A public dispute over Internet Computer’s token performance has broken out on X after crypto commentator Ash Crypto questioned what happened to ICP’s value since its 2021 peak.
Ash Crypto posted that a $10,000 investment in ICP at its peak five years ago would now be worth around $29, accompanying the post with a chart showing ICP falling from a reported high of about $750 to roughly $2.27. The post quickly drew a response from Dominic Williams, founder of DFINITY and one of the central figures behind the Internet Computer project.
Williams challenged the suggestion that the post was simply market commentary, accusing unnamed parties of paying influencers to publish negative material about ICP. He offered 7,500 ICP to anyone who could provide evidence of such payments.
Ash Crypto rejected the accusation and said there was no paid campaign behind the post. He acknowledged that other creators had subsequently repeated similar content, which he said created the impression of a coordinated effort. He maintained that the figures in his original post were factual and that the criticism was based on ICP’s historical price performance rather than fabricated claims.
The exchange highlights a long-running tension within the ICP community between arguments about the project’s technology and concerns over the token’s market performance. ICP reached a price of more than $700 in 2021 before undergoing a prolonged decline. The scale of that fall has continued to feature prominently in criticism of the project, particularly among traders focused on token returns.
Williams has increasingly pointed attention towards new uses for the Internet Computer, including Cloud Engines, which are designed as configurable ICP subnets that can be operated with selected node providers, locations and hardware. The project’s documentation presents Cloud Engines as a way of providing a traditional cloud-style experience while retaining the network’s on-chain infrastructure.
The debate therefore reflects two different ways of assessing ICP. One focuses heavily on the token’s historical price and the losses experienced by investors who bought near the 2021 peak. The other places greater weight on network development, new applications and potential future demand.
Another X user, HEROonchain, entered the discussion by arguing that institutional derivatives trading could be affecting ICP’s volume and liquidity. The commenter suggested that increased usage of ICP through Cloud Engines could eventually create more spot demand and put pressure on traders relying on derivatives. These claims were presented as opinion and were not accompanied by evidence establishing that institutions are deliberately manipulating ICP’s market.
Ash Crypto also pushed back against Williams’ offer of 7,500 ICP, saying the reward would not change the underlying price figures. He argued that a private message could have resolved the disagreement without the public confrontation.
The exchange leaves two separate questions on the table. The first is straightforward: ICP has fallen sharply from its 2021 peak, and that history is central to the criticism. The second is harder to answer: whether future development, network usage and new products can translate into sustainable demand for the token.
DFINITY has been positioning Cloud Engines and other developments as part of a broader effort to bring practical workloads and enterprise use to ICP. Its own materials say the Cloud Engine model is intended to align node-provider incentives with actual network usage, with a portion of revenue directed towards buying and burning ICP.
For now, the disagreement between Ash Crypto and Williams remains largely a dispute over interpretation. Ash Crypto is pointing to a price chart and the experience of investors who bought near the top. Williams is challenging the motives behind a wave of negative commentary and directing attention towards what he believes is coming next for the network.
Neither side’s broader claims about coordinated activity or market manipulation have been established by the exchange itself. What is clear is that ICP’s steep decline remains a sensitive subject for its community, even as development around the network continues.
Dear Reader,
Ledger Life is an independent platform dedicated to covering the Internet Computer (ICP) ecosystem and beyond. We focus on real stories, builder updates, project launches, and the quiet innovations that often get missed.
We’re not backed by sponsors. We rely on readers like you.
If you find value in what we publish—whether it’s deep dives into dApps, explainers on decentralised tech, or just keeping track of what’s moving in Web3—please consider making a donation. It helps us cover costs, stay consistent, and remain truly independent.
Your support goes a long way.
🧠 ICP Principal: ins6i-d53ug-zxmgh-qvum3-r3pvl-ufcvu-bdyon-ovzdy-d26k3-lgq2v-3qe
🧾 ICP Address: f8deb966878f8b83204b251d5d799e0345ea72b8e62e8cf9da8d8830e1b3b05f
Every contribution helps keep the lights on, the stories flowing, and the crypto clutter out.
Thank you for reading, sharing, and being part of this experiment in decentralised media.
—Team Ledger Life
Community Discussion