[Exclusive] CRIPCO Denied Ties to Minicoin, but Earlier White Paper Listed It as MINI Issuer

Glo Dollar Claimed CRIPCO Was Unrelated to Minicoin

EU Filing Listed CRIPCO as Minicoin's Issuer

Document Was Removed After Controversy and Replaced With New White Paper

CRIPCO Also Faces Paper-Company Questions

Official documents show CRIPCO, which has faced rug-pull allegations over an NFT business built on intellectual property from IPX, formerly Line Friends, was responsible for Minicoin's initial issuance and development. That conflicts with repeated statements from Minicoin supporter Glo Dollar that the two projects are completely unrelated.

After investors began scrutinizing the discrepancy, the earlier white paper PDF linked in the European Securities and Markets Authority registry could no longer be opened. The same link now leads to a white paper dated June 2026 that omits references to CRIPCO. Even so, ESMA's latest registry still lists CRIPCO as the entity that submitted Minicoin's white paper.

Questions Grow Over Claims Minicoin Is Unrelated to CRIPCO

CRIPCO operated an NFT and token business called IP3 using IPX characters including Wade and OOZ. In May, the company shut down its official Discord channel without fully delivering promised token rewards and other benefits. That prompted rug-pull allegations because the business had effectively been halted and its main communication channel was closed.

At the time, CRIPCO said it would close its existing Discord server and move investor communications to the Minicoin channel within the Creditcoin Discord. It also said it would provide separate follow-up guidance for holders of existing assets such as IP3 and NFTs.

Minicoin is a project designed to turn character and music intellectual property into blockchain-based assets that can be traded. It stores ownership and transaction records for intellectual property on the blockchain and settles related payments in its native token, MINI.

Minicoin currently says Minilabs oversees operations and that IPX provides the license for the Minini character. Creditcoin, developed by Glo Dollar, provides the underlying blockchain and settlement infrastructure for Minicoin.

CRIPCO's decision to direct existing investors to the Minicoin channel raised fresh questions about the relationship between the two projects. Because Glo Dollar supports Minicoin through Creditcoin, investors began asking whether responsibility for CRIPCO's earlier NFT business was effectively being shifted to the Creditcoin ecosystem.

Glo Dollar Chief Executive Officer Oh Tae-rim responded that Minicoin is "a completely independent and separate project from CRIPCO." Creditcoin supports only Minicoin and has no connection to CRIPCO. The remarks appeared aimed at preventing the controversy surrounding CRIPCO's NFT business from spreading to Creditcoin and Minicoin.

Earlier Minicoin White Paper Named CRIPCO, Then Reference Was Removed

The earlier Minicoin white paper linked in ESMA's registry under the Markets in Crypto-Assets regulation, or MiCA, told a different story. It identified Singapore-based CRIPCO Pte. Ltd. as the issuer of the MINI token and the lead developer of the Minicoin platform.

According to the white paper, CRIPCO was responsible for developing Minicoin-based services, managing the ecosystem and building partnerships. The name Minilabs, now presented as the operator, did not appear in the earlier document. CRIPCO also participated in the initial smart-contract security audit for Minicoin. Blockchain security firm CertiK said Minicoin's related smart contracts were audited in March 2025. The MiCA white paper at the time said CRIPCO handled issues identified in the security review.

After those details drew controversy among investors, the earlier Minicoin white paper linked in the ESMA registry was replaced. The previous PDF, which described CRIPCO as MINI's issuer and the platform's lead developer, can no longer be opened. The same link now leads to a white paper marked June 2026. The new document describes Minilabs as the business operator and defines MINI as a crypto asset used for payments and settlement on the platform. It identifies IPX as the licensor of the Minini character, but contains no explanation of CRIPCO's role.

CRIPCO's record has not been removed from the ESMA registry, however. In the latest MiCA registry updated by ESMA on Aug. 18, 2026, Singapore-based CRIPCO Pte. Ltd. still appears as the entity that submitted the Minicoin white paper. The white paper link is unchanged. That means the entity listed in the latest registry does not match the operator named in the document that now opens at that address. It is also unclear whether the new white paper is an official amendment to the earlier MiCA filing or a separate business-introduction document.

MiCA rules require amended white papers to be preserved in a way that distinguishes updated documents from earlier versions that have lost legal effect. Published white papers are generally supposed to remain accessible while the crypto asset is being distributed to retail investors. It could not be confirmed whether the earlier document was separately preserved or whether the change was reported to the relevant authorities. It also has not been disclosed when operating rights and development assets were transferred, through what process, or whether the rights and obligations tied to the earlier NFT business were transferred as well.

Bloomingbit asked Glo Dollar for comment but did not receive a response.

Paper-Company Questions Resurface as IPX Plan Remains Undisclosed

The episode is also reviving earlier questions over whether CRIPCO was a paper company set up for IPX's NFT business.

Singapore corporate registration records show CRIPCO was established on March 18, 2022. That was about three months before IPX signed a strategic business agreement with CRIPCO to expand its NFT business. Paid-in capital was S$1,000, and its registered address was listed as 38 Beach Road, South Beach Tower #17-12.

That address matched one used by Atoz Singapore Consulting, a firm that helps set up Singapore corporations. Public corporate records also show multiple companies registered at the same office. On Blind, the anonymous workplace community platform, users also posted claims that Line Friends had withdrawn from the NFT business and that CRIPCO was a paper company established in Singapore.

Investors are focusing on the fact that CRIPCO shut its community after failing to deliver rewards promised in its earlier NFT business, then moved communications to Minicoin. After the earlier Minicoin white paper showed CRIPCO was responsible for issuance and development, some investors questioned whether the company had left responsibility for the old business behind while moving only the technology and community to a new project.

IPX's response is also under scrutiny. IPX previously granted CRIPCO the right to use characters including Wade and OOZ, and now provides Minilabs with the Minini license. Because IPX participated in both businesses as the intellectual property provider, investors say it should explain how those rights were used and what is being done to protect existing investors.

In June, shortly after controversy erupted over CRIPCO's community shutdown, IPX said it would work with related parties to handle the matter responsibly. It also said it would provide separate guidance to asset holders. At the time, it described CRIPCO as a separate company that conducted an NFT-related business using IPX's intellectual property. But two months later, it still has not disclosed specific measures, including who would be eligible for protection, what support would be offered, or when it would be carried out.

In a statement to Bloomingbit, IPX said it is preparing detailed guidance for holders of CRIPCO assets. It said the information would be announced through official channels once preparations are complete.

One investor said the earlier white paper identified CRIPCO as the entity responsible for issuing and developing Minicoin, but those references have disappeared from the current document. The investor said the company should explain how the business operator changed and who will be responsible for the rights of existing NFT holders.