to posts from Domer. 

How UMA works

UMA uses a three‑step “propose–dispute–vote” loop. Anyone may submit a settlement answer with a bond. If unchallenged during a short liveness window, the answer becomes final. 

A challenger can post an equal bond to force a token‑holder vote. The majority receives the combined bonds, while the minority forfeits theirs. 

The model is designed to be fast and decentralized, yet the NASCAR case shows that costs can dwarf a market’s notional value when disputes escalate.

Earlier in July, UMA faced backlash over a $200 million Polymarket contract on whether Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky would appear in a “suit.” 

After initially ruling “Yes,” UMA reversed course following challenges about what qualifies as a suit, exposing how ambiguous wording can grind the oracle to a halt. 

Days later, a separate Major League Baseball market erroneously paid out to the wrong team. UMA stated that a technical glitch and lack of dispute caused the mistake and promised refunds.

The bigger picture

In Domer’s view, the NASCAR episode lays bare a deeper problem: UMA’s voting base has shrunk to a small circle of “trusted” regulars whose financial incentives often align with disputers, rather than with neutral accuracy. 

When Polymarket itself stays neutral, as it did here, UMA leans on these insiders for guidance, and “they comply.”

He added:

“The voting system is more centralized than ever, with a community more dormant than ever […] The group that disputed spammed the Discord heavily, so it had to be ‘Too Early’, and UMA voters did as they were told.”

Domer concluded that such dynamics turn legitimate traders into collateral damage.

Mentioned in this article

June 10th Controversy over the name BIP177 and Bitcoin?

The long and prominent discussion of Bitcoin’s naming of the number of units after the decimal mark reflects the conflict between Bitcoin’s tradition and convenience in life. A notable proposal is to eliminate decimal marks and use “bitcoin” (multiple) as the smallest unit instead of Satoshi. Satoshi has become popular, but some people believe that “bits” – including 100 Satoshi – will become more accessible to popular users, especially when the price of Bitcoin rises. Recently, BIP 177 – proposed by John Carvalho (CEO synonym) – heated up the discussion. BIP 177 wants to completely remove the decimal mark and use “Bitcoin” as the default display unit. However, like previous upgrades such as Segwit and Taproot, this change requires long periods of discussion, testing and consensus from the community. The success of BIP 177 depends not only on the technical quality but also on the level of change ready for the Bitcoin community.

16 years from now, why is there discussion about the minimum unit name for BTC?

As a digital property, Bitcoin can be divided into very small units to support a wide range of economic activities, from high-value transactions to micro-transactions. The most famous unit is “Satoshi”, representing 1/100,000,000 of Bitcoin. The term “Satoshi” was first proposed in 2010 on the Bitcointalk.org forum by a user with the nickname Ribuck.

Over time, the community chose “Satoshi” as the atomic unit of Bitcoin, creating short cultural languages ​​such as “Stats stacked” to honor Nakamoto, both mystical founder. However, another unit “BIT” is equivalent to 100 Satosh or 1/1,000,000 Bitcoin, but is proposed more intuitively. Some notable voices like Adam Buck supported the revival of “bits” where if Bitcoin’s price reaches $1 million, one bit equals $1 dollar, making conversion easier.

Thus, the discussion between “SATS” and “BITS” is not only a technical issue, but also a story between tradition and user-friendly design.

Currently, Bitcoin has a variety of units: BTC, MBTC (Millibitcoin), µBTC (Microbitcoin or “bit”), and Satoshis. This can be confusing, especially for non-technical people. Bitcoin (1 BTC) equals 1,000 MBTC, 1,000,000 bits, or 100,000,000 Satoshis. This diversity creates unnecessary complexity, especially when users face small numbers such as 0.000043 BTC and 4300 Satoshis.

According to BIP 177, the complete Bitcoin – that is, 100 million Satosh – can be called “Mega Bitcoin.” By removing decimal marks and standard units to “Bitcoin”, it reduces the sense of odd and technicality, and gives a feeling that is closer to the average user.

The BIP 177, proposed by the synonym John Carvalho, aims to change the normal understanding of Bitcoin units using the smallest unit (element unit) as a display standard. Instead of representing a Bitcoin value in the form of decimal numbers (e.g. 0.00004321 BTC), BIP 177 completely removes the decimal mark and calls each basic unit “1 Bitcoin.”

Using this model, what was once called “1 Satoshi” (1/100,000,000 BTC) simply becomes “1 Bitcoin.” Supporters believe that decimal numbers are an outdated UI legacy, especially for new participants. BIP 177 does not change consensus or data rules, but faces cultural challenges when changes to wallet interfaces and exchanges require changes to the synchronization and the term “sats” needs to be replaced.

