
Founder of @4communityWeb3
Türkiye 🇹🇷
Joined January 2025
- Tweets13.7K
- Following2.9K
- Followers4.1K
- Likes69K
Pinned Tweet
From Farming Whitelists to Filtering Farmers
In January 2022, @LucaNetz publicly described NFT whitelist farming as a way to earn between $7,000 and $15,000 per month. He recommended targeting hyped projects, securing whitelist access and selling before reveal.
In a related post, he explained how the process could be automated by hiring virtual assistants to grind Discord whitelists and involving friends or family in exchange for a share of the profits. Another archived post shows him asking whether anyone could obtain thousands of Discord accounts.
These are not assumptions about his past. His own public statements document that he participated in and promoted the same farming culture that later became a target of scrutiny within Abstract.
@AbstractChain encouraged users to play ecosystem games, collect badges, earn XP and remain continuously active. Many community members spent money and invested substantial time based on expectations created around participation and future rewards.
The Four Pillars document then presented farmers as users to be identified through factors such as activity, behavior, onchain history and reputation. In practice, the founder who once promoted whitelist farming later became associated with an ecosystem that treated farmers primarily as a category to detect and filter.
Now Abstract is winding down. The network says it will cease operating on December 15, 2026. After almost two years of community participation, the final result is not a sustainable ecosystem or a meaningful return for many users. It is a shutdown and a deadline to move their assets.
This is the central contradiction. Farming was presented as a profitable strategy when Luca practiced and promoted it. Under Abstract, similar incentive driven behavior was encouraged through XP and badges, then viewed with suspicion when users expected recognition.
The community deserves a complete explanation of how farmers were classified, which users were excluded and what value was created from nearly two years of their money, labor and attention.
Abstract may be ending, but accountability should not end with it.
silentbuilder retweeted
Our lawyers have asked us to begin formally collecting and preserving evidence from affected Abstract users, builders and investors.
So today we’re opening the Recall Evidence Form:
recallpudgy.xyz/evidence
If you were affected, please submit:
• what happened to you
• wallet addresses involved
• screenshots / posts / messages
• transactions and losses
• promises or representations you relied on
• deleted or changed content
• videos, documents or other supporting evidence
• anything else you believe may be relevant
Please stick to facts and upload the strongest evidence you have.
Every submission will help us build a clearer record of what happened, identify patterns across affected users, and support the legal team as the case develops.
If you know someone who was affected, send them the form.
The larger and better documented the case file becomes, the stronger the legal and commercial pressure becomes.
Don’t argue. File it.
silentbuilder retweeted
For those that don’t know.
@coingecko received a massive allocation of $pengu
THIS IS A PAID AD
Courtesy of @pudgypenguins @IglooInc and @LucaNetz
It’s sole purpose is to make you think Pengu is bullish to buy so they can exit their $6M per month vested allocations
$PENGU is up 8.9% today following its listing on SoFi, the first nationally chartered bank to offer crypto trading to consumers.
silentbuilder retweeted
In August 2025, @LucaNetz said:
"I think if we don't IPO in the next two years, I’d be disappointed in myself. So, hold me accountable."
To all rattled Pengus on the timeline, hold your cult leader accountable for the collapse of Abstract and question him on this IPO nonsense.
silentbuilder retweeted
In 2022 Luca Netz openly promoted whitelist farming and how to scale it. Later Abstract encouraged the same kind of activity with XP and badges, then started filtering farmers. Now the network is shutting down on Dec 15. The community deserves a clear explanation
From Farming Whitelists to Filtering Farmers
In January 2022, @LucaNetz publicly described NFT whitelist farming as a way to earn between $7,000 and $15,000 per month. He recommended targeting hyped projects, securing whitelist access and selling before reveal.
In a related post, he explained how the process could be automated by hiring virtual assistants to grind Discord whitelists and involving friends or family in exchange for a share of the profits. Another archived post shows him asking whether anyone could obtain thousands of Discord accounts.
These are not assumptions about his past. His own public statements document that he participated in and promoted the same farming culture that later became a target of scrutiny within Abstract.
@AbstractChain encouraged users to play ecosystem games, collect badges, earn XP and remain continuously active. Many community members spent money and invested substantial time based on expectations created around participation and future rewards.
The Four Pillars document then presented farmers as users to be identified through factors such as activity, behavior, onchain history and reputation. In practice, the founder who once promoted whitelist farming later became associated with an ecosystem that treated farmers primarily as a category to detect and filter.
