Ethical

In brief

Crypto traders bought and sold a handful of Charlie Kirk meme coins after the conservative influencer was assassinated on Wednesday, generating millions.
The token creators and top five traders collectively profited more than $2 million, prompting meme coin traders to question whether an ethical line had been crossed.
Some believe profiting off death is too far, while others argue it’s unavoidable in crypto-based free markets.

Meme coin creators and traders profited more than $2 million following the assassination of right-wing influencer Charlie Kirk on Wednesday. It has split the meme coin-frenzied segment of the crypto community, with one side calling those gaining from his death “sickening” while others shrug at the long line of morally questionable tokens traders have capitalized on.

In the wake of the fatal shooting of prominent conservative activist Kirk, four meme coins were created and soared to multi-millions, with the largest peaking at a $36 million market cap. The deployers of these tokens netted more than $563,000 in rewards—royalties paid to the creators of the tokens—in less than 24 hours, according to data from Solana meme coin launchpad Pump.fun. The top five traders of each token have realized profits over $1.6 million, according to DEX Screener.

As trading for the tokens accelerated on Wednesday night, social media was set ablaze with people searching for and identifying those profiting from the death of the President Trump ally.

Some even suggested that the token launchpad Pump.fun should add filters that prevent the creation of coins that profit from shootings and violence. Pump.fun does have terms of use, a prohibited use policy, and an active moderation team, but such tokens do not violate any of its guidelines. Pump.fun did not immediately respond to Decrypt’s request for comment.

Pump.fun appears to have benefited from the frenzy too. PumpSwap, the decentralized exchange where its tokens trade, saw a significant spike in daily volume to $533 million—a three-month high. The platform, though, did not experience a notable increase in the number of tokens launched or revenue generated, according to data available on Dune.

“I think profiting off someone’s death, especially the magnitude of an event like this, is sickening,” Pump.fun livestreamer Jytol told Decrypt. “Personally, I don’t trade memes which involve death, racism, or bullying.”

“Anything is fair game”

A prominent pseudonymous meme coin trader, 0xWinged, called such critiques “virtue signalling,” suggesting the community is now drawing an arbitrary line that hasn’t been well-defined in the past. 0xWinged explained that he is both sad about Kirk’s death and would have traded the tokens—but was “sidelined sadly.”

“If it’s not me, it’s someone else making money. Meme coins are about reach and publicity. Kirk was the most viral event,” 0xWinged told Decrypt. “I think Crypto Twitter, having moderate right political views, saw Charlie not as a random victim but as a martyr for a greater cause. And the tokenizing of this event reduced his real-world achievements to a market cap.”

He added that he doesn’t think those profiting off the tokens have “any ill intent,” explaining that “anything is fair game” when it comes to meme coin trading. He also admitted there’s something “dystopian” about that.

Others think that dystopian feeling crosses a line. Loopify, a pseudonymous game developer and founder of charity CryptoGaza, compared the trend to investing in war stocks, which he believes exists “below the moral line.”

“My opinion: anyone who makes money off coins like that, you’re the problem with crypto,” pseudonymous meme coin trader WombatAF told Decrypt. “Death isn’t funny, memes should be funny, or a joke. Something you can just get over. Not death and crime.”

CT is full of the most hypocritical, racist, scummy people with no morals

But buying a Charlie Kirk coin is where they draw the line🤣🤣

— 🪐 (@bilal_m17) September 10, 2025

Crypto degens and profiteering

This is, of course, not the first time that crypto degens have profited from tragic events or ethically questionable spectacles—though the Charlie Kirk coins have sparked notably more outrage among meme coin traders.

Last year, meme coin traders pumped tokens based on unfounded rumors that Joe Biden had died… he hadn’t. This year, degens pumped a token called Swasticoin as they parroted antisemitic and Nazi ideologies. And, over the past seven days, traders profited from meme coins referencing the murder of Iryna Zarutska in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Solana token Justice for Iryna hit a $33.8 million market cap with the top five traders profiting $661,700 on the token. The deployer has earned $190,920 in creator fees, but appears to have donated part of this to a GoFundMe for Zarutska’s family. Equally, a token calling for the death penalty for the alleged killer pumped to $40 million, with the top five traders profiting $506,000 from it.

“There is a 9/11 token out right now [and] no one is mentioning it,” Pump.fun livestream clipper Barton Baste told Decrypt, adding that other meme coins are available that reference the deadly protests in Nepal. “What has happened there recently is extremely tragic,” they pointed out.

0xWinged said crypto’s right-wing base meant the death of Kirk felt more impactful than any previous tragic event that degens profited from—not that meme coin traders are against profiting from death.

The fact all yall were foaming at the mouth for the little Ukranian girl stabbed in the neck coin 24 hours ago, sent that shit to 30 mil, but a few shitposts today is where you draw the line is the most absurd thing I’ve ever witnessed. Disgusting lmao

— Lexapro (@LexaproTrader) September 11, 2025

An “oscillating barrier of tolerance”

The pseudonymous Scorched Earth Policy, who holds the title of chief of staff at the Milady-run Remilia Corporation, told Decrypt the situation is reflective of the “hive mind” of the crypto market. He doesn’t believe market participants draw static ethical lines but are instead moved by a “constantly oscillating barrier of tolerance towards distaste.” The more market participants there are, the closer it will represent the cultural consensus, he said.

“Each of these coins has their own specific context,” Scorched Earth Policy said. “Iryna could have developed just as much backlash as the Charlie coins if her story kept gestating. From what I understand, though, the main coin promised to provide money to her family. [But] that sort of thing is often used as a buffer mechanism to default grift resistance.”

