CryptoPunk Sale for $56.3 Million Raises Suspicions — Community Suspects Marketing Stunt
Date: 2024-10-04 Author: Gabriel Deangelo Categories: CRYPTO PAYMENTS
The sale of the CryptoPunk 1563 NFT, allegedly completed for 24,000 ETH (or $56.3 million), has caused a stir in the crypto community this week. It is one of the highest transactions in the history of the CryptoPunk collection, but its details have led many to question its authenticity.
The problem is that the transaction was apparently conducted using a flash loan. This is a method in which funds are borrowed and repaid in a single transaction on the blockchain, essentially leaving the ownership and value of the asset unchanged.
A well-known crypto researcher who goes by the name 0xQuit has revealed that the flash loan was likely used as part of a marketing strategy ahead of the launch of a new token called "Kamala Harris Punk." This suggests that the CryptoPunk deal was artificially created to draw attention to the upcoming presale.
The flash loan was provided by the decentralized finance protocol Balancer. Despite the complex nature of the transaction, no real value was exchanged. The buyer took out a loan of 24,000 ETH, which was immediately returned by the seller, without any profit being made. In essence, only network fees were paid, and the NFT simply moved from one wallet to another.
CryptoPunk 1563, which depicts a pixelated woman with dark hair and blue eyes, previously sold for just $69,000 in September. There are no unique features of this NFT that could explain its dramatic increase in value — 81,000% in just a few weeks.
The use of flash loans for such transactions is becoming an increasingly popular marketing tool in the world of cryptocurrency and NFTs. For example, there was a case of another CryptoPunk being sold for $532 million, which was later rejected by the community due to the lack of a real financial transfer.
Many analysts believe that in the case of CryptoPunk 1563, the NFT may be put up for auction after the token pre-sale, with the developer benefiting from the token sale and auction rather than the NFT transaction itself. This case highlights a growing trend of creative financial schemes in the crypto space that are increasingly aimed not at transferring assets, but at generating hype around related projects.
