Eliza Times

The community reaction was intense and largely hostile.

One user, paolin, delivered a lengthy and pointed critique of Shaw, accusing him of failing to communicate for ten months, never engaging with the community chat, abandoning the project when problems arose, and blaming others rather than taking responsibility. The user argued that holders who stayed through the migration and subsequent crashes did so out of genuine faith in the project and the promises made, and that Shaw owed the community a real public response rather than venting on Discord. Another user, Kai, accused Shaw of running a scam from the beginning, alleging that Shaw initiated a token migration that increased supply, used a large Binance Alpha airdrop to generate artificial trading volume, repeatedly deflected questions about token utility while hinting at upcoming product launches, and only admitted the token had no utility after the price had already collapsed by over 90 percent. That user also shared a link to a post on X echoing these accusations. Several other community members expressed anger, called Shaw a coward, and said they regretted trusting him. The market cap of the elizaos token reportedly dropped to approximately 2 million dollars, a level described as equivalent to a junk memecoin.

A smaller number of community members offered more measured perspectives.

One user, satsbased, acknowledged Shaw's frustration but urged him not to paint all holders with the same brush, noting that only a few individuals initiated the lawsuit. The same user proposed a path forward in which Shaw could focus purely on open-source technical development of elizaos while a separate commercial entity handled token operations, sales, and distribution, with Shaw earning revenue through licensing, royalties, or equity arrangements. Another user pointed out that the existing token infrastructure, including DEX and CEX listings, CCIP integration, brand recognition, and substantial tokenomics allocations, represents significant prior work that would be difficult to replicate. One user noted that tokens tied to a project cannot truly be killed and that future product success from Eliza could still benefit the token, though another countered that utility alone does not guarantee success, citing Axie Infinity as an example. Questions about the fate of the DEGENAI coin were also raised, with one community member suggesting it faces the same outcome as elizaos.

In the partners channel, one user named Rabbidfly offered a brief outside observation, describing Shaw's public statements as a strange tweet and characterizing the move as sacrificing market value for many in order to clear a personal conscience.

The user said they still appreciated the original vision of the project even if they no longer saw a market opportunity in it.

Amid the chaos in the discussion channel, an unrelated promotional message was posted advertising job openings including beta testers, moderators, developers, community managers, and artists, with instructions to send a direct message and a friend request.

This appeared to be unsolicited spam. A separate post promoted a CheesePad presale on BNB Chain for a token called Cheese Head, including links to the sale page and a Telegram group.

Activity in the coders channel on the same day was minimal, consisting only of brief greetings and a short exchange between Slushiez.eth and satsbased about an unspecified prior topic, along with a user asking if any moderators were present before dropping the matter.