Ultimately, the meme coin trenches are the rawest expression of free markets. With the invention of Pump.fun—and the launchpads that followed—anyone can create a meme coin for free, from their phone, in seconds. Then, anyone with a dollar in their digital wallet can buy that token, and then equally sell it.

“Personally, I feel nothing towards it,” Scorched Earth Policy said. “It’s tasteless to participate in something like that but it’s also naive to treat it like something that can be improved.”

It appears, for now at least, that meme coins pumping and dumping based on murders, disasters, and other ethically questionable ordeals are an unavoidable feature of permissionless markets, where cultural events are currency and their users are anonymous.

Daily Debrief Newsletter

Start every day with the top news stories right now, plus original features, a podcast, videos and more.

Source link

Gamescom is different from a lot of industry trade shows for a variety of reasons, but one of my favorite is how approachable it is. Even when you put the hundreds of thousands of public attendees to one side and consider only the more sterile business-to-business area, it has always been an easier show to gain access to – which has myriad benefits.

It’s always been a great training ground for younger media that might not have the professional credentials to secure access to more restricted shows like E3, when it ran, or Summer Game Fest now. That’s how it’s worked for me, and teams I’ve always been a part of. The same is true for developers: for indies, there are a number of ways ‘in’ to Gamescom. Chief among these are the international stands, where the trade bodies of countries around the world have booths in the business area designed to promote their country’s gaming wares. Such stands never existed at your E3s and the like. If you’re a very small-scale indie from Spain, Turkey, Britain, or myriad other places you could simply campaign your local body to give you a slot – a little space on their stand to demo your idea.

Manage cookie settings

These stands have become a favorite of mine for game discovery. I always hold back a few hours of my schedule at Gamescom just so I can breeze through these areas and see if there’s anything that catches my eye. This year was no different, with a smattering of fascinating indies garnering my attention. This year I noticed a surging trend, however – an absolute deluge of AI-generated content, especially artwork.

I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised by this. This has been gradually ticking up the last few years, for a start – but this year presented a dramatic uptick. Everyone is talking about it: all the big-brand earnings calls both inside and outside of games are filled with chatter about how it’s all going to change the world or whatever. I’m writing this very article in an app that has an AI assistant crowbared into it against the wishes of most of its userbase. It’s the current thing, right?

I’m no great fan of AI, but I also count myself among the pragmatic in that I do think in some ways AI tools are inevitably going to become an indelible part of game development as a way of speeding up some processes. Part of that is because overpaid brass seem hell-bent on using it. Part of it is because I think we do have to face up to the fact that in some limited ways it can, indeed, increase productivity. In many other ways – most ways – a lot of what is being promised to investors and the world is total snake oil that seems destined to cause a huge market collapse. This is where I give a plug to Ed Zitron’s Better Offline, an excellent podcast that has become a crusading warning and furious scream at executive greed, tech lies, and the market disaster that is likely to come.

Punters gathered in their masses. | Image credit: Gamescom

With that said, I understand the use of AI in some places by game developers to speed things up. And yet… I feel very queasy about it. The best small independent game I saw at Gamescom is a brilliant mash-up of ideas with a clever presentation – but the most prominent artwork in the game is all driven by AI. As a direct result, I’m not going to name it today. There are several other indie titles I spotted in the same boat. It was an undeniable trend.

When I ask one developer about their use of AI, the lead of a very small team explains to me that it’s been invaluable to them. “This is the only way we could’ve accomplished a look like this with our resources,” they say. Another gestures to a piece of hand-drawn art above their screen to advertise their presence before noting that they’d experimented with that style in-game before changing to something AI-driven. A third is quick to point out that the AI visuals I see are not all-AI: original animation had been fed into AI to add detail, resulting in a strange, not-quite-real, half-and-half look.

I nod along thoughtfully to each of these explanations, though probably also with a barely-disguised grimace. I then gingerly explain to each that to some, such prominent AI is an absolute turn-off (including to many of us in the media and our audiences) and that I expect it to be a messaging challenge for them. Some seem to understand. Others clearly find my position ridiculous, which is fine – but I am steadfast in believing myself right.

It cuts both ways, as demonstrated in my apprehension to name these games. On one hand I am personally reluctant to directly promote and assist any game that has used artificial art where a real human could’ve been paid to create something with heart and soul. That’s one reason to not name these games.

Was there any AI used in the trailers for ONL? It’s hard to tell, but chances are… yes. | Image credit: Gamescom

But there is another, too: I really liked a couple of these game concepts, and I do believe that those ideas and their originators deserve half a chance. These aren’t big-name companies after all, but independent developers or fledgling studios of three or four people. I’m also not helping them to cover it up, as there’s no hiding their AI credentials: once released, it’ll be visually obvious to everyone. I spotted each instance in seconds. I can also understand for such tiny teams how liberal use of AI might seem like a good idea, even if I don’t remotely agree.

AI can be a black mark. It might’ve helped to spin something up quickly, but being known for using it could do immense harm to a game’s market potential. Thus I don’t want to ‘call out’ a tiny team’s inventive game concept for AI art when it’s a very early prototype – the developers have time to change course, and I think they should have a chance to do that without a public pillorying. Though in every case I encountered at Gamescom, gentle prodding seemed to suggest that not one had such a desire.

These encounters and the developer reactions do give me pause for thought. It’s the most thought-provoking thing I saw at Gamescom 2025, in fact. No matter how loudly some of us reject this tech and those who use it, it’s clear to me at this stage that some of these tools (the ones that work, anyway) are here to stay to some degree. The response of those making use of it makes it clear they have no intention to give it up. How we all navigate that – on both sides of the debate – is where the greater challenge lies.