Cyberleek may have just cashed out on their GTA 6 leak, earning over $200,000 in the most predictable crypto rugpull ever performed

← Back to the feed

Cyberleek may have just cashed out on their GTA 6 leak, earning over $200,000 in the most predictable crypto rugpull ever performed

Developing story first seen 4 hours ago

PC Gamer · 4 hours ago

Cyberleek, the anonymous source linked to alleged Grand Theft Auto 6 footage, reportedly withdrew more than $200,000 from the $CYBERLEEK cryptocurrency after promoting it alongside the leaks. The reported cash-out has strengthened accusations that the campaign was a deliberate rugpull, using the attention around GTA 6 to drive trading before funds were removed.

A GTAForums investigator estimated that Cyberleek earned roughly $270,000 in transaction fees after burning 270 million reserved tokens, an apparent attempt to build confidence in the coin. Around $99,000 was reportedly sent to KuCoin, $84,000 to CCE.Cash and about $91,000 remained in wallets; after estimated setup costs of $29,000, the claimed profit was about $241,000. The figures are based on public blockchain analysis and have not been independently confirmed.

  • Cyberleek reportedly withdrew over $200,000 from the associated cryptocurrency.
  • Investigators allege GTA 6 leaks were used to promote the token.
  • Blockchain analysis suggests an estimated profit of about $241,000.

New here? Start with this

Grand Theft Auto is a hugely popular series of crime-themed video games made by Rockstar Games. Interest in its next instalment, GTA 6, has made any claimed footage or information about the game especially valuable online.

Cryptocurrencies are digital tokens that can be bought and sold, often with prices driven by attention and speculation. A “rugpull” is a term used when people behind a token are accused of promoting it to attract buyers before withdrawing funds or selling their holdings, leaving others exposed to losses.

Blockchain records can show movements of cryptocurrency between public wallet addresses, but they do not always establish who controls them or why transfers were made. Claims about the person known as Cyberleek and the $CYBERLEEK token are based on such analysis and remain unconfirmed.

Both sides, in good faith

The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.

The case for

The reported token design, large fee claims and movement of funds to exchanges support the concern that the leak was used to stimulate speculative trading before insiders extracted value. Advocates of this view would argue that burning reserved tokens may have been a calculated way to build trust, while the subsequent 75% fall in market value left ordinary holders carrying most of the risk. They see transparency and investor protection as especially important where anonymous promoters combine sensational leaks with a tradable asset.

The case against

The available figures, wallet attributions and motives have not been independently confirmed, so a cash-out alone does not establish that the footage campaign was conceived as a rugpull. A supporter of Cyberleek’s account could argue that the token funded or amplified a real dispute over gaming rights, and that selling tokens or receiving transaction fees is not inherently deceptive if the risks and ownership structure were visible on-chain. They would stress due process, the limits of blockchain inference and the need to distinguish sharp speculation from provable fraud.

More coverage

Business Crypto Cybersecurity Technology

Read the full article at the source →