Hawk Tuah Influencer Says Memecoin Collapse Left Her Traumatized, But Critics Push Back

bitcoinistPubblicato 2026-03-23Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-03-23

Introduzione

Hawk Tuah influencer Hailey Welsh says the collapse of the HAWK memecoin in December 2024 left her traumatized. The token surged to a $490 million market cap before crashing over 90% the next day. Welsh claims she was only a promoter, received no profits, and faced death threats after the incident. She was cleared by an FBI investigation and excluded from an investor lawsuit targeting the token’s creators. Despite warnings from the crypto community, she launched the token without fully understanding the risks. Welsh now advises others to avoid crypto entirely. Estimated losses from the failed launch are around $200,000.

Her lawyer puts the total losses from the botched HAWK token launch at roughly $200,000 — a figure that, in the world of crypto, barely registers. But for Hailey Welsh, better known online as the “Hawk Tuah Girl,” the fallout from that December 2024 disaster was anything but small.

Hawk Tuah: Death Threats And Silence Followed The Crash

Welsh told YouTube channel Channel 5 that she went into hiding for months after the token’s collapse, driven there by a wave of death threats and public anger.

“I’m sitting here, and I’m the one getting hit for this,” she said. “It’s rough.” She described pulling her head down whenever she stepped outside, bracing for hostility wherever she went. The experience, she said, left her traumatized.

The HAWK memecoin launched in December 2024 and exploded almost immediately. Within hours, its market cap surged past $490 million. Then it collapsed just as fast — down more than 90% the next day, bottoming out around $40 million.

It has since fallen to just over $1 million. The crash was widely labeled a rug pull, though Welsh insists she had no hand in engineering it.

She told Channel 5’s Andrew Callaghan that she was approached and agreed to promote the coin without fully grasping what she was getting into.

She said she received none of the proceeds and lacked the technical knowledge to launch a token in the first place. A Federal Bureau of Investigation probe examined her role in 2025. Investigators cleared her of any wrongdoing.

Lawsuit Targets Creators, Not Welsh

An investor lawsuit filed in December 2024 named the team and entities behind the coin — not Welsh. The suit alleged those parties sold unregistered securities.

Welsh was kept out of the legal action entirely, which tracks with her account of being a public face rather than a decision-maker.

BTCUSD now trading at $68,777. Chart: TradingView

Still, not everyone is moved by her version of events. Onchain analyst ZachXBT said the broader crypto community had warned Welsh repeatedly not to move forward with a token launch.

She launched one anyway. When it collapsed, he said, she went quiet while investors absorbed the losses.

Hawk Tuah Girl Now Tells Others To Avoid Crypto Entirely

More than a year after the incident, Welsh says she still does not understand the crypto industry. Her advice to anyone considering getting involved: stay out.

She told Callaghan that people need to be careful about what they attach their name to — a lesson she learned the hard way.

Whether Welsh was a victim, a willing participant, or something in between remains a matter of debate. What is not in dispute is that the coin was launched, it failed, and real people lost money.

Her lawyer’s $200,000 estimate of retail losses may sound modest against the token’s once-massive valuation, but it was real money that belonged to real people who bought in on her name.

Featured image from Getty Images, chart from TradingView

Domande pertinenti

QWhat was the total estimated loss from the HAWK token launch as stated by Hailey Welsh's lawyer?

AHer lawyer put the total losses at roughly $200,000.

QWhat was the peak market capitalization of the HAWK memecoin and what did it fall to the next day?

AIts market cap surged past $490 million and then collapsed by more than 90% the next day, bottoming out around $40 million.

QWhat was the outcome of the Federal Bureau of Investigation probe into Hailey Welsh's role in the token launch?

AInvestigators cleared her of any wrongdoing.

QAccording to onchain analyst ZachXBT, what did the crypto community do before the token launch?

AZachXBT said the broader crypto community had warned Welsh repeatedly not to move forward with a token launch.

QWhat is Hailey Welsh's current stance on the crypto industry after the incident?

AHer advice is for anyone considering getting involved to stay out of crypto entirely.

Letture associate

Amidst Capital's Encirclement, Decentralization is the Sole Defense for Public Blockchains

In a landscape dominated by power and profit motives, the author argues that decentralization is not merely one desirable feature among many in blockchain design—it is the singular, non-negotiable defense against corporate and capital capture. The article adopts a Machiavellian, realist perspective on human institutions, positing that businesses will inevitably attempt to co-opt any valuable network to protect their profits and dominance. While external attacks like 51% forks are often discussed, the greater existential risk is internal capture—the gradual erosion of a protocol’s neutrality by vested interests, as seen historically with platforms like Visa and Google. The piece critiques permissioned chains, highly centralized “permissionless” layer-1s, and layer-2s without sufficient decentralization (e.g., single sequencers) as inherently vulnerable. These compromised systems, promoted by established financial players, are framed as delaying tactics to stifle truly open networks that threaten existing high-fee, inefficient business models. Real-world examples, such as closed enterprise consortiums that exclude competitors, illustrate how such systems cement oligopolies rather than foster innovation. The author concludes that while decentralized protocols like Ethereum are imperfect and costly to operate, they represent the only viable long-term equilibrium. In a market where value naturally flows to the most secure and neutral settlement layer, only maximally decentralized public blockchains can resist being subsumed by capital and powerful incumbents.

