X has filed a lawsuit in London against Vivek Kumar Sen, Zamyang Sherpa and unidentified collaborators, alleging that they operated a coordinated network of Bitcoin-focused accounts to manipulate engagement and collect at least £207,384 in creator payouts.

The case centers on X's former Creator Revenue Sharing program. According to the company's claim, the defendants ran several accounts as a single coordinated operation rather than as independent creators. X alleges that the accounts repeatedly liked, reposted and replied to one another's content to manufacture the appearance of genuine engagement. These allegations have not been proven in court.

How X says the network operated

X identified six principal accounts in its claim: @Vivek4real_, @Bitcoin_Teddy, @saylordocs, @TrendingBitcoin, @Kalshibacktest and @PolyBackTest. The company also named three additional accounts it says were used to generate engagement for the network.

The lawsuit alleges that several of the profiles posted identical or substantially similar Bitcoin content within seconds or minutes of one another. It also cites financial and technical connections between the accounts. X claims that some payment accounts were registered under names that did not match the people it believes controlled the corresponding X profiles, and that its investigation uncovered overlapping devices, software clients, device identifiers and cookies. The company notes these points remain allegations and have not been established by a court.

Damages sought

X says the disputed accounts received at least £207,384 through its creator monetization system. The company is additionally seeking at least £75,000 to cover investigation, analysis, remediation and measures intended to prevent similar activity. The claim also pursues repayment or damages, interest and legal costs.

X suspended the accounts on Aug. 18, citing what it described as coordinated revenue fraud and platform manipulation.

The lawsuit follows shortly after X retired Creator Revenue Sharing and began transitioning to its Original Content Rewards program, which places greater emphasis on original content and excludes artificially generated or fraudulent engagement — the category of conduct alleged in the claim. The disputed payouts were thus collected under a program X has since retired.

The case could therefore serve as a significant test of how social media platforms pursue alleged monetization abuse after payments have already been distributed. Key issues to watch as proceedings advance include how the court weighs the technical evidence X cites and whether the unnamed collaborators are identified. For now, the allegations remain unresolved, and no judgment has established liability against Sen, Sherpa or the unidentified defendants.