The Dark Side of Crypto Influencers Unveiling Tactics of Manipulation and Deception

Written By FTD, CryptoDavid

On September 1, while the market's attention and liquidity were largely focused on Trump’s $WLFI token, renowned on-chain investigator @ZachXBT once again made headlines with a new revelation.

This time, he revealed a document listing paid promotional campaigns conducted by crypto influencers on the X platform for various blockchain projects. The list includes numerous accounts, with total payments exceeding one million dollars. The cost of a single promotional post varied significantly, ranging from $1,500 to as high as $60,000, depending on the influencer’s prominence.

ZachXBT pointed out that among the influencers listed, fewer than five accounts disclosed their promotional posts as advertisements. This means that for the vast majority of posts, followers couldn’t distinguish between paid promotions and genuine, organic sharing.

Shortly after, another investigator, @dethective, took a closer look at the original document, analyzing and organizing the data further. Their findings uncovered even more elaborate strategies employed by these influencers in their paid promotions.

One Wallet, Multiple Accounts: Double Dipping in Promotions

In @dethective’s analysis, one of the first red flags that emerged was the repeated appearance of certain wallet addresses on the list.

This indicates that a single wallet might be linked to multiple crypto influencer accounts, enabling the same individual to collect promotional fees twice or even multiple times for the same project.

Take the accounts @Regrets10x and @lynk0x as examples.

The list shows that the former earned $8,000 for four promotional posts, while the latter received $12,000 for the same number of posts. This difference is likely attributed to variations in follower count between the two accounts.

However, both accounts share the exact same wallet address:

EKvYizd7LqTmMj4QqmKsHm8wdg7TXzFoHHg664FdnhCRh

Upon further cross-referencing, @dethective discovered that this wasn’t an isolated case. Approximately 10 instances of repeated wallet addresses appeared on the list.

One plausible explanation is that certain influencers use secondary or affiliated accounts to amplify their promotional reach. Their failure to use separate wallet addresses exposed their tactics.

Whether due to laziness or oversight, the shared wallet addresses highlight a coordinated effort to dominate social media timelines with posts from multiple accounts, creating an illusion of widespread support for a project and triggering FOMOamong followers.

Unsurprisingly, the two influencers in question didn’t remain silent after being exposed.

@lynk0x denied receiving payments in the comments section, claiming that @Regrets10x was merely a friend and that the shared wallet was purely coincidental.

However, @dethective quickly countered with evidence.

The wallet in question had reportedly collected $60,000 from an airdrop associated with a project called “Boop.” To claim the airdrop, the wallet had to be linked to an X account, indirectly proving the connection between the wallet and the two influencer accounts. This made their denial increasingly untenable.

Meanwhile, @Regrets10x offered a more casual response, stating that as long as promotional posts are disclosed as ads, there is nothing inherently wrong with paid promotions.

There is indeed nothing wrong with accepting paid promotions, and disclosing such relationships can help followers understand the motivations and financial interests behind posts. Many professional crypto influencers even add disclaimers like “related to financial interests” or “unrelated to financial interests” at the end of their posts.

The issue arises when two accounts controlled by the same person post identical promotional content, with one account openly disclosing it as an advertisement while the other remains silent. This creates a perception of authenticity while strategically masking the promotional nature of the posts, akin to a persona matrix tactic.

Even more concerning is the industrialization of this multi-account strategy.

Previously, research institution DFRLab published a study titled “Anatomy of a Twitter-augmented crypto scam,” which revealed that certain illicit operations control dozens of accounts, posting nearly 300 posts daily. These operations use mass account farming, automated reposts and replies, and cross-account endorsements to fabricate a false sense of public approval.

Operators often purchase old accounts or register new ones in bulk, rebranding them with new usernames and profile pictures to create the appearance of fresh influencers. Scripts are then employed to copy identical promotional messages into the comment sections of high-traffic posts, effectively farming followers and amplifying reach.

"To The Moon": Wallet Profits and Paid Promotions

After the exposure of the list, another striking observation emerged. The profits earned by these overseas crypto influencers from their wallets often closely align with the tokens they promote.

In other words, these influencers are not casually sharing their “insights” or opinions. Instead, they receive specific tasks, promote the tokens through posts, and then engage in trading themselves after the promotion.

Take the account @0xSweep as an example. Based on @dethective’s wallet analysis, the primary sources of profit for this influencer are several tokens traded on the BullX platform, including $AETHER, $BOB, and $BARSIK.

The sequence of events reveals a clear pattern. These tokens were all listed in ZachXBT’s exposed records of paid promotions. Additionally, @0xSweep repeatedly mentioned these tokens in his X posts, praising their potential and suggesting they had "to the moon" prospects.

However, his wallet activity shows that the profitable trades occurred precisely around the time of the promotions. This strongly suggests that the project team paid him to post promotional content, which increased the token’s hype. He then capitalized on the heightened interest by trading the tokens himself.

This implies that when an account repeatedly shares “trading insights” about specific tokens, their income may not actually stem from trading expertise or market analysis.

A similar case is that of @ShmooNFT. His Telegram channel promotes around 10 tokens daily, giving the impression of genuine enthusiasm for sharing.

However, wallet tracking indicates that his only profitable trades, such as $DEGE, $BON, and $BOTIFY, were all tokens he had promoted on X and were also part of ZachXBT’s previously exposed list.

The core issue with this model lies in the fact that these influencers’ “recommendations” are biased. Promotional posts are often disguised as genuine suggestions, leading followers to believe the recommendations are sincere, when in reality, they are paid collaborations.

While it’s possible for some tokens to genuinely have potential, leading to mutual benefits for both influencers and followers, the risks are significant. If the promoted tokens turn out to be “rug pulls” or fail entirely, the influencers’ credibility and influence take a serious hit.

The cleverness of this strategy lies in the fact that these overseas influencers could potentially earn three streams of income from this process.

First, they receive free tokens through airdrops. Then, they charge the project teams for promotional posts. Lastly, they sell the airdropped tokens after driving up their prices through hype.

An advanced tactic often seen involves leveraging the profits from these trades to build an image of being a “trading guru.” This allows them to establish paid membership groups and collect “entry fees” from followers seeking trading advice.

"Demand Drives the Market": Why Project Teams Still Choose Certain Influencers

In the conclusion of the analysis post, @dethective posed a thought-provoking question:

Why do some project teams continue to collaborate with overseas crypto influencers, despite being aware of their tactics and behaviors?

The answer lies in the principle that demand creates the market.

Certain projects specifically target audiences who are drawn to the allure of “getting rich quick.” Many of the influencers highlighted in the earlier report operate channels and groups that cater perfectly to this demographic. These individuals often lack the ability for independent research, rely heavily on hype and luck, and hope to discover an undervalued “golden token.”

As a result, influencers running such accounts are often perceived as more commercially valuable within a marketing ecosystem where bad money drives out good.

While exposing these practices may lead to disputes and potential backlash, it is worth noting that even if an influencer successfully promotes just one or two tokens, they can easily leverage those wins to amplify their reputation as a trading expert.

In a market filled with noise and blurred truths, crypto investing is far more complex than simply following promotional posts. Influencers who promise guaranteed profits will always exist, but the funds lost by followers chasing their recommendations are unlikely to return.