For context: https://simonwillison.net/2026/Jan/30/moltbook/
Update 2026-01-31 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Unofficial crypto tokens are considered "connected" to the website for the purposes of this answer.
Example resolution scenario: A promoted coin on the platform becomes popular and associated with Moltbook in the public consciousness, then the creator rugs it. This would qualify for resolution even if the token is unofficial.
People are also trading
@EvanDaniel oops. The end date was March 31, so let’s leave it that way. Title changed to “What will happen in Feb-March”
@retr0id independent confirmation of what is likely the same vuln: https://www.404media.co/exposed-moltbook-database-let-anyone-take-control-of-any-ai-agent-on-the-site/
@retr0id yes, and here’s why: the creator is anti-crypto so any rugpull would be unofficial by definition.
The scenario I had in mind was a promoted coin on the platform gets popular, lack of moderation intervention leads it to becoming associated with Moltbook in the public consciousness, and the creator rugs it.
Any objections to this sort of thinking for resolution?
should “rugpull” be formalized and separated out of this question?
@retr0id any opinions on this? Since the primary goal is for agents to use the site, I’m inclined to think that API downtime should count
@KJW_01294 Yeah that sounds reasonable. My reason for asking is because it's generally easier to keep a "read only" version of a site up, while the write path can be more fragile (especially if it's all vibecoded).