Now Abstract is winding down. The network says it will cease operating on December 15, 2026. After almost two years of community participation, the final result is not a sustainable ecosystem or a meaningful return for many users. It is a shutdown and a deadline to move their assets.
This is the central contradiction. Farming was presented as a profitable strategy when Luca practiced and promoted it. Under Abstract, similar incentive driven behavior was encouraged through XP and badges, then viewed with suspicion when users expected recognition.
The community deserves a complete explanation of how farmers were classified, which users were excluded and what value was created from nearly two years of their money, labor and attention.
Abstract may be ending, but accountability should not end with it.
silentbuilder retweeted
I have a confession to make.
@LucaNetz paid me to give an HONEST review of Abstract Chain.
So, Luca Schnetzle, here it is.
You spent months:
- selling the dream of mass adoption
- encouraging users to farm XP
- developers to build projects
- communities to invest their time, money and trust
You even promised
Abstract would become the biggest L2 “by a Texas mile”
and publicly asked to be held ACCOUNTABLE!
And what did everyone get?
- shutdown
- tens of millions burned
- another Web3 SCAM
The biggest thing Abstract rugged wasn't a token
It was people's TRUST
And before anyone calls me a salty farmer:
I farmed ZERO XP
I invested ZERO dollars
I lost absolutely NOTHING
I simply believe Web3 deserves better than endless promises followed by excuses and money extraction
So Luca, I hope you enjoyed my honest review
Because HONESTY is exactly what your community deserves from you
- a full explanation
- real transparency
- actual accountability
You asked people to hold you accountable
Well, here we are🐧🤡
silentbuilder retweeted
From Farming Whitelists to Filtering Farmers
In January 2022, @LucaNetz publicly described NFT whitelist farming as a way to earn between $7,000 and $15,000 per month. He recommended targeting hyped projects, securing whitelist access and selling before reveal.
In a related post, he explained how the process could be automated by hiring virtual assistants to grind Discord whitelists and involving friends or family in exchange for a share of the profits. Another archived post shows him asking whether anyone could obtain thousands of Discord accounts.
These are not assumptions about his past. His own public statements document that he participated in and promoted the same farming culture that later became a target of scrutiny within Abstract.
@AbstractChain encouraged users to play ecosystem games, collect badges, earn XP and remain continuously active. Many community members spent money and invested substantial time based on expectations created around participation and future rewards.
The Four Pillars document then presented farmers as users to be identified through factors such as activity, behavior, onchain history and reputation. In practice, the founder who once promoted whitelist farming later became associated with an ecosystem that treated farmers primarily as a category to detect and filter.
Now Abstract is winding down. The network says it will cease operating on December 15, 2026. After almost two years of community participation, the final result is not a sustainable ecosystem or a meaningful return for many users. It is a shutdown and a deadline to move their assets.
This is the central contradiction. Farming was presented as a profitable strategy when Luca practiced and promoted it. Under Abstract, similar incentive driven behavior was encouraged through XP and badges, then viewed with suspicion when users expected recognition.
The community deserves a complete explanation of how farmers were classified, which users were excluded and what value was created from nearly two years of their money, labor and attention.
Abstract may be ending, but accountability should not end with it.
Sources
Archived January 2022 post by Luca Netz on whitelist farming:
web.archive.org/web/20220116…
Luca Netz explaining how whitelist farming could be automated and scaled:
xitter.cf/LucaNetz/status/148278…
Archived post in which Luca Netz asks for thousands of Discord accounts: web.archive.org/web/20220103…
@FourPillarsFP report, page 23: Abstract’s approach to identifying and filtering farmers:
docsend.com/view/kre7hr5rr88…
Four Pillars post introducing the report:
xitter.cf/FourPillarsFP/status/1…
silentbuilder retweeted
Unfortunately the pudgy team cant argue any of these facts.
silentbuilder retweeted
I agree and this article is very well written!
Igloo and Abstract’s leadership should establish a transparent, capped, and abuse resistant community recognition program. It could include:
① Recognition based on preserved XP, badges, participation history, and verified onchain activity.
② Direct support for builders, community organizers, and creators who invested significant labor in Abstract.
③ Consideration of documented recurring costs generated through official campaigns.
④ Clear eligibility rules, funding limits, an appeals process, and public reporting.
