← Bitcoin Latinum (LTNM) / Monsoon Blockchain Corporationreviewed 2026-10-16 · 18 claims checked
Fact-check findings
What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read Bitcoin Latinum (LTNM) / Monsoon Blockchain Corporation against the sources the page cites. Only the most recent review is shown.
Read this first
These findings are produced by an automated reviewer, and its results vary between runs: the same page, checked three times on the same day, came back with 15%, 20% and 34% of its claims disputed, mostly because each run extracted a different number of claims. Treat what follows as leads, not rulings.
“Disputed” means the reviewer could not reconcile the claim with the evidence it cited. It does not mean the claim is false. “Unverifiable” means no reachable source settled it either way.
Nothing here changes the page on its own. A proposed correction is applied only after a human moderator approves it; until then the page reads as it did when reviewed.
disputed
5 claimsThe reviewer could not reconcile the claim with the evidence it cited. This is a lead, not a ruling that the claim is false.
- #6[disputed][awaiting moderator]in section: Misappropriation of Investor Funds
“These diversions collectively represent more than 60% of total investor funds raised, contradicting the representation that at least 80% of proceeds would be used to support the token's value.”
reviewerThese diversions collectively represent more than 60% of total investor funds raisedThis is the page's own arithmetic, not a sourced figure; summing the five cited amounts against the $16M total yields approximately 59%, not more than 60%. A minor but checkable overstatement.Proposed correction (not yet applied)These diversions collectively represent approximately 59% of total investor funds raised, contradicting the representation that at least 80% of proceeds would be used to support the token's value. - #9[disputed][awaiting moderator]in section: Token History and Market Collapse
“LTNM reached an all-time high price of approximately $9,335 on December 19, 2021, before collapsing to under $16 by late January 2022.”
reviewerLTNM reached an all-time high price of approximately $9,335 on December 19, 2021, before collapsing to under $16 by late January 2022The page's own directly-cited Bitget page literally shows $9,335.81, but this appears to be a data-feed anomaly: a second source cited in the SAME section (InvestmentNews, reporting specifically on this SEC case) states the pre-crash price was 'around $200,' and a third independent aggregator (CoinLore) shows a December 2021 high near $188.86 — both about 47x lower than Bitget's figure. Given two independent, topically-relevant sources agree with each other and diverge sharply from the single outlier, the $9,335 figure should be treated as disputed rather than confirmed.Proposed correction (not yet applied)LTNM reached an all-time high price of approximately $200 on December 19, 2021, before collapsing to under $16 by late January 2022. - #10[disputed][awaiting moderator]in the summary
“The token collapsed from a peak of approximately $9,335 in December 2021 to worthless, leaving investors with no recourse.”
reviewerThe token collapsed from a peak of approximately $9,335 in December 2021 to worthlessSame underlying ATH-price error as the Token History section and timeline entries; repeats the unverified $9,335 figure in the summary.Proposed correction (not yet applied)The token collapsed from a peak of approximately $200 in December 2021 to worthless, leaving investors with no recourse. - #11[disputed][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“LTNM reaches all-time high price of approximately $9,335 on secondary market exchanges.”
reviewerLTNM reaches all-time high price of approximately $9,335 on secondary market exchanges (Dec 19, 2021)Same underlying ATH-price error as the summary and Token History section.Proposed correction (not yet applied)LTNM reaches all-time high price of approximately $200 on secondary market exchanges. - #12[disputed][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“LTNM price collapses from approximately $9,335 to under $16 by late January 2022.”
reviewerLTNM price collapses from approximately $9,335 to under $16 by late January 2022The '$16 by late January 2022' endpoint is independently confirmed by InvestmentNews verbatim, but the $9,335 starting figure is the same disputed anomaly as the other three occurrences.Proposed correction (not yet applied)LTNM price collapses from approximately $200 to under $16 by late January 2022.
partially supported
2 claimsThe cited evidence supports part of the claim but not all of it.
