X sues Bitcoin account network it says farmed $279,000 in creator payouts

Why it matters

X's case shows how engagement-based creator payments can become a fraud target. Its replacement program pairs stricter originality rules with tighter payout identity controls.

X has sued two UK residents and unnamed collaborators, alleging they operated a coordinated network of Bitcoin-themed accounts that recycled content, boosted one another's posts and collected at least 207,384 pounds, roughly $279,000, from its Creator Revenue Sharing program. The civil complaint, discovered by James Burnham, names Vivek Kumar Sen and Zamyang Sherpa as defendants.

The complaint says X connected the accounts through overlapping Stripe records, bank details, devices, software clients, UUIDs, device tokens and cookies. Some accounts allegedly published nearly identical posts within seconds of one another.

Filed in England's High Court on September 17th, the case arrived 10 days after X retired Creator Revenue Sharing and as the platform began moving creators into a replacement program focused on original content.

The allegations have not been proven. The filing contains no defense or judicial finding.

X alleges six accounts collected payouts

The case, claim BL-2026-001161, was filed in the Business List of the High Court of Justice's Business and Property Courts of England and Wales. The claimants are X Internet Unlimited Company and X Corp.

X names Sen and Sherpa, whom it identifies as residents of Preston, Lancashire, as defendants. The complaint also names unknown people who allegedly operated or controlled accounts in the network. Lewis Silkin LLP represents X.

According to the filing, six accounts received money:

The entries total about 207,384.94 pounds using X's currency conversions. X claims it incurred at least another 75,000 pounds in investigation and remediation expenses.

Three additional profiles, @BTC_Vibes, @MrSuperBitcoin and @Laserlump, allegedly helped generate engagement. The complaint does not identify those profiles as payout recipients.

Payment records and devices allegedly linked the accounts

The filing offers an unusually detailed account of the signals X says connected this network. X alleges that the accounts shared devices, software clients, UUIDs, device tokens and cookies, while payment records connected nominally separate profiles.

X says the Stripe account for @Bitcoin_Teddy was registered to Stefan Mann while the connected bank account belonged to Sen. The complaint also alleges that the @PolyBackTest payout account was registered to Sherpa but used an email address associated with Sen. The filing describes discrepancies involving Delaware billing information as well.

Those records are allegations about account control, not independent proof that the named defendants operated every profile or that every interaction was artificial.

X also points to repeated content and tightly clustered engagement. The complaint says @TrendingBitcoin and @saylordocs posted the same "LIKE, IF YOU ARE NOT SELLING" Bitcoin image two minutes apart. Four accounts allegedly published the same material within minutes on November 3rd, 2025.

In another example, three accounts allegedly replied to the same post within 31 seconds with generic comments including "Enjoyed listening to it," "This is a must watch" and "Great insights." Two accounts allegedly posted substantially similar all-caps "BREAKING" cryptocurrency content within 11 seconds on August 5th, 2026.

The screenshots support X's claims about duplication and timing. By themselves, they do not establish who operated the accounts.

X cites an attempted account purchase

The complaint also alleges that Sen tried to purchase an account with a large following. X quotes him as writing:

"Can we continue on another channel, please as you haven't enabled encrypted chat and I don't want us to get in trouble for something X doesn't allow. If you can understand what I mean."

X says it suspended the defendants' accounts on August 18th, 2026, for coordinated revenue-sharing fraud and platform manipulation. @Vivek4real_ currently displays as suspended.

The lawsuit follows X's payout overhaul

X stopped accepting new Creator Revenue Sharing applicants on August 7th, retired the program on September 7th and began rolling out Original Content Rewards on September 8th.

The replacement excludes copied, minimally modified and aggregated material, as well as artificially generated or fraudulent impressions. In April, X product chief Nikita Bier said the company had cut payouts to aggregator accounts after copied posts and clickbait flooded the timeline. Several posts reproduced in the lawsuit use the same all-caps "BREAKING" format Bier criticized.

X's case shows how an engagement-based payout program can become a fraud target. The filing exposes the payment and device signals the company says connected seemingly separate accounts, days after X replaced the program with one centered on original content.

It also leaves an accountability question for X. Several of the accounts had participated in Creator Revenue Sharing since 2023, but the platform did not suspend them until August 2026. The complaint does not explain how a network allegedly sharing payment identities and device telemetry continued receiving payouts for that long.

The filing does not say whether X has recovered or withheld any of the money, whether the matter was referred to law enforcement or whether this is the company's first lawsuit seeking to recover creator payouts.

[Pre-publication note: Right-of-reply requests still need to be sent to Sen and Sherpa through PolyBackTest's public channel. X also needs to be asked whether it has recovered or withheld any money. Replace this note with the outreach status before publication.]