Former New York Mayor Involved in Rug Pull Allegations: On-Chain Investigation into NYC Token

marsbitPubblicato 2026-01-15Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-01-15

Introduzione

Former New York City Mayor Eric Adams faces allegations of a "rug pull" following the launch of the NYC token. Shortly after its debut on January 13, the token’s value plummeted over 80% when the liquidity pool creator address (9Ty4M4t9MZArhJBKFWbYrzeqdMf2Ua5eHWSRW3LXKyGt) removed approximately 2.377 million USDC just 30 minutes post-launch. This caused the token’s market cap to crash from a high of $600 million to under $100 million. Beosin’s on-chain analysis traced the initial funding to a Mayan bridge and Kraken. After the crash, the same address began making small purchases of NYC tokens, but the price only recovered to around $0.133. The address still holds 1.332 million USDC, resulting in an estimated profit of $330,000. Adams denied personal profit or involvement in removing funds. However, the analysis confirms liquidity manipulation, with only about $1 million returned to liquidity after $2.37 million was withdrawn. This incident highlights the significant risks associated with celebrity-backed tokens.

Author: Beosin

On January 13-14, former New York City Mayor Eric Adams faced significant scrutiny after the token he launched, NYC, experienced a sharp price drop shortly after its release. The Beosin security team conducted a detailed on-chain analysis of the incident and shares the findings below:

Event Overview

On January 13, Beijing time, former New York City Mayor Eric Adams announced the launch of the NYC token (token contract address: Ho5fkxk9uqUuVN5kt7TUFacduWCpKPAuYkM9HD3KAXA2) on social media. However, just 30 minutes after the token went live, the address that created the liquidity pool, 9Ty4M4t9MZArhJBKFWbYrzeqdMf2Ua5eHWSRW3LXKyGt, began removing liquidity:

https://solscan.io/account/9Ty4M4t9MZArhJBKFWbYrzeqdMf2Ua5eHWSRW3LXKyGt

This address removed approximately 2,377,376 USDC, causing the price of the NYC token to plummet by over 80%, and its market capitalization to shrink from a peak of $600 million to less than $100 million.

https://ave.ai/token/Ho5fkxk9uqUuVN5kt7TUFacduWCpKPAuYkM9HD3KAXA2-solana

On January 15, Adams continued to promote the NYC token by retweeting related posts and issued a statement through his representative, Todd Shapiro, claiming that he did not profit from the NYC token and did not withdraw any funds from it. However, the community remains skeptical.

On-Chain Data Analysis

Using BeosinTrace to analyze the Solana address 9Ty4M4t9MZArhJBKFWbYrzeqdMf2Ua5eHWSRW3LXKyGt, we obtained the following results regarding its on-chain activities.

1. On-Chain Activity Overview

The address 9Ty4M obtained 1,000,001 USDC from the Mayan cross-chain bridge and a Kraken user address, then created the NYC-USDC liquidity pool. After removing liquidity at 6:43 Beijing time on January 13, which caused the price to crash, the address 9Ty4M began making small purchases of NYC tokens starting at 16:15 on the same day, continuing to the present.

Further tracing of the cross-chain funds reveals that they originated from the Arbitrum address 0xBc985b167C5F3801B19E2Dec7082c2fcbBF07e91. Continuing the trace, it was found that 90% of these funds were withdrawn from Kraken, while 10% came from an unknown multi-chain active trading address, 0x276fbb81c8a7567ad2412469a549bd4dc82cab65.

2. Transaction Data Analysis

According to BeosinTrace data statistics, the address 9Ty4M has purchased 2,301,250 and 1,566,926 NYC tokens via the addresses FWuiWEdkcR1NLPjozcEuErtGGDZG5kyPu3oszmnF8uni and H7Lnoh82SZghsXmoqffoCiFz7U3D1cwZ8ZPjRUMU7fc5, respectively, on Jupiter. However, the price of NYC has only recovered to 0.133-0.134, with a total market capitalization of approximately $130 million.

Currently, the address 9Ty4M still holds 1,332,243.85 USDC. Excluding any gains from NYC tokens, this address has profited by approximately $330,000 due to the limited liquidity of the NYC token.

Conclusion

This celebrity token launch has once again sparked significant controversy. Token issuance itself involves risks related to compliance, technology, and fund security. The removal of liquidity, which led to a sharp decline in the token's price, has negatively impacted investors and the market.

The on-chain analysis using BeosinTrace confirms the existence of "liquidity manipulation" behavior. After withdrawing $2.37 million in liquidity, the issuer continued to make purchases but only returned approximately $1 million, with the remaining $1.33 million still held in the issuer's address. Users should enhance their security awareness and avoid trading such high-risk, easily manipulated tokens. Beosin will continue to monitor the token's liquidity situation and the fund movements of related addresses to safeguard users' funds.

Domande pertinenti

QWhat is the main controversy surrounding former New York City Mayor Eric Adams and the NYC token?

