70 Billion CRO Reissued, Sparking Controversy

On March 25, on-chain detective ZachXBT reported that the Crypto.com team had reissued 70 billion CRO tokens a week prior. These tokens were originally promised to be "permanently" burned in 2021, accounting for 70% of the total supply.

ZachXBT pointed out that the team controls most of the token circulation, and this action severely violates community consensus. He criticized the move as nearly fraudulent. Additionally, he questioned why Truth chose to cooperate with Crypto.com after this decision instea of platforms like Coinbase, Kraken, or Gemini.

ZachXBT further stated: "The initial total supply of CRO was 100 billion. In 2021, they burned 70 billion CRO. Since then, everyone assumed that the maximum supply would be 30 billion CRO. However, 1-2 weeks ago, they reissued 70 billion CRO and claimed to have burned them again permanently. I have never seen a major company do something like this."

In 2021, Crypto.com announced the burning of 70 billion CRO, marking one of the largest token burns in cryptocurrency history. However, this commitment now appears to have been overturned.

Community Voting and On-Chain Data Analysis

According to Mintscan data, a proposal to restore the previously burned 70 billion CRO was approved with a 62.18% support rate. The proposal aimed to reinstate the 70 billion CRO burned in 2021 to establish a strategic reserve for Cronos and update network parameters and token distribution in the Cronos POS V5 upgrade.

Data source: https://www.mintscan.io/crypto-org/proposals/29/

According to Un Chained, as of March 16, the number of votes in favor slightly exceeded those against, but the required 33.4% quorum had not yet been reached. However, just before the vote ended, 3.35 billion CRO tokens were added to the approval category, successfully reaching the quorum and pushing the voting rate far beyond expectations.

ZachXBT’s tweet included images suggesting that the controversial votes came from large validators operated by Crypto.com. According to three independent sources, these validators control 70%-80% of the total voting power. As of March 10, Crypto.com’s two validators, Starship and Falcon Heavy, had already voted in favor of the proposal. Despite only 11.86% of validators supporting the proposal, while 77.97% opposed and 8.47% abstained, the influence of stake weighting ultimately led to the proposal's approval.

Crypto.com’s History of Controversies

Crypto.com has previously faced accusations of manipulating token circulation under similar circumstances.

According to Reddit user turtlecane, Crypto.com’s predecessor, Monaco (MCO), raised tens of millions of dollars through an ICO and planned to launch a cryptocurrency Visa card, which ultimately failed to materialize as promised. Meanwhile, the company collected large amounts of user identity information and continued operations without providing a clear roadmap. Later, Crypto.com acquired the Crypto.com domain for $12 million and rebranded Monaco (MCO) as Crypto.com. Many users have since questioned whether Monaco (MCO) was essentially a scam.

According to Etherscan data, the total supply of Monaco (MCO) was 31.587 million tokens.

Data source: https://web.archive.org/web/20190421005509/https://etherscan.io/token/0xb63b606ac810a52cca15e44bb630fd42d8d1d83d

Reddit user GabeSter calculated that during the forced conversion of MCO to CRO, Crypto.com "stole" 99.127% of the new token supply from existing MCO holders while offering unsustainable rewards. He stated: "If this had happened in the stock market rather than the cryptocurrency space, Crypto.com CEO Kris would likely face legal consequences for ‘stealing’ 99% of the tokens during the forced conversion."

Community Reactions

The incident has sparked heated debate within the crypto community, with differing opinions among users.

Twitter user @ThisIsNuse commented: "This is the same team that carried out the Monaco (MCO) ICO scam. This has been brewing for a long time."

User @Solig_18 believes that reissuing "permanently burned" tokens is the ultimate betrayal, questioning how anyone could trust CRO after this incident.

However, some users had different perspectives.

User @cryptowizardBTC argued: "CRO is not a scam. Yes, the decision to mint 70 billion CRO again was made in a centralized manner, and many people disapprove, but that doesn’t mean CRO itself is a scam."

CEO Kris Remains Silent, Community Outraged

Nine hours later, ZachXBT tweeted again: "The truth is painful." He included an image showing that he had been blocked by Crypto.com CEO Kris.

User @Cryptobearorbu1 questioned: "@kris, can you explain Zach’s claims in detail? He seems to have a valid point, yet instead of clarifying, you blocked him. To me, this suggests that you don’t want to discuss it. This raises serious doubts about Crypto.com and its native token CRO."

Conclusion

Crypto.com’s decision to reissue 70 billion CRO, regardless of its rationale, has already caused a major uproar in the crypto community. Many investors are questioning its transparency and credibility, while the Crypto.com team has yet to provide a convincing explanation. As the situation continues to unfold, the future market trust in CRO and Crypto.com remains uncertain.

Will Crypto.com provide further responses? Will CRO’s market trust suffer even greater damage? Let’s wait and see.

Disclaimer: The content of this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. The opinions expressed are those of the cited authors and do not reflect the stance of this company. Readers are advised to conduct thorough research and risk assessment before making any investment decisions. This company is not responsible for any investment losses.