The trade that turned $707 into $7M: Genius or hidden scam?

• User turns $707 into $7M with meme coin, but experts question trade’s legitimacy and label it theft.
• Cronje criticizes abusive crypto strategies, stating profits from questionable tokens aren’t real or sustainable wins.

A user recently turned a $707 investment into a $7 million profit by trading a meme coin tied to the dog of former Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao, also known as CZ. The token, inspired by CZ’s pet, gained massive attention after details about the dog were shared publicly. However, this windfall has sparked debate within the cryptocurrency world, with some labeling the transaction as a clever trade and others calling it theft.

Data from Lookonchain highlights the scale of the gain, showing how one BNB—worth $707 at the time—was used to buy the memecoin early, only for its value to skyrocket shortly afterward. While such profits are often celebrated in crypto circles, decentralized finance pioneer Andre Cronje voiced strong criticism.

This guy made a profit of ~$7M on a #memecoin named after CZ's dog( #Broccoli ).

Incredibly, his cost was only 1 $BNB ($707), a 9,900x return! https://t.co/mPS3ClYGyM pic.twitter.com/4yBIsfEZun

— Lookonchain (@lookonchain) February 13, 2025

Cronje, who developed the Yearn Finance protocol, argues that the person behind the trade likely created the coin themselves. In his view, this makes the act less of a legitimate profit and more akin to theft.

Only in crypto do we say "This guy made a profit of $7m". No, he stole. He most likely launched it. And then he took all of those gamblers money. And I get it, they knew what they were getting into, if it wasn't a scam coin and they made money they wouldn't give it back. Its the… https://t.co/XSJGGHnwZN

— Andre Cronje (@AndreCronjeTech) February 13, 2025

Cronje explained that the situation resembles stealing something that was already stolen. He emphasized that participating in such schemes does not qualify as a valid trading approach but rather exploits others’ trust.

His stance is clear: even if buyers knowingly engage with questionable projects, the act remains unethical. “This is not profit,” he stated, rejecting any attempt to frame the outcome as a success story.

The backdrop to this controversy involves CZ himself, who chose not to launch an official memecoin despite revealing his dog’s name earlier this week. Instead, he expressed support for community-driven efforts, encouraging organic growth over corporate involvement. This decision may have unintentionally fueled speculation, as opportunists rushed to capitalize on the buzz surrounding his pet.

While debates about ethics in cryptocurrency persist, cases like this underscore the risks and rewards inherent in the space. For every story of overnight wealth, questions arise about fairness and accountability.

As Cronje suggests, framing exploitative actions as clever strategies undermines broader efforts to build trust in digital assets. The line between smart trading and unethical behavior remains a topic of discussion among participants in the industry.