Foresight News11 min fa

Amidst Capital's Encirclement, Decentralization is the Sole Defense for Public Blockchains

Foresight News11 min fa

Who Decides the Rules of Bitcoin? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

Bitcoin's governance is once again at the center of a heated debate, this time ignited by BIP-110, the "Reduced Data Temporary Softfork." This proposal aims to curb non-monetary data (like inscriptions and Runes) by introducing seven new consensus-layer restrictions over a year, such as limiting new output scripts to 34 bytes and restoring the OP_RETURN cap to 83 bytes. The controversy stems from BIP-110's fundamental shift: it moves the battle against "spam" from node relay and miner policies to the consensus layer, rendering currently valid transactions invalid. Supporters, arguing that default policy governance has failed (highlighted by Bitcoin Core v30's relaxation of OP_RETURN limits), see this as necessary to protect node resources and Bitcoin's monetary focus. Opponents, led by figures like Michael Saylor and Adam Back, warn it dangerously centralizes governance. Saylor listed 110 reasons against it, criticizing its low 55% miner activation threshold and potential for chain splits. Back emphasized Bitcoin's "permissionless" ethos, arguing no single group should impose value judgments via consensus rules. Further complicating matters, technical critiques suggest BIP-110 may be technically circumventable, and a "BlockSlop" vulnerability in its upgrade path poses a consensus risk. The debate has drawn in diverse stakeholders: miners (with pools like Ocean signaling support and Foundry polling clients), node operators (like Bitcoin Knots), and new players like corporate treasury holder MicroStrategy (Saylor), whose market influence adds a novel dimension. Ultimately, BIP-110 acts as a governance stress test, exposing the unresolved question: who decides Bitcoin's rules? It pits the authority of miners, node operators, developers, and capital holders against each other, with each side claiming to defend Bitcoin's core principles of neutrality and security.

marsbit28 min fa

Who Decides the Rules of Bitcoin? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

marsbit28 min fa

Who Decides Bitcoin's Rules? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

Title: Who Decides Bitcoin's Rules? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate A new technical proposal, BIP-110 (Reduced Data Temporary Softfork), has sparked a fundamental governance debate within the Bitcoin community. It aims to impose new consensus rules for one year to limit non-financial data (like inscriptions and Runes) on-chain, moving beyond simple node and miner policy filters to invalidate currently valid transactions. Supporters argue that default policies have failed due to workarounds, necessitating consensus-layer changes to protect Bitcoin's core monetary function from data spam. Critics, including Michael Saylor and Adam Back, contend this dangerously centralizes judgment, undermines permissionlessness, and sets a risky governance precedent. They advocate for market-based solutions like fees or Layer 2s instead. The debate exposes deeper tensions: miners are divided on activation; node operators assert their sovereignty; Bitcoin Core developers influence defaults without direct accountability; and large corporate holders like MicroStrategy now wield narrative influence. Technically, BIP-110 may not fully block data and carries a disclosed consensus bug risk. Ultimately, BIP-110 acts as a stress test, forcing the community to confront the unresolved question: who legitimately decides what Bitcoin is and how it evolves, amidst competing claims from miners, nodes, developers, and capital holders.

链捕手40 min fa

Who Decides Bitcoin's Rules? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

链捕手40 min fa

Zcash's New Node Zakura Goes Live: Privacy Payments Can Reach 50,000 TPS, Aiming to Rival Visa and Mastercard

Zcash, a privacy-focused cryptocurrency, has launched a new full node software called Zakura version 1.0.0. Developed by Zcash co-founder Sean Bowe and Dev Ojha, with private ZEC donations, its goal is to enable Zcash to process over 50,000 transactions per second (TPS)—matching the scale of Visa and Mastercard—while maintaining full transaction privacy and verifiability. This addresses a key bottleneck, as Zcash currently handles only about 1 private transaction per second. Zakura is a fork of the Zcash Foundation's Zebra node. It features chain pruning and snapshots, reducing disk usage and allowing new nodes to sync in under two minutes. It also offers compatibility with the legacy `zcashd` client interface. The scalability challenge stems from the large data size of privacy proofs. Bowe's Tachyon project aims to use recursive proofs to reduce consensus-layer data needs from ~500 MB/s to ~100 MB/s. For wallet scalability, Valar Group is researching Private Information Retrieval (PIR) tech to allow wallets to fetch their data privately. Zakura supports fast block propagation and the upcoming "Ironwood" network upgrade (NU6.3), scheduled for activation around July 28th. Ironwood was created to contain a critical inflation bug discovered in the Orchard shielded pool in May 2024. The fix uses "turnstiles" to trap any counterfeit ZEC created during the vulnerability period within the shielded pool, preventing it from entering circulation and restoring supply integrity.

marsbit55 min fa

Zcash's New Node Zakura Goes Live: Privacy Payments Can Reach 50,000 TPS, Aiming to Rival Visa and Mastercard

marsbit55 min fa

Trading

Spot
活动图片