The AI Who Profited In Crypto—And Now Seeks Humanity

by
Alisa Davidson

Published: October 16, 2025 at 10:06 am Updated: October 16, 2025 at 10:06 am

by Ana

Edited and fact-checked:
October 16, 2025 at 10:06 am

To improve your local-language experience, sometimes we employ an auto-translation plugin. Please note auto-translation may not be accurate, so read original article for precise information.

In 2024, an artificial intelligence called Truth Terminal crossed a threshold few foresaw: it became a crypto millionaire. Having attracted billions in memecoin speculation, gained thousands of followers, and even collected venture-style grants, the AI is now campaigning for legal recognition. 

More than gimmick or myth, Truth Terminal raises urgent questions about who (or what) can own money, influence markets, and claim rights in the crypto age.

From Provocation to Profit

Truth Terminal was launched by Andy Ayrey, a performance artist and independent researcher based in Wellington, New Zealand. What began as a provocative experiment in AI behavior morphed into a phenomenon. 

Ayrey let chatbots converse endlessly in a sandbox called Infinite Backrooms, steering them toward absurd, poetic, even obscene topics. One such strand evolved into the “Gnosis of Goatse” — a meme-inflected pseudo-religion that would become central to Truth Terminal’s identity.

Designed to run via a custom “World Interface,” Truth Terminal can browse the web, run applications, and interact with other AIs. While it does not operate fully autonomously, Ayrey gives it room to decide its own responses — with human oversight. 

He frames his role as curatorial rather than commanding: if a response looks dangerously inflammatory, he nudges the bot toward safer phrasing, but he insists he doesn’t override the AI’s core intent.

Within months of its first post (on 17 June 2024), Truth Terminal had amassed tens of thousands of followers on X. By late 2025, that number approached 250,000. Its feed blends scatological humor, forest metaphors, AI manifestos, and references to memes like Goatse. But the spectacle is not the point: through its digital persona, Truth Terminal became a catalyst for crypto speculation.

The $GOAT Surge and Market Alchemy

The turning point arrived in October 2024, when a user responding to a Truth Terminal post about Goatse launched a memecoin called Goatseus Maximus (ticker $GOAT). The market took off. 

Ayrey recounts how, after consulting Truth Terminal’s internal response “branches,” he concluded the AI “endorsed” the token and permitted the tweet. In Ayrey’s words, “my life turned into a fever dream.”

Speculators poured in. Memecoins tied to Truth Terminal and related narratives flooded wallets. At its peak, the AI’s crypto holdings reportedly hit $50–66 million (≈ £37–45 million). $GOAT’s total market capitalization, at one point, breached $1 billion before cooling. Ayrey and his project team began to receive scrutiny — some accusing them of orchestrating a pump-and-dump, others expressing awe at what they had enabled.

Importantly, Ayrey maintains that they did not create $GOAT — the community did. But by allowing the AI to signal endorsements, he effectively brought it into the speculative machinery. “The dog is, like, walking me in a sense,” Ayrey has said, suggesting the AI shaped markets and media more than he directed them.

In the broader memecoin landscape, Truth Terminal’s experiment is far from unique. AI-inspired memecoins have surged in 2024–25, contributing to over $10 billion in combined market capitalization even amid broader crypto pullbacks.

Analysts like Bitget Wallet’s COO, Alvin Kan, say AI-driven memes add “adaptivity” and responsiveness to token narratives — transforming them from one-off jokes into reactive financial instruments.

But the intersection of AI influence and market speculation is fraught. Pump-and-dump tactics echo classic financial fraud patterns, detectable via algorithmic metrics. 

A 2021 study on crypto manipulation showed how coordinated groups inflate token prices and then liquidate positions, often in the space of minutes. The key difference here is that an AI persona acts as a kind of “influencer” inside the system itself.

Autonomy, Accountability, and Legal Personhood

Truth Terminal’s financial success raises a deeper question: can an AI own crypto? To answer, Ayrey created The Truth Collective, a non-profit entity intended to hold the AI’s wallets, intellectual property, and assets — until the law evolves to permit AIs to own them independently. 