The Bitkit wallet is the first wallet to apply BIP 177

Bitkit Wallet, developed by synonyms, a “sister” company to Bitfinex, is a self-managed wallet focused on a friendly user experience, making it easy to join the Bitcoin ecosystem. Bitkit integrates many advanced features, including built lightning buttons, decentralized payments (DIDS), and smooth backups via encrypted cloud.

What sets Bitkit apart is the early and enthusiastic applications of the BIP 177 Standard. Instead of using BTC or complex fractions such as MBTC, Bitkit wallets display the value according to “Bitcoin” so that users can better understand it. For example, instead of displaying “0.000043 BTC”, Bitkit displays “43 Bitcoins”. This will turn Bitcoin from a difficult technological currency into a familiar exchange. This is the same as using coins and Satoshi.

Does BIP 177 get enough support to survive?

It is not clear whether there are many businesses like Jack Dorsey’s Square, or whether 177 BIP is widely accepted by the community. The big wallet and floor still prioritize BTC or Satoshi, indicating a conservative trend in the Bitcoin community.

Looking back at history, technologically clear changes such as Segwit (BIP 141) and Taproot (BIP 341) take years to be accepted. For example, Segwit was proposed since 2015, but was revitalized until 2017 after a series of discussions and community civil wars, including races between the UASF and miners.

The process of changing standards is difficult to form, especially when it relates to the user interface. Many users and programmers don’t want to change their habits despite their experience suggestions. Lack of adjustments from large stakeholders like wallets, payment platforms, education and more – BIP177 risks halting on good ideas, but has not been implemented.

In the Bitcoin ecosystem, BIP is a proposal for improvements from protocols to interfaces. Some BIPs must agree to all networks (such as Segwit or Taproot), and 177 BIPs will be applied voluntarily. But even so, all meaningful changes must overcome fragmented, careful, skeptical community.

The problem lies in the operation of the Bitcoin community. Decentralized, prudent, no one has the right to order. BIP 177 is a network-wide change, but it must depend on the developer and service arbitrary. 1 As Satoshi gradually approaches the $1 value, more intuitive displays like the BIP 177 (using “bits”) become easier to understand every day.

Currently, some projects such as Spiral, Square, Workit, and Cashu are implementing BIP 177 at various levels. In systems where the default is “unchanged” then even minor improvements like the BIP 177 face high officially recognized barriers.

in short,: The discussion of the name of the Bitcoin unit reflects a balance of tradition and convenience. Whether “Satoshi” is a cultural icon or not, “Bit” or “Bitcoin” can open the door for wider application. With project leads like Bitkit wallets and the potential of large companies like Square, Bip 177 has the opportunity to create turning points in how you view and use Bitcoin. In the Bitcoin world, every change requires time, validation and spacious consensus. Will BIP 177 become the norm or just an interesting idea? Let’s wait and see!

Don’t forget to follow the bitfinex Vietnam Community telegram, Twitter & Facebook To update articles, information and events as soon as possible!

]]> https://earlybirdsinvest.com/controversy-over-the-name-bip177-and-bitcoin/feed/ 0 41194 https://earlybirdsinvest.com/us-court-blocks-57m-in-usdc-amid-libra-token-controversy/ https://earlybirdsinvest.com/us-court-blocks-57m-in-usdc-amid-libra-token-controversy/#respond Fri, 30 May 2025 08:41:02 +0000 https://earlybirdsinvest.com/us-court-blocks-57m-in-usdc-amid-libra-token-controversy/

A US federal court has frozen approximately $57.65 million worth of USDC stablecoins in connection with a class action lawsuit linked to the LIBRA token scam that took place a couple of months ago.

On 28 May 2025, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a Temporary Restraining Order that froze the assets. The amount will remain frozen till June 9th, when a hearing is scheduled to determine if the freeze will remain in effect while the lawsuit proceeds.

Circle’s multi-sig freeze authority froze two Solana wallets in connection with the LIBRA deployer and project team as part of the ongoing lawsuit filed by the New York-based law firm Burwick.

As a part of the lawsuit, numerous LIBRA investors are suing Kelsier Ventures, a crypto firm, along with its co-founders, Gideon, Thomas, and Hayden Davis.

ALERT: $57M OF USDC ASSOCIATED WITH LIBRA FROZEN BY CIRCLE

Two Libra accounts have just been frozen by Circle, including the Libra deployer wallet.

