A $6.6M Dispute: Crypto Founders Clash Over Insider Trading Claims

The crypto community is watching a heated public feud between two project founders. Shaw, founder of ElizaOS, has leveled serious allegations against baoskee, founder of daos.fun, accusing him of using confidential information to profit from token sales ahead of major project changes.

The Allegation: Acting on Privileged Knowledge

The conflict stems from a trademark request by venture firm a16z, which prompted the original project to consider a name change. The team had committed to a community Snapshot vote in June 2025 to decide on the rename and migration process democratically.

Shaw claims this promised vote never materialized as scheduled. During this period, with knowledge of the impending rename and technical migration timeline, baoskee allegedly took action.

  • Full Exit: He is accused of selling all tokens from the project's main treasury wallet.
  • Sustained Selling：Continued to sell tokens in the market right up until the migration to the new ElizaOS brand.
  • Market Impact: This sell pressure reportedly contributed to a notable decline in the token's price.

Shaw argues that baoskee possessed material, non-public information about project timelines—a clear advantage over the general community and token holders.

The Rebuttal: Denials and Counterclaims

Baoskee swiftly denied the "insider trading" allegations, presenting a counter-narrative. He stated that the Snapshot vote did, in fact, go live as intended. Furthermore, he positioned his actions as supportive, claiming daos.fun self-funded and locked over $1 million in liquidity for the token pool.

He also turned the tables, accusing Shaw of "serious issues" regarding project management, the execution of the token migration, and the use of development funds. The single-sided accusation has now become a messy "he said, she said" battle.

Unresolved: The Truth Lies On-Chain

With two conflicting stories, the community is left seeking proof. Shaw has pointed to Solscan on-chain records as definitive evidence, promising to provide transaction links. These immutable blockchain records—detailing wallet movements, transactions, and timestamps—will be crucial for anyone trying to piece together the truth.

This dispute touches on core tensions in decentralized ecosystems: whether insiders profit from privileged information, and if governance promises to the community are upheld. The final judgment may depend on a deep dive into the public ledger.