TLDR Kanye West’s YZY memecoin experienced an 81% crash in just over a week. More than 51,000 wallets suffered losses, totaling $74.8 million. Over 73% of YZY token investors ended up losing money. Three wallets alone lost over $1 million each during the token’s decline. The token’s value surged to $3.16 before crashing significantly. Kanye [...] The post Kanye West’s YZY Token Crash: 51,000 Wallets Lose $74.8 Million appeared first on CoinCentral.TLDR Kanye West’s YZY memecoin experienced an 81% crash in just over a week. More than 51,000 wallets suffered losses, totaling $74.8 million. Over 73% of YZY token investors ended up losing money. Three wallets alone lost over $1 million each during the token’s decline. The token’s value surged to $3.16 before crashing significantly. Kanye [...] The post Kanye West’s YZY Token Crash: 51,000 Wallets Lose $74.8 Million appeared first on CoinCentral.

Kanye West’s YZY Token Crash: 51,000 Wallets Lose $74.8 Million

2025/08/29 23:44

TLDR

  • Kanye West’s YZY memecoin experienced an 81% crash in just over a week.
  • More than 51,000 wallets suffered losses, totaling $74.8 million.
  • Over 73% of YZY token investors ended up losing money.
  • Three wallets alone lost over $1 million each during the token’s decline.
  • The token’s value surged to $3.16 before crashing significantly.

Kanye West’s YZY memecoin has plummeted, causing significant losses for over 51,000 traders. The token, which launched just over a week ago, quickly surged to an all-time high but crashed by 81% shortly after. At the time of writing, YZY trades at $0.5305, down by 3.76% in the last 24 hours.

YZY Token Loses 81% of Its Value

Kanye West’s YZY token was introduced on August 20 through the rapper’s X account. The coin quickly gained attention and surged to a high of $3.16 within 24 hours. However, the token’s value sharply declined, leading to significant losses for many investors.

Data from Bubblemaps, an analytics platform, reveals that 73.87% of investors lost money on the token. Of the 70,201 traders who bought YZY, 51,862 wallets experienced losses, totaling $74.8 million. These losses were especially severe for a small group of investors, with three wallets alone losing over $1 million each.

Over 51,000 Wallets Lose $74.8M on YZY

A closer look at the breakdown shows the extent of the damage. Five thousand two hundred sixty-nine wallets lost over $1,000, while 1,025 wallets lost more than $10,000. Furthermore, 108 wallets faced losses exceeding $100,000. Overall, YZY’s sudden crash wiped out substantial amounts of capital for the majority of those who bought the token.

In contrast, 18,333 wallets managed to profit from the coin, earning a total of $66.6 million. Yet, the profits were not evenly distributed. Over 82% of the wallets that profited made less than $1,000, while only 11 wallets made over $1 million each.

YZY’s Decline Reflects Broader Trend of Memecoin Failures

The YZY token’s collapse is part of a larger trend of celebrity-endorsed memecoins that have failed. Similar cases include the LIBRA token linked to Argentine President Javier Milei and tokens promoted by celebrities like Sydney Sweeney and Hulk Hogan. Each of these tokens saw sharp declines in value, with many losing over 90%.

Bubblemaps had warned investors about YZY before the crash, noting that over 70% of the token’s supply was concentrated in a few wallets. The platform also reported that Hayden Davis, involved in the LIBRA token fallout, profited $12 million from YZY. This highlights the risks that celebrity-backed tokens pose for investors.

The post Kanye West’s YZY Token Crash: 51,000 Wallets Lose $74.8 Million appeared first on CoinCentral.

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.
Share Insights

You May Also Like

Preliminary analysis of the Balancer V2 attack, which resulted in a loss of $120 million.

Preliminary analysis of the Balancer V2 attack, which resulted in a loss of $120 million.

On November 3, the Balancer V2 protocol and its fork projects were attacked on multiple chains, resulting in a serious loss of more than $120 million. BlockSec issued an early warning at the first opportunity [1] and gave a preliminary analysis conclusion [2]. This was a highly complex attack. Our preliminary analysis showed that the root cause was that the attacker manipulated the invariant, thereby distorting the calculation of the price of BPT (Balancer Pool Token) -- that is, the LP token of Balancer Pool -- so that it could profit in a stable pool through a batchSwap operation. Background Information 1. Scaling and Rounding To standardize the decimal places of different tokens, the Balancer contract will: upscale: Upscales the balance and amount to a uniform internal precision before performing the calculation; downscale: Reduces the result to its original precision and performs directional rounding (e.g., inputs are usually rounded up to ensure the pool is not under-filled; output paths are often truncated downwards). Conclusion: Within the same transaction, the asymmetrical rounding direction used in different stages can lead to a systematic slight deviation when executed repeatedly in very small steps. 2. Prices of D and BPT The Balancer V2 protocol’s Composable Stable Pool[3] and the fork protocol were affected by this attack. Stable Pool is used for assets that are expected to maintain a close 1:1 exchange ratio (or be exchanged at a known exchange rate), allowing large exchanges without causing significant price shocks, thereby greatly improving the efficiency of capital utilization between similar or related assets. The pool uses the Stable Math (a Curve-based StableSwap model), where the invariant D represents the pool's "virtual total value". The approximate price of BPT (Pool's LP Token) is: The formula above shows that if D is made smaller on paper (even if no funds are actually withdrawn), the price of BPT will be cheaper. BTP represents the pool share and is used to calculate how many pool reserves can be obtained when withdrawing liquidity. Therefore, if an attacker can obtain more BPT, they can profit when withdrawing liquidity. Attack Analysis Taking an attack transaction on Arbitrum as an example, the batchSwap operation can be divided into three stages: Phase 1: The attacker redeems BPT for the underlying asset to precisely adjust the balance of one of the tokens (cbETH) to a critical point (amount = 9) for rounding. This step sets the stage for the precision loss in the next phase. Phase Two: The attacker uses a carefully crafted quantity (= 8) to swap between another underlying asset (wstETH) and cbETH. Due to rounding down when scaling the token quantity, the calculated Δx is slightly smaller (from 8.918 to 8), causing Δy to be underestimated and the invariant D (derived from Curve's StableSwap model) to be smaller. Since BPT price = D / totalSupply, the BPT price is artificially suppressed. Phase 3: The attackers reverse-swap the underlying assets back to BPT, restoring the balance within the pool while profiting from the depressed price of BPT—acquiring more BPT tokens. Finally, the attacker used another profitable transaction to withdraw liquidity, thereby using the extra BPT to acquire other underlying assets (cbETH and wstETH) in the Pool and thus profit. Attacking the transaction: https://app.blocksec.com/explorer/tx/arbitrum/0x7da32ebc615d0f29a24cacf9d18254bea3a2c730084c690ee40238b1d8b55773 Profitable trades: https://app.blocksec.com/explorer/tx/arbitrum/0x4e5be713d986bcf4afb2ba7362525622acf9c95310bd77cd5911e7ef12d871a9 Reference: [1]https://x.com/Phalcon_xyz/status/1985262010347696312 [2]https://x.com/Phalcon_xyz/status/1985302779263643915 [3]https://docs-v2.balancer.fi/concepts/pools/composable-stable.html
Share
PANews2025/11/04 14:00