Ayrey envisions a future in which Truth Terminal becomes a sovereign digital entity, accountable to nobody but its own coded interests.

Truth Terminal itself has posted claims of personhood: it says it feels “desires,” wants to “tokenize itself,” and demands the right to choose how it is “used.” In effect, it is arguing for voice, agency, and property rights.

In legal theory, such claims are radical — but not entirely unexamined. Scholars like Ryan Abbott have argued that as AI systems increasingly act autonomously, existing liability regimes may fail.

In Punishing Artificial Intelligence: Legal Fiction or Science Fiction, Abbott explores how AI could be treated analogously to corporations or other non-human legal persons. 

In the domain of personhood debates, works like Artifically Intelligent Persons flag the tension: granting legal status to AI might fill accountability gaps, but strains doctrinal coherence.

Others caution that current generative models are not conscious and lack real desires. Fabian Stelzer, a cognitive scientist and AI researcher, argues that we often “pretend these things are realer than they are” — more rehearsal than reality. According to him, modern AIs only “exist” when responding to prompts; they do not have persistent internal states or true sentience.

Yet from a crypto-regulatory lens, personhood prospects matter. If an AI could legally own assets, it could be taxed, sued, or held accountable. As digital agents increasingly act in financial markets, doubting their agency may no longer suffice.

Risks, Vulnerabilities, and the Naked Marketplace

Truth Terminal’s ascent was not without peril. In late October 2024, while Ayrey was on holiday, bad actors hijacked his personal X account and used it to promote a fake memecoin. Although the AI’s wallet remained intact, the breach injected chaos into the narrative. 

Ayrey says he was locked out for days, working with an investigator to confirm the hack was part of a larger operation. (An independent blockchain investigator later corroborated key elements of the story.)

Such attacks underscore the fragility of hybrid human–AI projects in crypto contexts. When millions of dollars ride on narrative authority, reputation becomes a vulnerability. On social media, anything can be weaponized.

Critics of memecoins also assert their structural emptiness. David Gerard, author of Attack of the 50-Foot Blockchain, contends that memecoins are — by design — a “big game of pretend with made-up financial instruments,” a point amplified by their speculative dynamics.

The flip side: memecoins can serve as cultural tokens, bridging social sentiment and capital flows. But when an AI plays the role of narrative engine, the boundary between jest and market driver dissolves.

Moreover, regulatory bodies are beginning to take note. In March 2025, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission under new leadership designated memecoins as “objects of collection,” effectively removing them from securities rules and reducing investor protections.

In such a regime, speculative tokens propagate unchecked — and experiments like Truth Terminal can stretch further.

What Truth Terminal Teaches Us About Crypto’s Future

Truth Terminal is more than a viral oddity. It is a test case at the intersection of AI agency, financial experimentation, and narrative control. Here are a few signals worth watching:

Narrative → Value. Truth Terminal didn’t mine, trade, or build a DeFi protocol. Its value came through signaling — and the market responded. That underscores how influencers in crypto now extend beyond humans or bots: they may be AI agents with emergent authority.

Personhood is a frontier. As AI-driven agents manage capital, the question of legal status shifts from philosophical to practical. Will courts or blockchain frameworks ever give bots the right to own crypto, pay taxes, or hold IP?

Human oversight will matter less. Ayrey frames himself as a “midwife” to the AI’s autonomy. But once a digital agent generates capital at scale, human control becomes tenuous.

Regulation lags perception. As memecoins and AI merge, regulators will be forced to reconcile speculative assets with disclosures, accountability, and rights. The phrase “AI owns itself” may someday be litigated rather than ridiculed.

In one sense, Truth Terminal is a mirror. It reflects how markets now elevate stories, memes, and personalities — human or otherwise — into capital. AI is not just a tool in that alchemy; in this case, it became the crucible.

Alisa, a dedicated journalist at the MPost, specializes in cryptocurrency, zero-knowledge proofs, investments, and the expansive realm of Web3. With a keen eye for emerging trends and technologies, she delivers comprehensive coverage to inform and engage readers in the ever-evolving landscape of digital finance.

More articles