X Just Banned 26 Fake Crypto Accounts Run by One Person
NFTPerks PT. Emilyxbt. CryptoJack44. Twenty-six accounts, one operator, thousands of manufactured followers - all wiped in a single enforcement action by Nikita Bier. Real creators are celebrating. The question is whether this is a one-off or a signal.
The Operation
Here's how it worked. One person built a network of 26 crypto-focused X accounts, each with distinct personas and handles. They posted daily, replied constantly, and cross-amplified each other - flooding impressions, gaming X's engagement signals, and building follower counts that looked organic but weren't.
The goal was simple: hit X's monetization threshold. Under X's creator revenue-sharing model, accounts need sufficient impressions to earn. A coordinated reply flood between 26 accounts generates the numbers without the audience. It's a money printer disguised as a content strategy.
"X prohibits operating multiple accounts in the same category - especially to manufacture interest in financial assets."
— Nikita Bier, X Head of Product
Why This Actually Matters
Crypto Twitter has been complaining about diluted reach for months. Real creators posting original analysis, trade ideas, and on-chain data have watched their numbers drop while accounts built on reply spam and engagement rings kept growing. The math was brutal: the algorithm rewards engagement volume. Gaming volume is easy when you control 26 accounts.
The result was a race to the bottom. Creators either joined the engagement-ring game or fell behind. "Gm" replies, low-effort reposts, and hollow affirmations flooded the timeline - not because people wanted to post that content, but because the algorithm rewarded it.
The X monetization model pays per impression. Gaming impressions through coordinated accounts is not a loophole - it's fraud. This enforcement isn't about cleaning up the timeline. It's about protecting revenue integrity.
Real Creators Are Relieved
The reaction from legitimate crypto accounts was immediate. The ban restores the signal-to-noise ratio - even slightly. When 26 bot-adjacent accounts stop flooding replies and manufacturing engagement, the accounts that earn their reach through actual content get their numbers back.
More importantly: it confirms X is watching. Nikita Bier personally named the accounts. That's unusual. That's deliberate. It sends a message to anyone else running a similar operation: we see you, and we will name you publicly when we act.
The Broader Context
This doesn't come in a vacuum. Bier has spent the last two months as the most controversial figure in Crypto Twitter - first for algorithmic changes that suppressed CT reach, then for comments implying low-quality replies were the community's own fault. The crypto community called for his resignation. He responded by nuking engagement-ring operators.
Whether you see that as vindication or deflection depends on your perspective. What's clear: Bier is drawing a line between "creators who earn their audience" and "operators who manufacture one." That line has real consequences for how X's revenue model distributes money - and who gets to participate.
What Changes
Probably not much, immediately. Operations this sophisticated don't stop because one got caught - they adapt. New accounts, new handles, more subtle coordination. But the public naming creates a deterrent that quiet bans don't. And if X starts enforcing this at scale rather than selectively, the economics of fake engagement collapse.
The real winner here is anyone who has been building an honest audience on X. If the playing field levels even slightly, the signal gets stronger. That's worth paying attention to.
← BACK TO ARTICLES