The failing CryptoZoo game receives partial payment from Logan Paul

In the wake of the failure of his cryptocurrency game, Logan Paul has started the process of reclaiming non-fungible tokens (NFTs) from his fans who have suffered financial losses playing the game

Due to the fact that his game was not successful, this is a response to the situation.

But despite the fact that fans spent millions of dollars on game tokens, the video game CryptoZoo was never made available to the public. This is despite the fact that the YouTube star made an announcement about it in the year 2021.

Now, Paul, who is 28 years old, has made the revelation that he would purchase back the NFTs, but only on the condition that supporters who accept the deal do not sue him when they do so. This is the condition that came with the news.

Although the prospect of fans receiving a full return of their money is very low, it is feasible that they may get such a reimbursement.

In the beginning, CryptoZoo was planned to be a game in which players could use bitcoin to buy, sell, and breed virtual animals. However, the game was never released that way. It was originally intended for the game to go like this.

In the course of that time period, Paul urged individuals to purchase collectables of cryptocurrencies for what he referred to as a “really fun game that makes you money.” This game, according to him, was a “really fun game.”

Nevertheless, after selling non-fungible tokens (NFTs) and cryptocurrency coins for millions of dollars, he finally stopped talking about CryptoZoo and seemed to abandon the company. This occurred after he had sold the aforementioned items.

Paul issued an apology, and he said that he wanted to “make this right” after another YouTuber by the name of Coffeezilla released a series of films in December 2022 that confirmed his inquiry into the project. Paul’s apology was made in response to the fact that Coffeezilla published the videos.

One year has passed since he made the announcement that the process of buy-back would begin, and he continues to maintain that it will cost him $2.3 million, which is comparable to £1.8 million.

Every non-fungible token (NFT) that a player has earned will result in the player obtaining a refund of 0.1 Ether, which is a unit of cryptocurrency. This refund will be obtained by the player.

In September of 2021, the non-fungible tokens (NFTs) were first made available for purchase at a price of 0.1 Ether when they were first made accessible.

The value of this cryptocurrency has decreased by 37% since the release of CryptoZoo NFTs, which implies that supporters will continue to face financial losses with this cryptocurrency. Despite this, the value of this cryptocurrency has declined.

In a post that Paul made on X, which was then known as Twitter, he sent the following message: “This buy-back is a way for me to make whole those who intended to play CryptoZoo.” In the past, X was known by the name Twitter.

“The buy-back is not intended to compensate those who gambled on the crypto market and lost.”

He also said that it was “not intended as an investment vehicle.” This was in addition to the previous statement.

Individuals have until February 8, 2024 to accept the return, and they are required to do so on the condition that they do not pursue any legal claims against Paul or any other individuals linked to CryptoZoo. Individuals have until this date to accept the refund. You are required to accept the refund.

An investor who had placed forty thousand dollars into NFTs said in a statement that he was not interested in gaining a refund and that he wanted Paul to finish the project in order to ensure that the much-hyped game and NFTs lived up to its huge potential. The investor had stated that he wanted Paul to finish the project. The statement was delivered to the BBC at some point over the course of the preceding year.

I don’t think it will ever be as big as it could have been but I think it’s important that ‘founders’ do what they promise investors,” according to the thirty-five-year-old.

During the month of June in the year 2021, Paul advocated for the digital money that is often referred to as Dink Doink. Because of this, the value of Dink Doink has significantly decreased since that time, and it is now completely useless.

He expressed his remorse to the New York Times after some time had passed that he had backed the coin without fully revealing the fact that he had been engaged in its development and had a financial investment in the cryptocurrency. He had done this without disclosing the fact that he had a financial position in the cryptocurrency. This action was taken by him without completely publicizing the fact that he had accepted the cryptocurrency.

According to his own admission, “I most certainly did not behave in a responsible manner as I ought to have.”

A partner at the company Rahman Ravelli who specializes in cases involving cryptocurrency fraud, Attorney Syedur Rahman, said that the CryptoZoo case “highlights the risks associated with investing in a relatively new and unregulated market.” Rahman Ravelli is a firm that specializes in cases involving cryptocurrency fraud. Rahman Ravelli is a law company that focuses on representing clients in disputes concerning fraudulent Bitcoin transactions.

On the other hand, Mr. Rahman is of the belief that the high-profile incidents do, in fact, provoke “discussions about the necessity of additional regulations.” Despite the fact that he does not believe that the high-profile instances will have a significant impact on the image of bitcoin in general, he has said that this is the case.

According to Mr. Rahman, and despite the fact that the level of regulation varies from country to country, a customer “may very well have rights in NFT purchases or things of that nature,” despite the fact that the degree of control varies. Despite the fact that the level of control varies from case to case, this is the case.

According to him, the amount of money that they first invested is the deciding factor in choosing whether or not they wish to pursue legal action in order to collect the money that they initially paid out of their own pocket. This is because the amount that they get back may not be worth the hardship of going through the legal system, which can be both costly and time-consuming. This is the reason why this is the case.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *