On Monday night, hours after announcing his “NYC Token” at a press conference in Times Square, former New York City Mayor Eric Adams launched his cryptocurrency. The purpose of the token was unclear—beyond a vague promise by Adams that it would combat antisemitism—but investors bought it up anyway, briefly sending its market cap to $600 million. Then it crashed.
It didn’t take long for crypto observers to declare NYC Token had all the hallmarks of a dreaded rugpull—a common scam where someone launches a cryptocurrency then quickly extracts the value, leaving retail investors with worthless tokens. According to Nicolas Vaiman, the founder of the crypto analytics firm Bubblemaps, as well as blockchain transactions reviewed by Fortune, the developer likely netted around $1 million in proceeds after withdrawing profits from the market.
Though it remains unclear whether Adams received any of the proceeds, the incident recalled similar debacles of celebrity memecoin launches, including Argentina President Javier Milei’s Libra scandal in early 2025 and Haliey ‘Hawk Tuah girl’ Welch’s failed launch in late 2024. “This is such an obvious rug,” said Vaiman.
A representative for Adams did not respond to a request for comment.
$NYC Token
When Adams revealed his “NYC Token” project to a gaggle of reporters in Times Square on Monday morning, he was short on specifics. The former mayor declined to clarify who else was involved with the cryptocurrency, and instead pointed to a website without functioning buttons. He added that the project would teach New York’s children about the virtues of blockchain technology and fund initiatives fighting antisemitism.
Adams has long been a crypto booster. He started his mayoral term by declaring he would receive his first three paychecks in Bitcoin and palling around with Brock Pierce, the former Mighty Ducks star who earned his fortune on blockchain projects including the stablecoin Tether.
Eddie Cullen, a former NYC mayoral candidate and founder of the crypto company Crescite, claims that he began sharing ideas with Adams’s inner circle for a NYC token around June 2025. A press release from his political action committee Innovate NY describes plans to support a trademarked initiative called NYC Token that would “channel blockchain technology to drive new city revenue,” and Cullen shared a presentation with Fortune detailing the project that he says he also shared with Adams’s team.
Cullen says that he had no warning about Monday’s announcement and plans to send Adams a cease-and-desist. “I’m going to hold him accountable,” he told Fortune. “I’m more shocked that he would just go out and do this.”
It remains unclear who besides Adams was involved with the token’s launch, with a new website listing C18 Digital as an associated entity. Delaware corporation records indicate that a limited liability company called C18 Digital was incorporated on Dec. 30, 2025.
The muddled history of the token’s origination is just the tip of the iceberg. When a cryptocurrency launches, the developers behind the project will typically fund the new market with other assets such as USDC, a U.S. dollar-backed stablecoin, or the popular cryptocurrency Solana in a so-called “liquidity pool” so that users can both buy and sell the new token.
But the NYC Token did not follow that approach, instead doing a one-sided liquidity pool that only comprised the token itself. When users began to buy it, injecting the liquidity pool with USDC, a wallet associated with the developer withdrew $2.5 million of those USDC. According to Vaiman, this kind of sell-off is more subtle because it doesn’t look like the wallets are selling the token itself. Hayden Davis— the infamous figure behind the Argentina Libra scandal, which saw investors lose $250 million in a memecoin associated with the country’s president—used a similar approach.
After reports of a rugpull went viral on X on Monday night, a new account associated with the token announced that it had added new funds to the liquidity pool. Still, according to Vaiman, the developers likely were able to net around $1 million in profit.
“I truly have no explanation on why they did it,” Vaiman said. “Is this as simple as just pure grift? Maybe I’m overoptimistic and I don’t want to believe that’s the case, but maybe this is what it is.”