This is an ethical demand from the community, not a claim that every participant has an identical legal entitlement. A remedy would show that the people who helped produce Abstract’s metrics were not disposable once the strategy changed.
silentbuilder retweeted
Abstract asked its community for time, money, attention, and belief. After nearly two years of XP, badges, token expectations, and ambitious promises, the community deserves clear answers, meaningful recognition, and accountability.
silentbuilder retweeted
Even more cynical $177k scam from @LucaNetz and his buddy @willweinraub who played Donkey in Shrek.
Meet @Cryptoys. The project was actively pushed by Abstract team.
That same "Disney" they brought to Abstract - nothing more than a regular cash grab.
One mint cost $40. For minting you got a badge on Abstract. For 10 mints you got a secret super-useless badge.
$400. For a fucking badge.
When secondary opened, a successful scenario was considered locking in a -60% profit.
Question 1 - where did the mint money go?
How @LucaNetz pocketed $210K by scamming Abstract users.
This one’s for all the clowns still clinging to those worthless @pudgypenguins SBT badges.
A box cost $100 to mint. Burn it and you got some soulbound SBT on Abstract. Obviously that SBT is worth jack shit.
Totally not just another low-effort cash grab from a guy who treats his own community like walking ATMs.
silentbuilder retweeted
More than a week has passed since the Abstract ✳️ shutdown was announced
So far:
- No clear communication
- Tons of info exposed. Starting from empty promises made & ending with extremely questionable sales tactics promoted by Luca in his courses
- No compensation or even a promise of something in the future
- No updates given on Pudgys except "return to PENGU". Honestly, after everything that happened to Abstract, it is hard to believe in any promises from Luca
- Prices of both NFTs & PENGU are bleeding hard, even after the $1M buyback from Adam Weitsman
I honestly don't get Luca defenders. What happened to Abstract could very likely happen to Pudgys too. I personally love this brand & want the best for it
The best thing right now would be for Luca to step down & hand it over to someone professional & competent enough
Or admit all the mistakes, communicate clearly, specify where the brand is going & pay relevant compensation to affected Abstract users (though I don't see this happening, taking into account Luca's behaviour)
I don't think people realize how this Abstract shutdown can effect the future of the space. If Abstract truly gets away with it... that means any future chain can do the exact same thing.
They can farm you for fees, make you grind for XP, promise anything and everything including a TGE at 2B FDV and that streamers will make tons of money. They can push scam mints onto you. And have you pay for useless badges.
Then shut down. No TGE. No promises made. And also get away with it.
If there's a future lawsuit, and Abstract wins... that means ANY L2 in the future can do the exact same thing and get away with it. Which would destroy all L2s, and possibly destroy all of crypto.
Every single future chain/L1/L2 would be able to rug and have no repercussions. Abstract getting away with this, is bearish on all of crypto.
Think about it big picture, think about the macro.
Abstract set a dangerous precedent: an L2 can collect gas fees, make teams pay to build on its chain, incentivize users and builders with token expectations, then shut down without ever delivering a TGE.
They extracted value from an ecosystem they encouraged people to invest in, then left those same people holding the bag.
Base and RH are different, they never ran points campaigns tied to expected token rewards.
If Abstract gets away with this, every L2 gets a blueprint to exploit its community and walk away with zero accountability.
Abstract asked its community for time, money, attention, and belief. After nearly two years of XP, badges, token expectations, and ambitious promises, the community deserves clear answers, meaningful recognition, and accountability.
We have dedicated a percentage of the Shiny ecosystem token to Abstract victims., claimable on Solana.
Our team has pledged to TGE in Q4 2026. We do not farm our users or dangle rewards.
Come build the future of consumer apps with us, opt in on the link below to be eligible.
Sources
Adam Weitsman, Spectrum News Interview, October 6, 2022
spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/ce…
Michael Lee, Abstract IPO not TGE, YouTube
youtube.com/watch?v=HMM2q3d4…
Luca Netz, Interview with Ely, November 25, 2025
xitter.cf/ProofOfEly/status/1993…
Research Discussing Luca Netz's $20–30 Billion Ambition
sidelinedco.com/p/abstract-x…
The Luca Netz Interview xitter.cf/i/broadcasts/1MYGNljLe…
silentbuilder retweeted
HOLY SHIT FORBES REALLY DON’T MISS 😭
LUCA NETZ WAS TEACHING PEOPLE HOW TO MANIPULATE CUSTOMERS AND MAKE MONEY IN HIS $1,700 COURSE
Footage from a training program previously sold for $1,700 by Luca Netz, the owner of Pudgy Penguins, reveals highly questionable marketing practices and raises serious concerns about the methods he was teaching.