AFormer NYC Mayor Eric Adams is facing controversy after the NYC token, which he promoted, experienced a price crash of over 80% shortly after launch. This occurred when the address that set up the liquidity pool removed approximately 2.38 million USDC, leading to accusations of a 'Rug Pull'.

QWhat on-chain evidence from BeosinTrace suggests a 'liquidity manipulation' in the NYC token incident?

ABeosinTrace analysis revealed that the address '9Ty4M...' removed liquidity worth about 2.38 million USDC 30 minutes after the token launch, causing the price to crash. Later, the same address began buying back NYC tokens in small amounts, but only returned approximately 1 million USDC worth of value, while 1.33 million USDC remained in their wallet, indicating a net withdrawal of funds.

QWhat was the source of the initial funds used to create the NYC token liquidity pool according to the investigation?

AThe investigation traced the initial 1,000,001 USDC used to create the liquidity pool. It originated from the Mayan cross-chain bridge and a Kraken user address. Further tracing showed these funds came from an Arbitrum address, with 90% withdrawn from Kraken and 10% from an unknown multi-chain active trading address.

QHow did Eric Adams and his spokesperson respond to the allegations regarding the NYC token?

AEric Adams continued to promote the NYC token after the incident. His spokesperson, Todd Shapiro, stated that Adams did not personally profit from the token and did not remove any funds from it, though the statement did not alleviate community skepticism.

QWhat is the current status of the address that removed the liquidity, and what is their estimated profit?

AThe address '9Ty4M...' still holds 1,332,243.85 USDC. After accounting for the value of the NYC tokens it bought back, the investigation estimates the address has a profit of approximately $330,000 from this activity.

Letture associate

Zcash Bug Could Have Minted Unlimited ZEC Undetected

A critical vulnerability in Zcash's Orchard shielded pool, discovered by researcher Taylor Hornby on May 29, 2026, could have allowed an attacker to create an unlimited amount of undetectable counterfeit ZEC. The flaw, involving an under-constrained element in the Orchard circuit, existed from the pool's 2022 activation until an emergency fix was deployed by June 2, 2026. Hornby identified the bug using AI-assisted auditing tools and confirmed its exploitability in a test environment. Due to Orchard's privacy features, which hide transaction amounts and history, there is no cryptographic way to prove whether the vulnerability was exploited before the fix. While Shielded Labs assesses prior exploitation as unlikely, this uncertainty has sparked a debate on proving supply integrity in privacy-preserving systems. In response, Shielded Labs and other developers are exploring a network upgrade, potentially involving a new shielded pool and formal verification of the circuit rules to prevent future vulnerabilities and allow verification of the ZEC supply's integrity. ZEC's price fell nearly 45% following the disclosure.

bitcoinist4 min fa

Zcash Bug Could Have Minted Unlimited ZEC Undetected

bitcoinist4 min fa

Silicon Valley 'Startup Guru' Steve Hoffman: Web3 + AI Could Be a Trap

Silicon Valley investor and "Godfather of Startups" Steve Hoffman warns that combining Web3 with AI is likely a trap, not a promising venture. In an interview, Hoffman argues that while AI is a foundational technology touching all industries, Web3 adds complexity, friction, and regulatory risk without solving mainstream consumer or business needs. He advises founders to focus on deep, specialized applications where startups can out-iterate giants, rather than on generic features easily replicated by large tech companies. Hoffman observes that Silicon Valley will lead foundational AI research, while China excels at rapid, large-scale application and commercialization, particularly in robotics. He stresses that AI-driven autonomous agents capable of collaborative, multi-step tasks are 2-4 years away, which will cause significant job displacement. The solution is not to slow AI but to redesign business models around human-AI collaboration and reform social systems like education and retraining. For startups, Hoffman recommends focusing on vertical, expertise-heavy domains to build defensibility. He sees major opportunities in AI fraud detection and cybersecurity. Key founder mindsets include systemic thinking over feature-focus, relentless customer centricity, building adaptive teams, and deeply understanding AI's capabilities and limits. Hoffman is also leading a non-profit initiative to establish university centers aimed at training future leaders in responsible, human-value-aligned AI innovation.

marsbit1 h fa

Silicon Valley 'Startup Guru' Steve Hoffman: Web3 + AI Could Be a Trap

marsbit1 h fa

Token Inefficient, Economy Tokenless

The article "Tokens Aren't Economical, Economics Aren't Tokenized" analyzes a pivotal shift in the AI industry from a technology-driven narrative to one dominated by capital efficiency. It highlights two concurrent trends: a severe capital shortage due to the exorbitant and recurring costs of compute (e.g., OpenAI's high burn rate) and a wave of corporate spin-offs where major tech companies are separating their AI units (like Kuaishou's Kling and Baidu's Kunlunxin). The core argument is that AI's "anti-internet" business model, where user growth increases costs rather than profits, has created a disconnect between high valuations and actual cash flow. Spin-offs address this by allowing AI assets to be valued independently. Within a parent company, they are seen as cost centers, but as standalone entities, they are priced based on their growth potential and scarcity in the primary market, leading to massive valuation premiums (e.g., Kling's estimated value tripling post-spin-off). The industry is at an inflection point, moving from "model worship" to "value realization." The competition is evolving from a pure compute (GPU) race to a broader focus on systemic efficiency and full-stack engineering (involving CPUs and orchestration) to achieve viable commercialization. The year 2026 is framed as a critical moment where the industry must definitively answer how to economically translate AI capability into tangible business value, reshaping the sector's future power structure.

