The sale of CryptoPunk NFT for US$ 56.3 million raises suspicion of marketing scam

CryptoPunk 1563 was sold for 24,000 ETH (or US$ 56.3 million) in a single transaction last Thursday (10/03). The sale ranks among the most expensive CryptoPunk NFT transactions to date. However, the deal was quite different from the usual.

Upon closer inspection, the sale appears to have used a flash loan. In other words, the funds were borrowed and repaid within the same blockchain transaction. As a result, ownership and value remained unchanged.

An on-chain detective, 0xQuit, revealed more details, claiming it was likely an attempt to market a new meme coin called “Kamala Harris Punks.”

Thus, it seems the sale was orchestrated to generate interest in the token’s presale.

Questioned authenticity

0xQuit stated that the DeFi protocol Balancer provided the flash loan, enabling the transaction without any real exchange of value. Previously, this tactic had already raised doubts about the authenticity of similar NFT sales.

In a single transaction, the “buyer” took out a loan from Balancer for 24,000 ETH, and the “seller” paid that amount. Despite the complex process, no profit was made. It merely paid network fees and moved the Punk between wallets.

The CryptoPunk, featuring a woman with dark hair and blue eyes, had previously been listed for a fraction of its current price and purchased for US$ 69,000 in ETH in September.

There was no explanation for the massive price increase. As a floor Punk, this type of NFT typically trades at the lower prices of the collection. Therefore, the 81,000% increase in just a few weeks seemed odd.

Familiar marketing strategy

Similar transactions have used “flash loans.” One example was the sale of a CryptoPunk for US$ 532 million, later dismissed by the crypto community due to the lack of a real financial transfer.

The case of CryptoPunk 1563 suggests the NFT could be auctioned after the presale. In this way, the developer would make more from the token sale at auction than from the initial transaction.

The incident highlights the creative financial tactics often seen in crypto and NFT environments. In other words, this shows that such transactions are not just about transferring ownership but also a marketing strategy to generate interest in related projects or tokens.