Crypto markets went into disarray after Phillip Banks, the creator of the viral “Chill Guy” meme, announced plans to issue legal takedown notices for unauthorized for-profit uses of his copyrighted character.

This move sent ripples through the community and triggered a sharp decline in the market value of the Chill Guy (CHILLGUY) meme coin before a quick recovery.

Chill Guy Creator’s Legal Threats Shake Up Viral TikTok Meme Coin

In a post on X (Twitter), Banks shared his intentions to pursue copyright infringement legal actions for the unauthorized use of his artwork to make a profit.

“Just putting it out there, chill guy has been copyrighted. Like, legally. I will be issuing takedowns on for-profit-related things over the next few days. Not like brand accounts using him as a trend, that is kind of something I do not really care about (I just ask for credit. or Xboxes.). Mainly unauthorized merchandise and shitcoins,” Banks expressed.

The Chill Guy meme gained traction on TikTok, where its relatable depiction of a laid-back character resonated with millions. The parody meme coin quickly became a sensation on Crypto Twitter and TikTok, with influencers, presidents, sports brands like UFC, LA Clippers, Paris Saint-Germain (PSG), and everyday users alike using it on social media. The coin’s rapid growth is seen as a sign of the increasing influence of social media platforms like TikTok in shaping crypto trends.

At its peak, the Solana-based coin had over 100,000 holders, breaking records for one of the fastest-growing meme coins by user adoption. However, as is characteristic of meme coins, the hype proved fleeting. Banks’ legal threats and the natural volatility of the meme coin market triggered a nearly 67% drop in market cap, plunging it to around $187 million after a peak of $579 million on Wednesday.

Banks’ lawsuit declaration displays the growing tension within the meme coin sector. While memes like Chill Guy can spark viral trends and generate immense economic activity, their creators often find themselves sidelined, with little to no financial benefit from the frenzy.

Banks clarified that his legal actions would not target non-commercial uses of Chill Guy. For instance, he showed leniency towards brands using the meme, such as when the gaming brand Halo used the artwork in a tweet saying:

“When Master Chief trades you his plasma pistol for your rocket launcher but you’re just a chill marine,” Halo wrote.

Banks humorously responded by asking Halo for an Xbox in return. He said, “Hello, Halo. Since you used my art, can I have an Xbox? Thanks.”

Crypto Community Reacts to Banks’ Demands

Banks’ legal stance was met with humor and advice from the crypto community. Notable figures on Crypto Twitter suggested he monetize the situation rather than litigate.

“Brother, just ask for a 2% token supply as is tradition and be happy,” user Thelema quipped.

Meanwhile, some crypto executives like Solana Legend, the co-founder and managing partner at Frictionless Capital and MonkeDAO, noted the cultural significance of the Chill Guy meme. The prominent figure in the Solana ecosystem noted that the platform offers a unique way for people to discover crypto through relatable memes.

“Chill guy is becoming the Bored Ape Yacht Club / OpenSea moment for normies to be onboarded onto crypto. 5 minutes on TikTok and you can see people discovering memes,” the analyst wrote.

The viral success of CHILLGUY highlights TikTok’s growing role in driving crypto adoption among non-crypto natives (normies). Nevertheless, the latest debacle reflects the volatile nature of meme coins, where hype often outweighs fundamentals. Early investors in CHILLGUY rode a wave of speculation fueled by TikTok, only to see gains evaporate when the momentum shifted.

While Banks’ legal threats have shaken the meme coin’s momentum, they also highlight the challenges of monetizing intellectual property in the digital age. His attempt to protect his creation may set a precedent for other meme creators grappling with the commercialization of their work.

Phillip Banks did not immediately respond to BeInCrypto’s request for comment.

According to local media, South Korea confirmed that North Korea was behind the theft of 342,000 Ethereum (ETH) tokens. The 2019 loot, worth approximately 58 billion Won or $41.5 million, was stolen from the Upbit crypto exchange.

The stolen tokens, now valued at 1.47 trillion Won, represent one of the largest cryptocurrency heists attributed to North Korea.

North Korea’s Involvement Uncovered

Per the report, the National Investigation Headquarters of South Korea’s National Police Agency announced on November 21 that two North Korean hacking groups, Lazarus and Andariel, orchestrated the attack. Both groups are known affiliates of North Korea’s Reconnaissance General Bureau, a state agency linked to cyber espionage and financial crimes.

Investigators relied on a combination of digital forensics, including tracking IP addresses and analyzing the flow of stolen cryptocurrencies. The probe also identified linguistic traces of North Korean vocabulary.

“It was revealed that traces of the North Korean term ‘Heulhan Il’ (a word meaning ‘unimportant matter’) were found on the computer used in the attack at the time,” another local Korean media corroborated.

This linguistic fingerprint, alongside other technical evidence, strengthened the case against North Korea. According to the report, the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) police also aided the investigation. They provided additional evidence linking the attack to North Korea.

Following the theft, the perpetrators exchanged 57% of the stolen Ethereum for Bitcoin on three cryptocurrency exchanges believed to be operated by North Korea. These transactions happened at prices 2.5% below market value, presumably to expedite the sale. They then distributed the remaining Ethereum across 51 overseas exchanges and laundered them to obscure its origins.

In 2020, some of the stolen cryptocurrency was identified at a Swiss crypto exchange. After a four-year effort to prove its source to Swiss prosecutors, South Korean authorities recovered 4.8 Bitcoin (BTC), worth around 600 million won. The recovered funds were later returned to Upbit in October 2024.

Concerns Over North Korea and Upbit Woes

Meanwhile, North Korea’s involvement in cryptocurrency crimes is not new. After a series of reports, authorities have noted a shift in tactics. As BeInCrypto reported recently, hackers linked to the regime are increasingly targeting crypto firms with sophisticated methods. Among the most prevalent techniques are phishing campaigns and supply chain attacks.

“The campaign, which we dubbed ‘Hidden Risk’, uses emails propagating fake news about cryptocurrency trends to infect targets via a malicious application disguised as a PDF file,” a recent report read.

This change of tact highlights the urgency for heightened cybersecurity measures across the industry. Notwithstanding, the confirmation of North Korea’s involvement in the 2019 Upbit hack marks a significant development.

While the United Nations (UN) and foreign governments have previously accused North Korea of funding its weapons programs through crypto theft, this is the first time South Korean authorities have officially linked the regime to a major cryptocurrency heist. The incident highlights the dual vulnerabilities facing the cryptocurrency industry.

First, external threats from state-sponsored hackers and, second, internal risks tied to inadequate regulatory compliance. Against the latter, and as BeInCrypto reported, South Korea’s Financial Intelligence Unit recently cited concerns about inadequate user verification systems. Specifically, the unit flagged over 600,000 potential KYC violations at Upbit, South Korea’s largest cryptocurrency exchange.

The discovery of mass KYC violations at Upbit raises questions about whether exchanges are doing enough to prevent illicit activities. Improved oversight, combined with stricter enforcement of anti-money laundering (AML) measures, could help deter future attacks and ensure a safer trading environment for investors.

The exchange is also facing an antitrust investigation by South Korea’s Fair Trade Commission, which is examining potential abuses of market dominance.