In recent days on X, there has been a lot of talk about what happened with the signing of VC Bankless and the Aicellerate DAO (AICC) project.
According to reports from several users, the investment firm associated with the popular cryptocurrency podcast has allegedly sold its shares in the project despite initial support.
The tokens were liquidated at the expense of the cryptocurrency community, which was previously invited to participate in the AICC, while Bankless recorded significant profits.
Let us trace together the stages of this extravagant story.
What is the Aiccelerate DAO (AICC) project?
Aicellerate DAO is a crypto investment and development project founded by some members of the open source AI teams from Coinbase, ai16z, and Google, and supported by several advisors, including Bankless.
It is a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) focused on the artificial intelligence sectorIts purpose is to accelerate the innovation of artificial intelligence agents.
Aicellerate DAO aims to promote the research and study of new promising resources in the world of cryptocurrencies, leveraging the previous experience and knowledge of the entire group.
The collaborative framework of this project seeks to bring together the best leading minds in the field of cryptocurrencies, and promote a vision that sees artificial intelligence as the future of this sector.
In practice, it aims to become a reference center for AI project developers, unifying all its investment operations under one umbrella. AICC encryption.
This is a coin from the Solana ecosystem, and its purpose is to incentivize participation and facilitate the management of Aicellerate DAO.
The token was officially launched on January 9 through memecoin crowdfunding platform Daos.fun, raising a total of 943 SOL from pre-sale.
As mentioned earlier, this DAO is composed and supported by several high-level members, who support the development of decentralized innovations.
In addition to the Bankless podcast, which has a role “Awareness advisor“We find numbers from the teams Virtual Protocols, Eigenlayer, Moca Network, Story Protocol and others.
Each member of the organization is entitled to an initial allocation of an AICC token as part of a contribution to the project, with one portion tied to vesting and the other committed to a long-term period. commitment.
Bankless VC liquidates AICC token at launch, unleashing community outrage
Immediately after the launch of AICC, many X users noticed that Bankless VC chose to sell a portion of its shares immediately, making a huge profit.
In particular, as reported by the user “ayyyandy“, Bankless promoted the Aiccelerate DAO in the days leading up to the launch, hosting the project’s founder on their podcast.
Then, at the time of AICC’s debut, Bankless could have pulled the rug out by selling about 10% of its allocation, despite the long-term commitment made.
This news is known to the cryptocurrency community because all AICC allocations of project members have been collected in a public document.
By studying blockchain movements, many have noticed how Bankless has dropped a significant share of its tokens, with Profit 1400x
The token initially grew by 1,000 times its initial value, reaching a capitalization of $1.4 billion in a short time, but then collapsed.
In the first hours of trading, AICC price reached a maximum price of $1.3, falling below 0.17 just one hour later.
The price action at the AICC has been particularly disappointing, especially since retail expectations have been pumped to the max.
In addition to Bankless, there also appears to be someone else who manipulated the token, resulting in unusual fluctuations.
At the time of writing, AICC is valued at $0.064, and has a market cap of $73.4 million.
source: https://dexscreener.com/solana/g2uwuq4p6qkk8zp7lvhjpsuie6aj8qudvawaf59atpsg
The Bankless founder justifies himself by saying that it was a “rash mistake” and buys back the shares sold on the market
The story continues with a media storm against Bankless, as its founders try to calm the situation on X.
Cryptocurrency podcast host David Hoffman spoke out to explain what happened, noting that there was an apparent “hasty error.”.
Hoffman commented under the influencer’s post ayyyandyclearly stating that Bankless VC should not hit the sell button when AICC launches.
As part of his commitment to the cause, Hoffman then said that his team bought back the tokens that were sold.
However, it is unfortunate that this initiative came two days after the token dropped 90% from its highs.
Bankless’s buyback of its shares was seen as a smokescreen, given that the token was down 90%.
This meant that far less money was allocated to the purchase of AICC than was gained from the sale, resulting in an extremely unfair practice.
Instead, Bankless should have reinvested all the SOL raised from the sale, bringing AICC back to proper prices.
On the X, many users noticed this type of behavior and continued into the storm phase.
A completely unfair and unbalanced launch model
The fundamental problem with this story is not Bankless’s involvement and short-term profit perspective, but rather the model through which AICC was launched.
In this case, as with many other tokens launched in the past yearThere is a significant discrepancy between the contribution made to the project by consultants and the distribution of allocations.
Entities like Bankless cannot hold $1 million worth of shares of the token after they only promoted the project through their podcast.
At the same time, developers who are more deeply involved and committed should not receive the same shares as consultants.
Furthermore, it’s crazy how some people can actually move into marketplace sales without vesting mechanisms or a scheduled closing.
There is a clear “mismatch” between the contribution made over time and the reward to the wide range of actors who participated in the project.
New token launch dynamics can work when everyone contributes by taking significant and equal financial risks. Or when some people contribute their talent/labor, from a perspective where “labor power” and “capital power” are perfectly aligned.
On the other hand, the AICC model reflects a completely unfair and unbalanced launch model, resulting in a less than noble initial appearance.