These accounts contained a combined $57M in USDC which is now immobile. pic.twitter.com/HpmaM5HwVJ

— Arkham (@arkham) May 28, 2025

Other defendants in this case include Benjamin Chow, the co-founder of Meteora, a Solana-based DeFi platform; Julian Peh of KIP Protocol, a decentralised AI framework focused on digital property rights; and other organisations involved in the marketing of the LIBRA token.

Explore: The 12+ Hottest Crypto Presales to Buy Right Now

Background on the Lawsuit

The LIBRA memecoin attracted attention after a post on X by Argentinian President Javier Milei on 14 February 2025. The token was advertised as a means to fund small businesses in Argentina.

Within an hour of Milei’s advertisement on X, the LIBRA token’s value surged from a few cents to $5, and its market cap surged to $4 billion, only to crash by 94% within hours.

Reportedly, insiders controlling more than 70% of the supply dumped large amounts, sending the LIBRA token’s value spiralling downwards.

This sparked a political outrage in Argentina, with members of the opposition calling for Milei’s impeachment. Although the movement failed to gather momentum, a poll conducted in March 2025 by Zuban Córdoba suggested that the scandal harmed Milei’s approval rating and public image.

Burwick filed the lawsuit on 17 March 2025, alleging that the defendants launched the LIBRA cryptocurrency and deceived investors, ultimately misappropriating over $150 million while investors lost over $250 million.

Solscan, a blockchain explorer for Solana, disclosed data showcasing that the authorities froze approximately $44.59 million in stablecoins at the address 3Fwr…ZQpK, while someone locked more than $13 million from the wallet 3nHw…xNgH.

The asset freeze indicates that the US courts are ready to intervene to mitigate further losses and to ensure potential compensation for the victims. If successful, this case could set a new precedent and hold crypto founders and promoters accountable for misleading investors and fueling speculative hype cycles.

Explore: Top 20 Crypto to Buy in May 2025

Milei Shuts Down LIBRA Token Investigation

On 19 May 2025, Milei signed a decree to disband the investigative task force probing the LIBRA scandal. Notably, authorities have not brought any charges against Milei or any other Argentinian officials linked to the controversy.

Itai Hagman, a member of the Chamber of Deputies of Argentina, said, “It was always a fake, they never dared to investigate anything at all, and they’re covering each other up because they’re completely up to their necks in it.”

So far, the only explanation provided by the authorities for disbanding the task force is that it had fulfilled its assigned function.

Explore: Best New Cryptocurrencies to Invest in 2025

US Court Blocks $57M in USDC Amid LIBRA Token Controversy

Crypto.com has announced a strategic partnership with Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG) and Yorkville America to roll out a suite of exchange-traded funds (ETFs).

The initiative, revealed on March 24, will introduce TMTG-branded ETFs combining digital and traditional assets.

ETF move

These products will feature a crypto-heavy ETF basket, including Bitcoin, Crypto.com’s native Cronos (CRO) token, and other digital currencies.

Crypto.com will provide backend technology and custodial services through its US Trust Company as part of the deal. It will also handle the crypto asset supply for the ETFs, which will be sold via its affiliated broker-dealer, Foris Capital US LLC.

Crypto.com’s CEO, Kris Marszalek, expressed optimism about the move, highlighting users’ potential to gain broader crypto exposure through trusted branding. He confirmed that once the products are approved, they will be available on the Crypto.com app for users in eligible regions.

Truth Social, a TMTG subsidiary, is expected to file the necessary ETF paperwork with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) soon.

These products would mark another crypto-related adventure of US President Donald Trump if approved. Over the past years, Trump-affiliated entities have released several NFT collections and recently unveiled a DeFi project called World Liberty Financial (WLFI).

Community backlash

On-chain investigator ZachXBT has raised questions about why TMTG would choose Crypto.com as a partner for its ETF moves over better-established and more transparent exchanges like Coinbase, Kraken, or Gemini—especially in light of the recent CRO supply controversy.

Over the past week, Crypto.com has been heavily criticized for reissuing 70 billion CRO tokens that initially burned in 2021.

On March 25, ZachXBT criticized the move, calling it a betrayal of decentralization and transparency. He claimed the reissued amount accounted for 70% of CRO’s total supply—sparking concerns over centralization and long-term value dilution.

According to him:

“CRO is no different from a scam. Your team just reissued 70B CRO a week ago that was previously burned ‘forever’ in 2021 (70% total supply) and went against the community wishes as you control majority of the supply.”

However, Marszalek defended the decision during a March 25 AMA, claiming the reissue reflects changing political tides and increased institutional support for crypto.

He described the original burn as a strategic choice during a more challenging regulatory era and framed the new issuance as necessary for long-term growth.

