Bobby Gray, the founder of TEXITcoin, a secessionist token project, recently informed his investors and miners that financial distress is prompting major changes to the commission structure and price targets. TEXITcoin’s public narrative has long rested on the idea that price outcomes could be engineered through disciplined execution, controlled liquidity, and sustained recruitment.
However, Gray’s weekly “Miner’s Updates” revealed an array of bad news, and by mid-November, the tone had shifted perceptibly. What had previously been framed as a tightly managed trajectory toward a predefined price outcome began to sound, instead, like a post-hoc rationalization for slippage.
This is the fourth article Disruption Banking has published covering the travails of TEXITcoin. The first explored the project and its staff, finding little evidence of the existence of several integral staff members. The second revealed a security breach affecting hundreds of investor accounts, and the third investigated the project’s claims of sponsorship and mining.
When the Price Stops Obeying the Script
Gray’s target price increase from <$4 to 16$ for TEXITcoin proved “too aggressive.”
Gray said, “We blew through 131,000 on BitMartbetween November 30th and December 2nd,” referring to exchange-side liquidity support. That figure is not presented as an anomaly but as a symptom.
Gray went on, “I’ve already burnt through all the liquidity… we’ve bought back about $15 million of TXC and still we’ve got downward pressure on our price.” The implication is difficult to ignore: sustaining the price has required continuous capital injections, and even those have proven insufficient.
Price is publicly disavowed as a priority, yet privately acknowledged as the primary motivator for participation. This reality forced a rhetorical pivot.
“The price does not matter,” Gray insisted, almost defensively, before acknowledging the obvious tension: “I know that it’s difficult to get people excited about Texacoin if the price is dropping.”
The abandonment of the once-central “path to $16” narrative makes this explicit. The timeline, Gray admitted, is now “no good based on its timeline” and “no longer accurate” because it is “completely dependent on liquidity.” What had been sold as inevitability is now described as contingency.
Liquidity as Life Support, Not Strategy
If liquidity is Texitcoin’s life support, spending is its hemorrhage. The Miner Updates provide unusually granular insight into where funds are going and why Gray is alarmed.
Gray warned, “Last week we ran at 56% commission,” referring to the share of incoming funds being paid out to affiliates. “If we run the commission… at 100% that means that we’re paying out as much money as we’re bringing in. That means we don’t have money for building the mine, it means we don’t have money for promotion.”
The numbers cited by Gray underscore the scale of the problem.
Gray stated: “If we want to successfully achieve our testing goal… inside of the next 30 days we need to put an additional $15 million of capital into our liquidity fund.”
That remark is striking not only for the amount involved, but for the framing: liquidity is no longer a buffer but a prerequisite for credibility.
Organic Demand or Managed Support?
This framing implicitly acknowledges what critics have argued for months: that Texitcoin’s market price is not primarily the result of organic demand, but of managed support. Gray’s own language reinforces this interpretation.
He described a scenario in which professional market makers are being “wrestled” to keep the project on track, and warned of what he called “the nuclear option”: “spending large sums on mainstream crypto advertising… to artificially pump the price to $16.”
Although Gray insisted this option was being avoided, the mere articulation of it reveals how price formation is conceptualized internally as something that can be forced, at sufficient cost.
There is an irony here. In attempting to distance the project from overt manipulation, Gray repeatedly returned to the fear of appearing “fake.”
Gray said, “The moment we go out and we start buying TikTok followers… it becomes fake.”
Yet the distinction between buying followers and buying liquidity is never meaningfully interrogated. Both are mechanisms designed to manufacture perception, whether of popularity or of value. The Miner Updates suggest an acute awareness of reputational risk, but little appetite for structural change.
Insufficient Decentralization
Gray also reported that CoinMarketCap ruled out listing TEXITcoin due to “insufficient decentralization,” i.e., too much influence by the founder. At the same time, that influence continues despite Gray’s insistence in other updates on Youtube that he will be less involved in decisions.
