the company dumps the crypto AICC

In recent days on X, there has been a lot of talk about what happened with the VC Bankless signature and the Aicellerate DAO (AICC) project.

According to reports from several users, the investment company related to the well-known crypto Podcast allegedly sold its shares of the project despite the initial support.

The tokens were liquidated to the detriment of the crypto community, previously invited to participate in AICC, while Bankless recorded a considerable profit.

Let’s retrace together the stages of this extravagant story.

What is the Aiccelerate DAO (AICC) project?

Aicellerate DAO is a cryptographic investment and development project founded by some members of the AI open source teams from Coinbase, ai16z, and Google, and supported by several advisors, among which Bankless stands out.

It is a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) focused on the artificial intelligence sector, whose purpose is to accelerate the innovation of AI Agents.

Aicellerate DAO aims to enhance the research and study of new promising resources in the crypto world, leveraging the previous experience and know-how of the entire group.

The collaborative framework of this project seeks to bring together the best leading minds of the crypto space, promoting a vision that sees AI as the future of the sector.

In practice, it aims to become the reference hub for developers of AI projects, unifying all its investment operations under the crypto AICC.

This is a coin from the Solana ecosystem, whose purpose is to incentivize participation and facilitate the governance of Aicellerate DAO.

The token was officially launched on January 9 through the crowdfunding platform for memecoin Daos.fun, raising a total of 943 SOL from the presale.

As mentioned, this DAO is composed and supported by various high-level members, who support the development of decentralized innovations.

In addition to the Bankless podcast, which has a role of “Outreach Advisor,” we find figures from the teams of Virtual Protocols, Eigenlayer, Moca Network, Story Protocol, and others.

Every member of the organization is entitled to an initial allocation of the AICC token as part of the contribution to the project, with one part locked in vesting and another committed to a long-term committment.

Bankless VC liquidates the AICC token at launch and unleashes the anger of the community

Immediately after the launch of AICC, many users on X noticed that Bankless VC chose to instantly sell part of its shares, making a large profit.

In particular, according to what was reported by the user “ayyyeandy”, Bankless had promoted Aiccelerate DAO in the days leading up to the launch, hosting the project’s founder on their podcast.

Then, at the time of AICC’s debut, Bankless would have pulled the rug by selling about 10% of its allocation, despite the commitment made in the long term.

These news are known to the crypto community because all the respective AICC allocations for the project members have been gathered in a public document.

By studying the movements of the blockchain, many have noticed how Bankless has reduced by a substantial share of tokens, with a gain of 1400x.

The token had initially grown by 1,000 times its initial value, reaching a capitalization of 1.4 billion dollars in a short time, only to crash afterwards.

In the early hours of trading, AICC reached a maximum price of 1.3 dollars, only to fall below 0.17 just an hour later.

The price action of AICC has been particularly disappointing, especially since the expectations of retail were pumped to the maximum.

In addition to Bankless, it seems that there was also someone else who manipulated the token, leading to an unusual volatility.

At the time of writing, AICC is worth 0.064 dollars, with a market cap of 73.4 million dollars.

Source: https://dexscreener.com/solana/g2uwuq4p6qkk8zp7lvhjpsuie6aj8qudvawaf59atpsg

The founder of Bankless justifies himself by saying it was an “impulsive mistake” and repurchases the shares sold on the market

The story continues with a media shitstorm against Bankless, with its founders trying to calm the situation on X.

One of the two hosts of the crypto podcast, David Hoffamn, spoke up to explain what happened, stating that there was a clear “impulsive error”.

Hoffaman commented under the post of the influencer ayyyeandy, clearly stating that Bankless VC should not have pressed the sell button at the launch of AICC.

As part of his commitment to the cause, Hoffman then said that his team repurchased the tokens that were sold.

It’s a pity, though, that this initiative came 2 days after the token had dropped by 90% from its highs.

The buyback of its own shares by Bankless was seen as a smokescreen, given that the token had dropped by 90%.

This means that much less money was committed to buy AICC than was earned from the sale, resulting in a practice that is not very fair.

Rather, Bankless should have reinvested all the SOL collected from the sale, bringing AICC back to decent prices.

On X many users have noticed this kind of behavior and have continued the phase of shitstorm.

An unfair and completely unbalanced launch model

The underlying problem of this story is not the involvement of Bankless and its short-term profit perspective, but rather the model with which AICC was launched.

In this case, as with many other tokens launched in the last year, there is a strong discrepancy between the contribution offered to the project by the advisors and the distribution of the allocation.

Entities like Bankless cannot hold million-dollar shares of the token having only promoted the project through their own podcast.

At the same time, developers involved more deeply and with a greater commitment should not have the same shares as the advisors.

Furthermore, it is crazy how some individuals can actually move to sales on the market without vesting mechanisms or scheduled lock-up.

There is an evident “mismatch” between the contribution offered over time and the reward for a wide range of actors who have participated in the project.

The dynamics of launching new tokens can work when everyone contributes by taking on a substantial and equal financial risk. Or when some people contribute with their talent/work, in a perspective where the “workforce” and the “capital force” are perfectly aligned.

That of AICC, on the other hand, reflects an unfair and completely unbalanced launch model, such as to have led to a less than noble debut.