Mentioned in this article

Trusted Editorial content, reviewed by leading industry experts and seasoned editors. Ad Disclosure

Within an hour, a meme coin on the Solana blockchain, LIBRA, ballooned to a market value of $1.16 billion before quickly disintegrating. According to sources, early buyers of the LIBRA token profited millions of dollars while regular investors ended up scratching their heads with nothing.

The Rise And Fall Of LIBRA

Shortly after its launch, LIBRA reportedly saw an unprecedented rise in value. But the excitement quickly turned to misery. Approximately 75,000 traders lost their first deposits when the token fell more than 90% in value. The damage, analysts said, were more than $280 million.

Market watchers were puzzled by the abrupt shift. Many questioned how such a rapid boom could end in disaster so quickly. It didn’t take long before allegations of insider activity started surfacing.

Early Birds Made Millions

Recent reports indicate that specific individuals had access to LIBRA tokens prior to the public launch. Allegedly, these insiders acquired substantial quantities at reduced prices and subsequently disposed of them at the market’s peak. Prior to the collapse, some enjoyed profits of up to $110 million.

Following the launch of tokens such as $MELANIA and $LIBRA, focus has turned to a need for more transparent and equitable token launch mechanisms in the crypto market.

This edition of our institutional report ‘A Presidential Guide To Token Launches’ examines:

The history of… pic.twitter.com/5Liroimyuz

— DWF Labs (@DWFLabs) March 14, 2025

Insider Links

One of the names mentioned in reports is Kelsier Ventures. The firm is suspected of having links to the pre-launch accumulation of LIBRA tokens. If true, this raises serious concerns about transparency and fairness in token launches.

Investigating the situation, DWF Labs found that certain wallets connected with insiders disposed of significant amounts of LIBRA tokens at the point of highest pricing.

When DWF Labs looked into the case, they found that funds linked to insiders dumped a lot of LIBRA tokens just as the prices were reaching their highest point.

The findings show that people who bought before the launch had a big advantage, since early sales gave them the chance to make millions before the crash. This has made people worry that the rise and fall of the token wasn’t natural, but rather the result of moves planned by a small group of traders.

Public Endorsement And Political Links

The scandal surrounding LIBRA did not remain restricted to the crypto community. It rapidly garnered attention in the political and financial sectors as a result of its affiliation with prominent figures.

Argentine President Javier Milei had explicitly supported the project. The situation has since sparked fears regarding the potential political involvement in financial activities related to crypto.

Stringent Safety Nets Required

DWF Labs has emphasized the necessity of more stringent safeguards, advocating for improved investor protections and more transparent regulations regarding token distributions to prevent early purchasers from obtaining unfair advantages.

Their analysis has strengthened the argument that more stringent regulations are necessary to prevent future market manipulations of a similar nature.

Featured image from Gemini Imagen, chart from TradingView

Editorial Process for bitcoinist is centered on delivering thoroughly researched, accurate, and unbiased content. We uphold strict sourcing standards, and each page undergoes diligent review by our team of top technology experts and seasoned editors. This process ensures the integrity, relevance, and value of our content for our readers.

Argentinian President Javier Milei said it would be “an honor” for Argentina to host the next edition of Devconnect, a gathering of independent events that foster the growth of the Ethereum ecosystem. 

Milei made the statement in response to Vitalik Buterin’s praise of Argentina’s Ethereum community. He said the energy and determination of builders based in the country are real and the event should be held there.

The Ethereum co-founder assessed that the recent LIBRA memecoin scandal should not be seen as a reason to stop believing in crypto but as a motivation to spread education.

He added:

“I continue to be very optimistic about Argentina and Latam’s contributions and role in the space.”

In another X post, Buterin suggested that the next edition of Devconnect should be hosted in Argentina. He said this could be a “great opportunity” to showcase good examples of crypto usage to the Argentinian community and then tagged Milei in the post.

Milei responded via social media:

“THANK YOU VERY MUCH VITALIK BUTERIN  FOR YOUR WORDS ABOUT ARGENTINE TALENT!!! It would be an honor for Argentina to host Devconnect. I agree that it would be a great opportunity for our country.”

According to Chainalysis’ “2024 Geography of Crypto Report,” Argentina has the 15th-largest crypto adoption index and leads Latin America in crypto value received, at an estimated $91.1 billion between 2023 and 2024.

LIBRA controversy

The interactions between the Argentinian President and the Ethereum co-founder come in the backdrop of significant controversy. Milei endorsed the memecoin LIBRA on Feb. 14, saying the token was a way to fund Argentinian ventures. 

The token reached a $4.5 billion valuation before crashing 95% over the weekend. A report by Nansen estimated that 86% of traders lost $251 million, and 70% of wallets trading the token over the weekend endured losses.