For example, on December 11, Gray described the network’s control structure by stating, “You can’t mine it without our permission… we can take [your blocks], but you can’t take ours,” highlighting a significant centralization of power despite the “decentralized” branding.
Not to worry, the project appears to have entered a holding pattern, described internally as “Defcon 3.”
Gray said, “December we hit Defcon 3,” invoking a metaphor of escalating crisis while assuring listeners that Defcon 1, the point of no return, had not yet been reached.
TEXIT-Fried Mining Equipment
Gray stated in a Special Edition update on December 11 that the project has raised $140 million to date from its community of 55,000 miners. Besides burning the money on TXC buy-backs to bolster the price level, let’s examine where the money has been going.
Gray acknowledged spending approximately $1.8 million on mining infrastructure, including $402,112 to pay the remaining balance for four new immersion cooling containers (BC40 Elite), and $1.39 million was spent to purchase 320 L9 ASICs to fill the new cooling capacity. Unfortunately, things have not gone according to plan.
In Victoria, a voltage misconfiguration resulted in Gray and his team having “blew up half the miners in that tub before we shut it down,” causing a significant delay of 30 to 60 days. This follows an earlier error where the wrong transformer was installed, requiring the purchase of 12 new 900 KVA transformers.
Two containers in Conroe are installed but are still awaiting electrical wiring and ASIC installation.
Despite expenditures on hardware, the gap between sales and operational capacity remains vast: 22% of the total hash power goal has been sold, and 30% has been purchased and paid for, but only 1% has actually been installed and turned on.
These are not abstract growing pains; they are costly, tangible failures.
Commission Over-Budget Crisis
Gray admitted that the project relies heavily on its affiliate marketing program to reach its goal of 95% completion from the current 21%. Gray identified a “warning signal” in the project’s financial health, noting the internal commission split ran at 56% commission in prior weeks, exceeding the intended 50% payout target.
The goal is to “protect the integrity of our product” and get the commission percentage back below 50% and “under budget” to allow for the potential reinstatement of rewards like the Supernova bonus for active participants.
This concern prompted one of the most consequential policy changes to date: the expiration of “grandfather privileges.” Effective January 9, members who have not sponsored anyone since October 9 will lose eligibility for ongoing rewards. The stated goal is explicit: to “eliminate all the people that are getting free hash power every week… and then let’s get that number back below 50% under budget back to healthy.”
In other words, inactive participants are being reclassified from early adopters to financial liabilities because Gray believes these individuals may be “dumping those coins on the open market.”
Oh, and by the way, Gray spent $250,000 for three top-tier sponsorships in the Dallas holiday parade (plus an extra $50,000 donation to the community) for a grand total $300,000. The broadcast of the parade is expected to reach 20 to 25 million viewers.
Gray described it as “This is really a big opportunity for us to get our name, our brand, our image, our logo, our whole story front and center. One of the biggest things that we got as part of this deal… is a TEXITcoin wrapped ¾ ton truck pulling every single one of the floats. I think we’re supposed to have Miss America on our float.”
Utility, Legitimacy, and the Long Shadow of MLM Logic
In response to mounting criticism, Gray has emphasized utility over price. Gray admitted that many in the crypto industry use the concept of “utility” as an argument to avoid being classified as a security, describing it as trying to fit a “square utility peg through their round cash grab… rugpull pump and dump… hole.”
The proposed use case, “Downtown Digital Dollars” for fairs and festivals, is ambitious. Gray pegs the addressable market at a “$3 trillion industry by 2032” and claims that capturing just 1% would drive “$300 million in [TXC]” buying pressure annually, since every transaction would require TXC for gas fees.
In this telling, TXC becomes “a utility, it’s not a speculative investment.” Yet this pivot raises as many questions as it answers. The technical accomplishment, if real, is significant. But its late and muted introduction contrasts sharply with the months spent promoting price targets and recruitment incentives.
