HASH Asset Management, a crypto venture capital firm, has filed a lawsuit against DMA Labs Inc. (DMA), ICHI Foundation (ICHI), their founders Bryan Gross and Nick Poore, and associates Tyler Christian Pintar and Julian Brand, also known as Julian Finch-Brand. The lawsuit, filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, alleges a fraud scheme that resulted in investors losing over $16,200,000.
An amended complaint, filed in May 2025, details claims for fraud, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and piercing the corporate veil to hold individual defendants Poore and Gross liable. This updated filing provides further evidence of associates involved in the alleged fraudulent scheme.
A forensic expert declaration by blockchain investigator Paul Sibenik, submitted in August 2025, offers detailed evidence supporting the plaintiff's claims of a "pump-and-dump" scheme. The investigation utilized blockchain forensic tracing to identify wallet ownership and transaction flows, indicating that the collapse of the liquidity pool "Rari Pool 136" was orchestrated by individuals associated with ICHI and DMA through collusion, insider trading, and manipulation. The report suggests that insiders Julian Brand and Tyler Pintar profited from this collapse.
The findings suggest that the lending scheme had inherent flaws that were exploited by ICHI insiders. These insiders allegedly borrowed and withdrew assets immediately before the scheme's collapse for personal financial gain. The report asserts that highly leveraged borrowing, insider control, apparent collusion with insider-controlled wallets, and unauthorized fund movements led to the loss of over $16,200,000 in investor funds.
HASH Asset Management, as a lead investor who provided crypto assets to the lending program, initiated this complaint to hold the defendants accountable and recover losses, aiming to protect the broader crypto community.
The Fraudulent Scheme
According to the lawsuit, the defendants issued their own cryptocurrency, ICHI, and promoted a yield-earning "liquidity pool" opportunity for investors. Investors were allegedly enticed to deposit crypto assets as collateral into their "Community Treasury" in exchange for "oneTokens," which were ICHI-designed stablecoins pegged at US$1. The defendants falsely represented the offering as safe and decentralized, claiming that changes would require community votes.
After HASH Asset Management invested millions of dollars in stablecoins into the liquidity pool known as "Rari Pool 136," the defendants allegedly exerted full control, contrary to their promises. They reportedly made unilateral decisions, removed liquidity protections to safeguard their own crypto at the expense of the plaintiff's assets, and executed transactions that led to the pool's collapse, resulting in a loss of over US$16,200,000 for the plaintiff.
The sustainability of "Rari Pool 136" was reportedly dependent on the increasing price of ICHI tokens, which in turn relied on continued borrowing. When buying demand for ICHI crypto failed to sustain its inflated price, it triggered cascading liquidations within "Rari Pool 136," as a significant portion of its assets had become ICHI crypto. This led to a dramatic price collapse of ICHI, from nearly US$142 to US$1.79, a drop of 99%. As ICHI's value plummeted, the defendants allegedly executed trades to protect themselves, accelerating the collapse of "Rari Pool 136" and causing the near-total loss of the plaintiff's investments.
The lawsuit claims that Bryan Gross, the self-appointed "steward" of the ICHI Foundation, admitted to transferring the "Community Treasury," containing millions of dollars in investor deposits, without the required community vote. The scheme allegedly aimed to protect the defendants' assets and inflate the price of their cryptocurrency, ICHI, at the expense of investors' crypto assets. The liquidity protections touted by the defendants were reportedly illusory and false, and the "Community Treasury" crypto, including nearly all of the plaintiff's investments, was lost. The lawsuit asserts that alongside Poore and Gross, Pintar and Brand operated two primary wallets involved in this fraudulent "pump-and-dump" scheme.
HASH, acting as a lender in the liquidity pool, deposited stablecoins and collected interest. The plaintiff did not purchase ICHI but earned it as "yield" for providing stablecoins to "Rari Pool 136" for others to borrow.
Investigation: Initial Findings
HASH Asset Management commissioned an investigation by Cryptoforensic Investigators, a firm specializing in blockchain forensics and cybercrime, led by expert Paul Sibenik. This firm advises various cryptocurrency exchanges, law enforcement, and regulatory agencies.
The investigation identified significant apparent defects in the lending scheme:
- •An extremely high loan-to-value (LTV) ratio of 85% in "Rari Pool 136," allowing borrowers to pledge US$100 worth of collateral for an equivalent of US$85 in stablecoins.
- •The allowance of unlimited amounts of ICHI crypto, which is not a stablecoin, as collateral to borrow other crypto assets, including stablecoins.
- •No supply cap on the amount of assets that could be deposited into "Rari Pool 136."
The report also noted that the "Angel Vault," a liquidity protection device promoted as a "buy wall" to stabilize ICHI's value, failed.
The defendants' scheme reportedly focused on:
- Displacing stablecoins and other valuable cryptocurrencies from "Rari Pool 136" in exchange for highly risky ICHI.
- Using borrowed stablecoins or other cryptocurrencies to purchase more ICHI, thereby driving up its price.
- Utilizing the purchased ICHI as collateral in "Rari Pool 136" to borrow more stablecoins and other cryptocurrencies, repeating this cycle.