Throughout the course, Luca explains how ordinary products can be sold at inflated prices by exploiting human psychology, creating artificial perceptions of trust, and influencing consumers' purchasing decisions.
1. SELLING PRODUCTS UNDER THE PRETEXT OF SAVING KOALAS
One of the strategies Luca discusses in his course involves purchasing bracelets and necklaces from Chinese suppliers at extremely low prices and reselling them for approximately five times their original cost.
However, the most concerning aspect is not the profit margin itself, but the marketing strategy used to sell these products.
The accessories were marketed as products that would help rescue and protect endangered koalas affected by wildfires in Australia.
Customers were told that a portion of the profits from every purchase would be donated toward rescuing and protecting these animals.
In other words, people's compassion for animals and their genuine desire to help were placed at the center of a commercial sales strategy.
This raises several important questions. How much revenue did this campaign generate? How much of that money was actually donated? Which organizations received those donations, and where is the documentation proving that the donations took place?
2. CREATING AN ARTIFICIAL PERCEPTION OF LUXURY AROUND ORDINARY PRODUCTS
In another section of the course, Luca explains how he made an ordinary product sourced from China appear significantly more valuable than it actually was.
To accomplish this, he added expensive products from internationally recognized luxury brands to his website.
He then marked those products as sold out, leaving only his own product available for purchase.
This strategy was designed to make visitors believe they were shopping from a prestigious luxury brand.
A product that was relatively inexpensive to source was presented alongside high end brands to artificially increase its perceived value.
The objective was not simply to promote a product, but to deliberately influence how consumers perceived its worth.
3. CREATING FAKE TRUST THROUGH PURCHASED FOLLOWERS, LIKES, AND COMMENTS
One of the most revealing parts of Luca's course involves his explanations of how to manufacture social media popularity.
Luca discusses how his friends attempted similar sales strategies but failed to achieve the same results.
When explaining why they were unsuccessful, he suggests that they had not put enough effort into developing their Instagram accounts, purchasing likes, and faking various aspects of their online presence.
The course also demonstrates where students can purchase fake followers, likes, and comments.
The purpose of these methods is to create an artificial impression of popularity and credibility among potential customers who encounter the brand for the first time.
Consumers may naturally assume that a brand with thousands of followers and numerous positive comments is trustworthy.
However, when those interactions are purchased rather than earned organically, the trust influencing their purchasing decisions is based on manufactured social proof rather than genuine customer experiences.
4. TEACHING THESE METHODS TO THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE
Perhaps one of the most disturbing aspects of this situation is that Luca was not merely discussing these strategies in relation to his own businesses.
He was teaching them to students as part of a $1,700 training program.
The methods described in the course included exploiting people's desire to support charitable causes, manufacturing an artificial perception of luxury around ordinary products, and creating credibility through purchased social media engagement.
Teaching these practices to a large audience raises concerns that extend far beyond a single brand or business.
It potentially encourages the widespread use of deceptive marketing techniques that could influence purchasing decisions across numerous online stores.
5. THE LINE BETWEEN MARKETING AND DECEIVING CONSUMERS
Purchasing inexpensive products from China and reselling them at a substantial profit is not inherently fraudulent.
However, manufacturing popularity through purchased followers, creating artificial prestige around products, and leveraging people's compassion to drive sales raise serious ethical concerns.
When charitable causes are involved, transparency becomes even more important.
Customers deserve to know whether the donations promised to them were actually made and whether the charitable claims used to influence their purchasing decisions were legitimate.
The methods described in Luca Netz's course provide a striking example of how consumer trust can be turned into a commercial tool.
The fundamental question is simple:
If a brand's credibility is built not on genuine customer satisfaction, but on purchased followers, fake engagement, manufactured luxury perceptions, and marketing strategies that exploit people's compassion, can we really call that successful entrepreneurship?
The methods Luca discusses in his own training materials raise important questions about the marketing practices behind certain business success stories.
They also serve as a reminder that what is presented as entrepreneurial success may sometimes deserve much closer scrutiny.
So, let me ask you this: Do you still trust this guy? If your answer is yes, then it's time to take a hard look at yourself.
Source: docs.google.com/document/d/1…






