Moreover, Gray’s own admissions complicate the narrative: “It smells a whole lot like an MLM,” Gray acknowledged, before defending the structure: “how we’re not a pyramid… You can only make $3,000 a week… how we’re not a Ponzi…we deal with the pyramid by saying ‘Look, you can only make $3,000 a week, that’s it. The guy that starts all the way at the bottom can make just as much money as the guy that’s all the way at the top.’…If the sales stop tomorrow, the commission stops tomorrow.”
These defenses hinge on technicalities rather than fundamentals. The decision to “make it more difficult to access” the project and to phase out promotions is framed as a move to increase “perceived and actual value,” but it also functions as a brake on a system showing signs of saturation.
A Project in Suspension?
Taken together, the November and December Miner Updates do not depict a project in free fall. They depict something more ambiguous and, perhaps, more troubling: a project in suspension. Capital continues to be spent. Infrastructure continues to be ordered. New narratives continue to be introduced. Yet the core tensions between price and utility, between growth and sustainability, between personal incentives and collective risk remain unresolved.
What makes these disclosures compelling is not that they expose hidden malfeasance, but that they reveal the internal logic of Texitcoin with unusual clarity. Gray’s own words describe a system under strain, propped up by liquidity interventions, recalibrated through compensation cuts, and rhetorically repositioned toward utility just as its speculative engine falters.
Whether this represents deception, incompetence, or simply overreach is a question regulators and participants will answer differently. What is clear is that Texitcoin’s leadership no longer speaks with the certainty it once projected. The Miner Updates, intended as reassurance, now function as inadvertent testimony, documenting a project struggling to reconcile its promises with its realities.
Personal Tax Strategy as Corporate Subtext
Meanwhile, Gray himself has decamped to Puerto Rico, a “crypto safe haven,” rescheduling his birthday cruise and opting instead for a location in San Juan. Gray explained his relocation as preparation for when the price “pops,” so he can “go sit in time out on the beach in Puerto Rico for 6 months… to help avoid a $300 million tax bill.”
This statement is notable for its casualness. It assumes, first, a future liquidity event large enough to generate a nine-figure tax liability, and second, that such gains would be personal rather than broadly distributed. It also implicitly confirms that Gray views Texitcoin’s upside through the lens of individual wealth realization, not long-term network stewardship. For participants who have been encouraged to see themselves as builders of a shared ecosystem, this framing is difficult to reconcile.
From a governance perspective, the risk is not merely ethical but operational. When leadership attention is divided between managing a fragile project and planning personal exit strategies, priorities can drift. The Miner Updates suggest that this drift is already underway. Discussions of tax avoidance sit alongside acknowledgments of missed deadlines, infrastructure failures, and budget overruns, without any clear attempt to separate personal contingency planning from project governance.
Follow the Plan; Trust Bobby
Nevertheless, Gray frames all this as part of the plan and asks his followers to trust him.
During the December 16 Miner Update, Gray shed light on his past and his convictions: “I’m the same guy that I was back in 2008 when I started the American Open Currency Standard and decided that I was going to be the guy that took on the challenge of getting people comfortable once again with using an alternative currency whether that was gold or silver or copper back then or Texitcoin or downtown digital dollars today. It doesn’t matter; I’m the same guy. It’s the same story. It’s the same message. It’s the same mission.”
The upshot is a subtle but important reframing of risk. Taken together, the updates read less like a plan to exit that state than like an effort to normalize it. Gray appears to be hedging his personal exposure to success, while the community is being asked to absorb the consequences of failure.
Author: Tim Tolka, Senior Reporter
#Crypto #Blockchain #DigitalAssets #DeFi
The editorial team at #DisruptionBanking has taken all precautions to ensure that no persons or organizations have been adversely affected or offered any sort of financial advice in this article. This article is most definitely not financial advice.