This scheme was facilitated by ICHI's dual role as collateral for borrowers and proceeds from "Rari Pool 136." Consequently, "Rari Pool 136" became entirely reliant on the price of ICHI, despite the plaintiff's reasonable expectation that stablecoins and other safer cryptocurrencies were protected.
The investigation identified that key transactions leading to the collapse of "Rari Pool 136" were executed by digital addresses linked to ICHI Foundation and DMA insiders.
More Insight into Scheme Transactions and Accomplices
The Amended Verified Complaint scrutinizes the activities of associates of ICHI founders, specifically Julian Finch (also known as Julian Brand or "BlueJay") and Tyler Christian Pintar. They are alleged to have been involved in a coordinated scheme to extract significant funds from the ICHI protocol's treasury through insider access and manipulation of system parameters. Both individuals reportedly played key roles in the use of recursive leverage and unauthorized borrowing, which destabilized the protocol and contributed to the collapse of "Rari Pool 136."
Julian Brand and Tyler Pintar are alleged to have executed large borrowing transactions shortly after treasury funds were moved, often within minutes, suggesting potential coordination or foreknowledge of internal decisions. These activities included borrowing stablecoins, purchasing ICHI tokens to influence price movements, and using those tokens as collateral to increase borrowing further. During this period, protocol settings like loan-to-value ratios were reportedly modified, and liquidity was removed or dispersed in ways that hindered liquidations and amplified systemic risk.
Julian Brand had previously held a business development role at ICHI and continued public association with crypto-related initiatives post-departure. Tyler Pintar also maintained active involvement in decentralized finance through various accounts and projects. Their past activities, including wallet behavior and public affiliations, appear to align with the patterns observed during the ICHI protocol's collapse.
New Forensic Report: Evidence of Collusion and Insider Trading
The forensic investigation aimed to determine if ICHI founders and their associates, including DMA Labs, were involved in the collapse of "Rari Pool 136" for financial gain and if there was evidence of insider trading by individuals associated with the ICHI Foundation.
The investigation identified key wallets tied to insiders, including:
- •0xd415 (Tyler Pintar): $13.09 million in bad debt.
- •0xfb06 (Julian Brand): $12.21 million in bad debt.
- •0x4fe (ICHI Team): $5.644 million in bad debt.
- •0xc8b5 (Unknown, but linked to ICHI Team): $15.46 million in bad debt, the largest holder.
Other linked addresses, apparently operated or influenced by ICHI associates, also point to insider trading. The expert report suggests that users with substantial bad debt (in the millions of dollars) were aware they were exploiting design flaws in "Rari Pool 136" and that it was likely to collapse due to continued leveraging of ICHI and borrowing of stablecoins.
The report details that on April 6, 2022, Julian Brand borrowed $1.8 million USDC, while the ICHI team transferred $5 million USDC and 43 wBTC from the "Community Treasury" without the required community vote. Between April 7 and 9, Brand and Pintar reportedly borrowed millions of dollars worth of USDC and other crypto assets just days before ICHI's price collapsed. Overall, transfers totaling $9 million from the "Community Treasury" are evidenced, which apparently allowed insiders to profit while depleting collateral reserves meant to protect investors. Funds from these suspicious wallets were traced to centralized exchanges, including Binance, Kraken, BTCTurk, and stake.com, indicating attempts at liquidation and concealment. The pattern of repeated fund flows demonstrates collusion and insider trading.
In his conclusion, Paul Sibenik stated that based on the analysis of blockchain data and events:
- A small number of users were likely involved in exploiting "Rari Pool 136." Some other addresses might also be controlled by individuals affiliated with the ICHI Team.
- The ICHI Team directly transacted numerous times with multiple suspicious addresses holding significant bad debt, which suggests insider trading by multiple ICHI Team individuals, known and unknown, who played a critical role in the collapse of Rari Pool 136.
- Julian Brand and Tyler Pintar attempted to borrow as much as possible from Rari Pool 136 in the days leading up to and during the collapse. Concurrently, the ICHI team moved assets from the "Community Treasury" to "Rari Pool 136" without the required community vote, allowing insiders like Brand and Pintar to profit further from the protocol's inherent flaws.
- Insiders were able to deplete the Rari protocol of its limited USDC reserves before other users could redeem, possibly due to inside information that insiders like Brand and Pintar may have possessed.
The findings document that the scheme's design flaws were exploited by ICHI insiders to borrow and withdraw assets immediately before its collapse for personal gain. The report provides evidence disproving ICHI's claims of "decentralization," citing unauthorized fund movements without community votes, which are intended to prevent centralized bad actors from making unilateral decisions harmful to stakeholders. The report evidences that highly leveraged borrowing, insider control, collusion with insider-controlled wallets, and identified unauthorized fund movements collectively led to the loss of over $16,200,000 in investor funds.
About HASH Asset Management
HASH Asset Management Ltd. is a crypto venture capital firm specializing in decentralized finance (DeFi) and blockchain projects. It is comprised of experts in crypto and DeFi, blockchain technology, investment banking, and trading and data analytics, united by the objective of delivering institutional-level service quality to the rapidly evolving crypto-assets market.