marsbit1 h fa

marsbit1 h fa

Crossing the 'Memory Wall': The Wafer-Level Revolution and Computing Power Routes in the AI Inference Era

In 2026, a historic shift occurred in AI as major cloud providers' inference spending surpassed training spending for the first time, signaling a move from "building large models" to "using large models." This shifts the core challenge from computing power to the "memory wall"—the bottleneck of data movement (model weights, activations, KV Cache) between external DRAM and processors, where energy and latency from data transfer far exceed computation itself. Companies like Nvidia face GPU idle time due to bandwidth limits. In contrast, Cerebras Systems adopts a radical "wafer-scale" approach with its Wafer-Scale Engine (WSE). Instead of cutting a silicon wafer into many chips, Cerebras uses almost the entire wafer as one massive chip (WSE-3). This design provides 44GB of on-chip SRAM, delivering memory bandwidth thousands of times higher than traditional HBM (e.g., 21 PB/s vs. Nvidia B200). For LLM inference, weights are streamed layer-by-layer from external MemoryX storage to the chip, avoiding HBM bottlenecks. This results in token generation speeds 1.5–5 times faster than Nvidia's B200 in some models and significant advantages in first-token latency and long-context tasks. Additionally, Cerebras's architecture offers much lower interconnect power consumption (0.15 pJ/bit vs. GPU's ~10 pJ/bit). However, Cerebras faces challenges: SRAM scaling has slowed with advanced nodes, limiting future capacity gains; the chip requires specialized liquid cooling and custom software stacks; and its external I/O bandwidth (150 GB/s) is low compared to NVLink, hindering multi-system scaling for very large models. Competition is intensifying. Major players are pursuing three paths: 1) Developing proprietary inference ASICs (e.g., Google TPU, Microsoft Maia), 2) Leveraging advanced packaging (e.g., TSMC's SoW) to democratize wafer-scale-like integration, potentially eroding Cerebras's process advantage within a few years, and 3) Exploring optical interconnects for ultimate bandwidth. Commercially, Cerebras is transitioning from a hardware vendor to a service provider, facing the immense challenge of building high-power, specialized data centers to meet large contracts (e.g., 250MW/year from 2026–2028). In conclusion, the AI inference era presents a fundamental architectural trade-off. Cerebras opts for extreme physical optimization for low-latency, single-task performance, while Nvidia prioritizes versatility and massive cluster throughput. The path forward remains uncertain, with technology and business models still evolving in the race toward advanced AI.

marsbit1 h fa

Crossing the 'Memory Wall': The Wafer-Level Revolution and Computing Power Routes in the AI Inference Era

marsbit1 h fa

Has Bitcoin's 'Rebound Ended', Officially Entering the Late Bear Market Phase?

**Title: Has Bitcoin's Rebound Ended, Entering the Late Bear Market Phase?** **Summary:** Bitcoin's price has declined by 13% this week, signaling a potential return to late-stage bear market conditions. The price fell to around $67k, positioned between the Realized Price and Realized Cap Weighted Average. For the first time since early 2022, the Short-Term Holder cost basis has dropped below this key average, confirming a hallmark of late-cycle bear markets. Profitability metrics have collapsed sharply. The 7-day average of the Realized Profit/Loss ratio plummeted from a local high of 3.16 to 0.29, mirroring the February panic sell-off. Critically, the 90-day average never breached the threshold of 2, indicating the recent rally to $82k was a bear market bounce, not a structural shift. Realized losses surged to $1.35 billion daily, with $770 million coming from Long-Term Holders selling at a loss. This accelerating redistribution of supply from weak to strong hands is a necessary but ongoing process for a market bottom. The rally stalled almost precisely at the aggregate cost basis (~$83k) of US spot Bitcoin ETF investors, turning that level into strong resistance and leaving the average ETF holder underwater again. Spot market flows have turned decisively negative, showing sellers are dominating order books despite the price drop. While a significant futures long liquidation event cleared over $400 million in leverage, providing a potential reset, sustained spot demand is yet to materialize. Options markets continue to price in higher future volatility (Implied Volatility) than recent price action (Realized Volatility) has shown, with a persistent skew towards put options, indicating ongoing demand for downside protection. In conclusion, multiple metrics point to a fragile market structure. Resistance at the ETF cost basis, accelerating realized losses, dominant spot selling, and cautious options pricing all suggest the bear market trend persists. A sustainable recovery likely requires a resurgence of spot demand, ETF holders returning to profit, and a clear reduction in selling pressure.

marsbit1 h fa

Has Bitcoin's 'Rebound Ended', Officially Entering the Late Bear Market Phase?

marsbit1 h fa

Trading

Spot

Futures