
On July 7, 2022, the pseudonymous unbreakable token (NFT) collector known as “0xb1” released a Twitter thread that discusses the collector’s true identity and his relationship with the crypto loan company Celsius. According to 0xb1, otherwise known as Jason Stone, his team found “serious problems with how the company worked,” and Stone told Celsius that his team would end its relationship in March 2021. When the team began to develop challenging positions, Stone says, that Celsius suffered. a temporary loss and accused him of being a thief.
Keyfi founder, also known as ‘0xb1’, asks Crypto Lender Celsius
Jason Stone, the founder of Keyfi, a decentralized finance (challenge) aggregation company in which Celsius had an interest, accused Celsius of practicing a number of bad standards including “operating a Ponzi scheme.” Stone addressed the public via Twitter and used an account called “0xb1, ”A well-known NFT whale in the crypto industry with 121,200 Twitter followers. Bitcoin.com News reported on 0xb1 signing an agreement with the talent agency Creative Artists Agency (CAA) in October 2021.
Hello everyone! I’m Jason Stone, and from August 2020 to April 2021, I led the group of talented individuals who managed the 0xb1 address.
– 0xb1 (@ 0x_b1) July 7, 2022
Stone said on Thursday, using the official Twitter account 0xb1 that he and a “group of talented individuals” managed the address 0xb1 from August 2020 to April 2021. In the Twitter thread, he said he feels “only prudent to finally set up the register directly . ” When Celsius partially acquired Keyfi, Stone explained that when the two companies went separate ways, his team “managed nearly $ 2 billion in assets.”
Keyfi’s founder then detailed that Celsius had assured him that there was “risk management and coverage to account for fluctuations in symbolic prices.” “But in late February 2021, we discovered that Celsius was lying to us,” Stone wrote. “They did not cover our activities, nor did they cover the fluctuations in cryptocurrency prices. The portfolio of the entire company had bare exposure to the market,” he added.
Trial says Celsius “operated Ponzi scheme”, Stone aims to “Finally adjust the record”
From the 0xb1 Twitter account, Stone also shared a court case because he filed a lawsuit against Celsius. “The recent revelation that Celsius does not have the assets to perform his retirement duties shows that defendants actually operated a Ponzi scheme,” the process details. However, the lawsuit notes that the parties acted together “without any formal written agreement” and both parties were “engaged in an enterprise for ‘mutual benefit … based on mutual respect and trust.” Stone is represented by the crypto shop law. signature Roche Freedman LLP.
The lawsuit and Stone’s Twitter thread explain that he has tried on many occasions to resolve disputes with Celsius in a private manner. The file filed in New York State states: “On September 1, 2021, Kyle Roche, as a lawyer for Stone and Keyfi, again emailed Mr. Hurley demanding that Celsius make the winning payment, or otherwise commit to paying bills and accounting. agree to mediation. Celsius refused. ” At the end of the 0xb1 Twitter account thread, Stone said:
Considering the public conjecture about the firmness of the firm, and my observation of Celsius ’loose relationship with the truth, I feel it is only prudent to finally correct the record. I have taken legal action against Celsius to settle this matter once and for all.
What do you think of the problems between Jason Stone and Celsius and the lawsuit? Let us know what you think about this topic in the comment section below.
Image Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, WikiCommunity, Editorial Photo Credit: T. Schneider / Shutterstock.com
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or support of any products, services or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is liable, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or allegedly caused by or in connection with the use or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article.