On July 7, 2022, the pseudonymous non-fungible token (NFT) collector known as “0xb1” published a Twitter thread that discusses the collector’s true identity and his relationship with the crypto lending firm Celsius. According to 0xb1, otherwise known as Jason Stone, his team found “major problems in how the company operated,” and Stone told Celsius his team would terminate their relationship in March 2021. When the team started to unwind defi positions, Stone says Celsius suffered impermanent loss and accused him of being a thief.
Keyfi Founder, Also Known as ‘0xb1,’ Sues Crypto Lender Celsius
Jason Stone, the founder of Keyfi, a decentralized finance (defi) aggregator startup that Celsius had a stake in, has 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 inking a deal with the talent agency Creative Artists Agency (CAA) in October 2021.
Hi all! I’m Jason Stone, and from August 2020 until 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 0xb1 official Twitter account, that he and a “group of talented individuals” managed the 0xb1 address from August 2020 until April 2021. In the Twitter thread, he said that he felt “it is only prudent to finally set the record straight.” When Celsius partly acquired Keyfi, Stone explained that by the time the two firms went separate ways, his team was “managing nearly $2 billion of assets.”
The Keyfi founder then detailed that Celsius assured him that there was “risk management and hedging in place to account for fluctuations in token prices.” “But in late Feb 2021, we discovered Celsius had lied to us,” Stone wrote. “They had not been hedging our activities, nor had they been hedging the fluctuations in cryptoasset prices. The entire company’s portfolio had naked exposure to the market,” he added.
Lawsuit Says Celsius Was ‘Operating a Ponzi Scheme,’ Stone Aims to ‘Finally Set the Record Straight’
From the 0xb1 Twitter account, Stone also shared a court filing as he has taken legal action against Celsius. “The recent revelation that Celsius does not have the assets on hand to meet its withdrawal obligations shows that defendants were, in fact, operating a Ponzi scheme,” the lawsuit details. However, the lawsuit does note 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 being represented by the crypto boutique law firm Roche Freedman LLP.
The lawsuit and Stone’s Twitter thread explain that he tried on many occasions to settle disputes with Celsius in a private manner. The filing registered in the state of New York says: “On September 1, 2021, Kyle Roche, as attorney for Stone and Keyfi, again emailed Mr. Hurley demanding that Celsius make the earnout payment, or else commit to paying for an accounting and agree to mediation. Celsius refused.” Toward the end of the 0xb1 Twitter account thread, Stone said:
Given the public speculation about the company’s solvency, and my observation of Celsius’ loose relationship with the truth, I feel it is only prudent to finally set the record straight. I have brought legal action against Celsius to settle this issue once and for all.
What do you think about the issues between Jason Stone and Celsius and the lawsuit? Let us know what you think about this subject in the comments section below.
Image Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons, 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 endorsement of any products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article.