In This Article
Introduction
The chaos of OpenClaw's rebrand wasn't limited to trademark. During the Clawdbot→Moltbot→OpenClaw transition, crypto scammers grabbed the released social handles and promoted a fake $CLAWD token that briefly hit a $16 million market cap before crashing when Steinberger publicly denounced it. The episode illustrated both the intensity of attention surrounding the project and the risks of unregulated hype that follows viral AI moments.
Viral open-source projects attract more than contributors. They attract speculators, scammers, and opportunists. The $CLAWD episode was a cautionary tale: when a project explodes in popularity, the creator must be ready to defend its integrity. Steinberger's swift, clear denunciation helped. But the episode left scars — and lessons. See name history for the rebrand context.
What Happened
As OpenClaw rebranded, old handles (Clawdbot, etc.) were released. Scammers claimed them. Created $CLAWD token. Promoted as "official" OpenClaw crypto. Pumped on Twitter, Telegram. Market cap hit $16M. No connection to OpenClaw. Pure scam.
Timeline: Late January 2026. OpenClaw was in the middle of its rebrand. Social media handles for "Clawdbot" and related names were abandoned. Within hours, scammers had claimed them. They created a token, listed it on decentralized exchanges, and promoted it as the "official" OpenClaw cryptocurrency. The pitch: "OpenClaw is going to the moon. Get $CLAWD before it's too late." The project had never announced any token. The Foundation had no crypto plans. It was entirely fabricated.
The scam relied on confusion. The rebrand was chaotic. Many users didn't know what was official. The scammers exploited that. By the time Steinberger responded, the token had already peaked at a $16M market cap. Retail investors had bought in.
Impact
Investors lost money. OpenClaw's reputation briefly tangled with crypto speculation. Steinberger's denunciation was swift and clear: no official token, no endorsement. The token crashed. Lesson: viral AI attracts bad actors. Community must be vigilant.
The crash was swift. Within 48 hours of Steinberger's statement, the token had lost over 90% of its value. Some holders tried to argue it was "community-driven" and unrelated to the official project. The market didn't care. Without official endorsement, $CLAWD had no legitimacy. It collapsed.
For OpenClaw: the episode was a distraction. Some potential users wondered if the project was a crypto scheme. Steinberger's clarity helped. The Foundation's "no crypto, ever" stance was now explicit. The community learned to be skeptical of any token claims.
Steinberger's Response
Steinberger: public statement. No $CLAWD. No OpenClaw token. Never will be. Foundation has no crypto plans. The clarity helped. Scammers moved on. OpenClaw continued.
The statement was unambiguous. Posted on Twitter, GitHub, and the OpenClaw Discord. "OpenClaw has no token. We will never have a token. Any $CLAWD or similar is a scam. Do not buy." The Foundation later formalized this in its governance documents: no cryptocurrency, no token, no NFT. The project is open-source software. Nothing more.
Lessons for Viral AI
Act fast. Scammers move quickly. The longer a creator waits to denounce, the more damage. Steinberger responded within days.
Be unambiguous. "We don't endorse" isn't enough. "It's a scam, do not buy" is. Leave no room for interpretation.
Secure handles early. Don't release old handles during a rebrand. Or release them to the Foundation. Scammers monitor for abandoned accounts.
Educate the community. Many OpenClaw users now know: if it's a token, it's a scam. That awareness helps prevent future episodes.
Wrapping Up
The $CLAWD episode was a side effect of virality. OpenClaw survived it. The Foundation is stronger for having a clear, public stance. See name history and 100K stars for the growth context.