ZERO Token Sparks Controversy Amid Rug Pull ClaimsSiqi Chen, CEO of Runway and co-founder of Serious Business, has once again thrust the meme token community into turmoil with the launch of the Zero (ZERO) token. Chen’s latest experiment followed a familiar pattern: ZERO was introduced as a “test token” explicitly warned to lose all value. Yet, the speculative frenzy surrounding meme tokens ensured immediate liquidity inflows, with buyers injecting value despite the clear caution. Shortly after its launch, Chen sold the token, acquiring 444 SOL in the process, only to repurchase and burn his earnings, stating the sell order was a mistake.This isn’t Chen’s first brush with controversy. Earlier, he launched the MIRA token, which saw a meteoric rise from a modest $440,000 to a staggering $6 million in notional value, riding on its association with a cancer research charity. However, the hype quickly unraveled as whales and early buyers reaped massive profits, leaving retail investors nursing losses. Despite these events, ZERO has yet to reach its promised zero-value fate, holding $127,000 in liquidity. As bots and speculators remain active, the token persists, leaving open the possibility of further volatility and financial fallout.On-chain researcher ZachXBT has highlighted Chen’s involvement in other questionable token ventures, including ChAIrity, which similarly faced rapid price crashes following sell orders. Critics argue Chen’s actions, albeit couched in transparency, exacerbate losses for participants lured by speculative gains. While Chen expressed willingness to compensate some ZERO traders, no restitution has been extended to MIRA holders, who faced more significant losses. The disparity has deepened skepticism about Chen’s motives and the feasibility of meme tokens fulfilling charitable or experimental promises. MIRA Token Faces Decline Amid Lingering ScrutinyThe MIRA token, launched on December 25 with a charity-focused narrative, has continued its downward trajectory. Initially buoyed by hype and its unique premise, MIRA surged to $0.026 before tumbling 50% to $0.013. Despite its slide, the token maintains $814,000 in liquidity and has amassed nearly 12,000 holders. Aided by its listing on Binance Alpha, MIRA continues to see trading activity, though its long-term viability remains in question.Critics point to inefficiencies inherent in the token’s model, with significant portions of potential donations diverted to traders and whales capitalizing on early positions. While Chen has noted the comparative effectiveness of MIRA over traditional fundraising methods, the token’s structure has left many investors disillusioned. As of December 31, Chen retains $1.1 million in donations within his wallet, though MIRA’s low liquidity and lack of market-making support hamper its ability to fulfill its intended purpose.The broader implications of Chen’s ventures extend beyond individual losses. By intertwining charitable intentions with speculative trading, projects like MIRA and ZERO have highlighted the pitfalls of relying on meme token markets for altruistic outcomes. ChAIrity, another token linked to Chen, further underscores these challenges, as its value plummeted over 90% amid widespread sell-offs. While some holders sought to contribute to charitable causes, skepticism around the mechanics of such tokens led to diminished enthusiasm and eroded trust.Chen now finds himself at the center of an unintended crypto community demanding accountability and transparency. As traders and enthusiasts grapple with the fallout of his experimental tokens, the enduring legacy of MIRA and ZERO may serve as a cautionary tale for future ventures seeking to merge philanthropy with the speculative world of cryptocurrency.This article has been refined and enhanced by ChatGPT.