X alleges six accounts formed a coordinated payout network
In its complaint, X identifies six primary accounts enrolled in Creator Revenue Sharing between August 2023 and February 2026: @Vivek4real_, @Bitcoin_Teddy, @saylordocs, @TrendingBitcoin, @Kalshibacktest and @PolyBackTest. The filing links payment accounts associated with the first three to Sen and the remaining three to Sherpa, while alleging other people may have operated or controlled parts of the network.
Last week, @X sued several people who abused Creator Revenue Sharing by operating a coordinated network of accounts, posting inauthentic content to manipulate engagement, and using multiple bank accounts to hide their scheme.
We do not tolerate fraudulent behavior on X — and…
— James Burnham (@BurnhamDC) September 20, 2026
X claims the defendants operated the accounts “as a single coordinated network” to increase monetizable engagement. The company alleges substantially similar posts appeared across accounts within short periods while the accounts liked, reposted and replied to one another’s material. X characterizes those activities as deliberate engagement manipulation, but the claims remain allegations presented by the company.
Several examples appear in the filing. On Aug. 13, X says @Vivek4real_, @saylordocs and @Bitcoin_Teddy replied to the same third-party post within 31 seconds. The complaint says @TrendingBitcoin, @Vivek4real_ and @Bitcoin_Teddy published matching content within minutes on July 23, July 26 and Aug. 3. On Aug. 5, X alleges @Vivek4real_ and @TrendingBitcoin published substantially similar posts only 11 seconds apart.
Three more handles, @BTC_Vibes, @MrSuperBitcoin and @Laserlump, appear in Annex A. X alleges they repeatedly liked, replied to and reposted material from the primary accounts as part of the same activity, although the company says further investigation and disclosure could identify more accounts or incidents.
X says creator payouts reached at least £207,384
The financial claim covers payments X says it made because the disputed accounts appeared eligible for Creator Revenue Sharing.
X’s schedule lists £74,332.44 for @Vivek4real_, approximately £50,065 plus a smaller payment converted from Paraguayan guaraní for @Bitcoin_Teddy, £49,441.91 for @saylordocs, £22,938.35 for @TrendingBitcoin, £3,490.71 for @Kalshibacktest and £6,705.25 for @PolyBackTest.
The company puts total Creator Revenue Sharing losses at no less than £207,384. It estimates another £75,000 or more in investigation, analysis, remediation and prevention expenses, though the filing says that second amount was not yet fully known.
X alleges the defendants supplied misleading information through associated payment accounts and used overlapping devices, software clients, cookies and other identifiers. The company claims some accounts were connected through financial details that did not match the apparent account operators. Those allegations form part of X’s case for deceit, breach of contract and unjust enrichment; no court finding has yet established them in the material reviewed.
The filing seeks delivery or repayment of the disputed funds, damages, equitable or restitutionary compensation, interest under Section 35A of the Senior Courts Act 1981, legal costs and any further relief the court considers appropriate.
X suspended the accounts before filing its lawsuit
X says it suspended the defendants’ accounts on Aug. 18 for what it described as coordinated revenue-sharing fraud and platform manipulation. The company filed the court action one month later.
The suspensions came while X was preparing to retire the monetization system at issue in the lawsuit. Its official Creator Revenue Sharing guidance says new enrollments stopped Aug. 7 and existing participants could continue earning only through Sept. 7. X scheduled the final payout for earnings under the former program around Sept. 11.
As crypto.news previously reported on X’s creator payment changes, the platform was considering USDC and other stablecoins as possible creator-payment options while moving away from the old revenue-sharing model. No stablecoin payment system had been confirmed at the time.
The lawsuit states that the older program rewarded eligible creators partly according to engagement generated by their posts. To qualify, users had to meet requirements that included an X Premium subscription, more than five million organic impressions over the previous three months, more than 500 verified followers and compliance with platform rules.
X relied heavily on those rules in its pleading. The company says Creator Revenue Sharing terms permitted it to withhold or recover payments when creators artificially inflated views, used bots or manipulated the platform.
In related coverage, crypto.news reported in March that X tightened monetization enforcement for creators posting undisclosed AI-generated war videos, imposing temporary suspensions from revenue sharing and permanent removal for repeat violations.
Original Content Rewards now excludes artificial engagement
Since Sept. 8, X has begun replacing Creator Revenue Sharing with its Original Content Rewards Program. The new system bases payouts on qualified impressions generated by original material viewed by Premium subscribers in the Home Timeline.
Current rules expressly exclude fraudulent, paid, promoted or artificially generated impressions. X says copied posts, downloaded and reuploaded media, minimally modified material and aggregated content without a meaningful original contribution do not qualify.
Creators must continue posting original and authentic material after admission and cannot use bots, automation or other tools to manufacture likes, views, follows, comments or shares. X says it can temporarily or permanently remove participants if it detects malicious or fraudulent activity.
The new terms took effect Aug. 7 and give X discretion to amend or cancel the program. U.S. creators currently receive payouts through X Money, while non-U.S. creators connect a Stripe payout account and complete identity verification through Stripe.
For the pending UK case, X alleges Sen, Sherpa and the unidentified defendants committed deceit, unlawful-means conspiracy, breach of contract, unjust enrichment and knowing receipt connected with the older program. The Sept. 17 pleading carries statements of truth from two X legal directors, while the public document reviewed does not contain a defense, judgment or finding determining whether the allegations are proven.
