The leaked influencer marketing compensation system has been revealed, highlighting structural issues of lack of transparency that are causing a ripple effect

In September 2025, a leak shook the cryptocurrency industry. The leaked influencer price list revealed that over 200 creators were engaged in paid promotions at various rates, and most of these were presented as organic posts. This incident is not just a scandal; it raises fundamental questions about trust, transparency, and the regulatory oversight capabilities within the crypto market.

Exposure of Over 200 Influencer Price Lists and Actual Compensation

The leaked files published by on-chain investigator ZachXBT included detailed price lists for more than 160 crypto influencers. The spreadsheet recorded wallet addresses, billing amounts, payment methods, and more. It appears to be a document used by a project to recruit influencers for marketing purposes.

The pricing structures were surprisingly diverse. Top-tier industry influencers demanded up to $20,000 per post, while smaller accounts offered around $500 per tweet. Bundled posts and video content packages had discounted rates. These figures suggest that the payments were not just for advertising space but also investments to enhance the perceived legitimacy of the project.

Undisclosed Sponsored Posts: Why Over 95% of Paid Posts Look Organic

The most shocking discovery was the widespread lack of disclosure. ZachXBT’s report states that out of over 160 accounts that agreed to marketing contracts, fewer than five explicitly labeled their posts as sponsored content. This means that over 95% of paid promotional posts appeared to followers as organic recommendations.

This situation directly violates regulations from authorities like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), which require clear and identifiable disclosures when content is sponsored. Without proper disclosure, viewers are intentionally misled, creating false perceptions of organic community support for unverified projects. Could this be considered an organized deception targeting small investors?

The Attity $60,000 Case: Acknowledging a Lack of Transparency

The leaked files also included information about the well-known influencer “Attity.” His Solana wallet was recorded with a sum of $60,000—one of the highest amounts among top creators.

Following the leak, Attity issued a statement. He admitted to receiving $60,000 but claimed it was not for a single tweet. Instead, he said it was compensation for comprehensive marketing efforts over several weeks. According to him, he was initially hired for marketing support, then received requests from the client to post threads, memes, and comments about the platform. Ultimately, he was also asked to promote a pre-sale, but he was instructed to make it appear as an organic post.

Attity pointed out that the client explicitly requested “natural-looking posts indistinguishable from genuine content.” He emphasized that he was not involved in rug pulls or outright scams and acknowledged that failing to disclose the promotion was a mistake. He also mentioned that he faced threats from the client after the pre-sale failed, indicating personal repercussions.

Trust Crisis in the Cryptocurrency Market: Structural Issues Shaking the Industry

The exposed influencer activities are just one symbol of a deeper problem lurking within the crypto industry. Paid posts have long served as tools to temporarily spike token prices and then cause their complete collapse.

In early 2025, the CR7 meme coin, falsely associated with Cristiano Ronaldo, surged to a market cap of $143 million before vanishing. Influencers promoting the token later deleted their posts and erased traces of involvement. In another case, Argentine President Javier Milei’s support for the $LIBRA token sparked political backlash and eventually led to fraud allegations.

The leaked list reveals that these phenomena are not isolated scandals but part of an organized, systematic industry practice. Direct transfers to wallet addresses bypass formal contracts and oversight mechanisms, indicating a lack of accountability. Industry experts warn that there is little to no responsibility for this system.

Regulators emphasize that even if labeled as “marketing,” undisclosed promotional posts violate guidelines and may constitute misleading conduct toward investors. Small investors lack the means to distinguish whether the apparent community support is genuine or driven by paid influencer marketing.

The reality of the leaked influencer marketing system underscores the urgent need for increased transparency and regulation in the crypto industry. Without strict disclosure rules, investor protection and market integrity remain at risk.