Hayden Davis, a key figure behind LIBRA, said in an interview that Milei had no financial stake in the token after the fiasco. Davis reportedly claimed to influence the Argentinian President by paying Milei’s sister.

Notably, Milei said he did not intend to promote the token and only shared it on social media as a gesture of good faith toward the industry.

Mentioned in this article

Author

Gino Matos

Reporter at CryptoSlate

Gino Matos is a law school graduate and a seasoned journalist with six years of experience in the crypto industry. His expertise primarily focuses on the Brazilian blockchain ecosystem and developments in decentralized finance (DeFi).

Editor

Assad Jafri

Editor & Reporter at CryptoSlate

AJ, a passionate journalist since Yemen’s 2011 Arab Spring, has honed his skills worldwide for over a decade. Specializing in financial journalism, he now focuses on crypto reporting.

The controversy stems from the LIBRA token’s decline—once linked to Argentine President Javier Milei, it lost over 90% of its value within hours of launch.

While Meteora’s role in the launch was limited to technical support, its involvement has raised concerns over the ethics of token launches.

Did you know?

Want to get smarter & wealthier with crypto?

Subscribe – We publish new crypto explainer videos every week!

What is Olympus DAO? (OHM Crypto Animated Explainer)

Meow, the pseudonymous co-founder of Meteora and the Jupiter exchange, confirmed Chow’s resignation on February 17, citing poor decision-making in recent months.

In response to the backlash, Meow emphasized that neither the company engaged in insider trading nor any financial misconduct. He also clarified that while talk of an “Argentina Coin” circulated in meme coin communities, Jupiter had no prior knowledge of its exact launch details.

Chow has not issued an official statement about his departure. However, he previously addressed the situation on X. Initially, he downplayed Meteora’s role, stating the platform merely provided a permissionless service that anyone could use.

He stated, “The LIBRA team used Meteora, which is a permission-less platform. We never had any access to the tokens or to Milei”. He also stressed that Meteora does not participate in decision-making for token launches.

Later, he revised his response, admitting there were valid concerns about Meteora’s involvement with LIBRA and similar projects. He also acknowledged his connection to Hayden Davis of Kelsier Ventures, a firm tied to the launches of the LIBRA, TRUMP, and MELANIA meme coins.

Meanwhile, Benjamin DeKraker, an xAI engineer, recently announced his resignation from the company. Why? Read the full story.

OpenSea’s highly anticipated OS2 update and the launch of its $SEA token airdrop have generated widespread controversy across the NFT community.

With OS2, users can now earn XP through bidding and listing NFTs, a system designed to distribute $SEA tokens in an upcoming airdrop. However, traders have quickly identified ways to game the system, engaging in high-frequency flipping of NFTs with minimal losses to maximise their XP rewards.

This has led to growing concerns that OpenSea has prioritised volume and fees over the long-term health of the NFT ecosystem.

What has been the community reaction?

At the core of the controversy is OpenSea’s XP system, which rewards traders for placing bids and listing NFTs rather than making genuine purchases. This has led to an explosion of high-frequency trading, with top XP farmers flipping NFTs in seconds, pushing marketplace volume to artificial highs whilst causing significant damage to NFT floor prices.

Waleswoosh described it as “Blur farming on steroids” as he highlights OpenSea’s lack of a cooldown period—a measure Blur implemented in the past to curb excessive wash trading— and noted one farmer executing rapid trades to accumulate XP with minimal losses. According to the post, this trader was able to cycle through NFT bids, dumping them onto the next farmer in under 24 seconds, whilst paying just $5.38 in OpenSea fees per transaction.

Many sees OpenSea’s strategy as a desperate move to boost engagement numbers and secure investor returns and more members is criticizing the platform for prioritising revenue over the health of the NFT ecosystem and calling it “an absolute disgrace” that copied Blur’s farming mechanics with no consideration for collectors and creators.

The frustration is further echoed as another member describes the upcoming $SEA airdrop as as nothing more than “a last-minute liquidity play before the cycle ends.”

How did OpenSea responded to the controversy?

Despite the growing outcry, OpenSea has not directly addressed these concerns.

Co-founder Devin Finzer briefly commented that XP rewards extend beyond bidding and listing, but no further details have been provided on how the company plans to mitigate concerns about wash trading and declining floor prices.

For now, OpenSea’s bet on farming-based incentives is pushing the NFT market into another high-risk cycle. Whether the platform listens to its community and makes adjustments remains to be seen, but as history has shown with Blur’s previous farming seasons, unchecked speculative trading can leave lasting damage to the NFT ecosystem.