Cypherpunk Disavows Robinhood Token as Mow Labels ZEC ‘Pump and Dump’

Cypherpunk Says It Only Holds ZEC

Nasdaq-listed Cypherpunk Holdings has distanced itself from a crypto token using its name on Robinhood’s blockchain platform, joining a growing list of public companies condemning unauthorized stock tokenization. The privacy-focused firm clarified that while the token attaches its official ticker, Cypherpunk has no involvement with the asset.

Cypherpunk’s alert, which came just days after AMC called on Robinhood to cease trading in a token linked to its stock, reiterated its unwavering support for Zcash.

“Cypherpunk has never issued a token. We hold native ZEC on the Zcash blockchain. The only Cypherpunk security is CYPH on Nasdaq,” the company wrote on X.

The warning came amid a massive surge in both CYPH stock and ZEC over the past few days. Market data shows Cypherpunk’s stock has jumped 40% in the last five days alone and more than 250% in the last 30 days. Likewise, ZEC, which breached $1,200 on Sunday, has seen its price rise by more than 30% in the past seven days and more than 100% since the start of the year.

Both CYPH and ZEC are capitalizing on momentum surrounding privacy assets, making them prime targets for scammers looking to profit from the interest.

Meanwhile, ZEC’s recent surge sparked a debate between privacy advocates and critics who objected to social media comparisons between the privacy coin and bitcoin. One critic, Samson Mow, offered a brutal assessment of ZEC, going as far as branding it “such an obvious pump and dump.”

Skepticism and Past Volatility

During previous rallies earlier this year, ZEC surged after prominent figures like Arthur Hayes and Raoul Pal promoted its prospects. However, reports later surfaced that figures including Hayes offloaded their ZEC holdings just days after promoting the coin, sparking backlash from followers. Following the controversy, ZEC traded sideways for two months before regaining bullish momentum in late August.

Although the rally appears to be supported by a recently launched Grayscale exchange-traded fund, critics like social media user Chun remain unconvinced, framing ZEC’s price surge as a “narrative bid” rather than evidence of fundamental value.

“A big market cap does not mean a coin earned its place,” Chun wrote on X, arguing that ZEC’s market standing does not match top-tier assets like Solana or Hyperliquid.

Chun highlighted several core vulnerabilities in ZEC’s model, including the initial four-year Founders’ Reward, about 20% of block rewards that went to early backers, as well as the subsequent “development fund.” Chun argued that “a coin that writes itself into the block reward should not be sold as clean, neutral money.”

Criticizing ZEC’s optional privacy features, Chun labeled it “marketing” rather than true protocol design, noting that most coins remain in transparent addresses. Chun also pointed to centralized board infighting and the departure of the entire Electric Coin Company team in January 2026, writing: “A base-layer team that cannot stay in the same building as its nonprofit board is not ‘decentralized.’ It is broken at the top.”

Chun also pointed to the four-year-old bug disclosed in May 2026 within the Orchard pool that theoretically allowed undetectable counterfeit coin creation, arguing that “a money whose private supply cannot be checked like Bitcoin … is not ‘hard money.’”

Concluding the critique, Chun asserted that ZEC cleared only “a listing and a squeeze” rather than actual utility, warning that mixing up market momentum with real usage misreads the asset entirely.