- #15[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Corporate Structure and Key Individuals
“Basile previously served as CEO of Fusion-io, a data storage company that had commercial relationships with Apple, Facebook, HP, IBM, and Dell, lending him apparent industry credibility that the SEC alleges was leveraged to attract investors.”
reviewerBasile previously served as CEO of Fusion-io, a data storage company with commercial relationships with Apple, Facebook, HP, IBM, and DellBasile's Fusion-io CEO role is independently confirmed by an SEC filing, but the clause 'the SEC alleges was leveraged to attract investors' attributes a specific framing to the SEC that the cited sources and the litigation release do not explicitly make; the company's customer list (Apple, Facebook, HP, IBM, Dell) is plausible but unverified from Fusion-io-specific sourcing in the page's own citations. - #18[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“Bitcoin Latinum (LTNM) project launched by Donald Basile and Monsoon Blockchain Corporation, marketed as a Bitcoin hard fork with insurance backing.”
reviewerBitcoin Latinum (LTNM) project launched by Donald Basile and Monsoon Blockchain Corporation in 2020, marketed as a Bitcoin hard fork with insurance backingThe 2020 launch date itself is independently corroborated by contemporaneous November 2020 press releases, but the URL actually cited for this timeline entry (a September 2021 Yahoo Finance piece) does not support a 2020 date at all — it is the wrong source for this specific fact, even though the fact is likely true.
confirmed
11 claimsThe cited evidence supports the claim as written.
- #1[confirmed][no action needed]in section: SEC Enforcement Action
“On April 17, 2026, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil fraud complaint — SEC v. Basile, No. 1:26-cv-02293 (E.D.N.Y.) — against Donald G. Basile, GIBF GP Inc., and Monsoon Blockchain Corporation, alleging violations of the antifraud and registration provisions of the federal securities laws.”
reviewerSEC filed a civil fraud complaint on April 17, 2026, SEC v. Basile No. 1:26-cv-02293 (E.D.N.Y.), against Basile, GIBF GP Inc. and Monsoon Blockchain Corporation, via litigation release lr-26530Case caption, number, court, filing date, and defendants are all confirmed by the SEC litigation release itself and corroborated by independent press coverage (Cointelegraph, Bloomberg Law). - #2[confirmed][no action needed]in section: SEC Enforcement Action
“The SEC's litigation release lr-26530 identifies the defendants as having raised approximately $16 million from hundreds of accredited investors through a SAFT (Simple Agreement for Future Tokens) offering conducted under Regulation D between March and December 2021.”
reviewerSEC alleges approximately $16 million raised from hundreds of accredited investors via Regulation D SAFT offering between March and December 2021Directly supported by the cited SEC litigation release and corroborated by InvestmentNews, Cointelegraph and Blockonomi. - #3[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Fraudulent Marketing Claims
“The central misrepresentation was that Bitcoin Latinum was 'the world's first insured digital asset,' with alleged coverage of up to $1 billion provided by an international insurance broker and risk advisor. The SEC confirmed no such insurance policy ever existed.”
reviewerSEC confirmed no insurance policy ever existed for the 'world's first insured digital asset, up to $1 billion' claim; no asset-backing trust was ever established; 80% use-of-funds claim was fabricatedAll three fraudulent-marketing claims (insurance, trust, 80% use of funds) are directly and consistently supported across the SEC litigation release and two independent news sources. - #4[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Fraudulent Marketing Claims
“Monsoon Blockchain Corporation's public materials described LTNM as 'an insured, asset-backed cryptocurrency' and stated its 'asset backing is held in a fund model, so that base asset value increases over time.'”
reviewerMonsoon's public materials described LTNM as 'an insured, asset-backed cryptocurrency' with asset backing 'held in a fund model, so that base asset value increases over time'Quoted marketing language is verified almost verbatim in the cited press release. - #5[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Misappropriation of Investor Funds
“According to the complaint, specific misappropriations included approximately $4.1 million spent on a Miami condominium, approximately $2.8 million on a Park City, Utah residence, approximately $1.4 million charged to personal American Express accounts, approximately $1 million transferred to accounts he personally controlled, and $160,000 for the purchase of a horse for his daughter.”
reviewerSpecific misappropriations: ~$4.1M Miami condo, ~$2.8M Park City Utah residence, ~$1.4M personal Amex charges, ~$1M to personally controlled accounts, $160,000 horse for his daughterAll five dollar figures match the InvestmentNews breakdown exactly. - #7[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Token History and Market Collapse
“Bitcoin Latinum (LTNM) was described publicly as a Bitcoin hard fork capable of handling large transaction volumes, cybersecurity, and digital asset management, with a maximum supply of 888,888,888 LTNM.”
reviewerLTNM described as a Bitcoin hard fork with maximum supply of 888,888,888 LTNMMax supply figure is consistent across multiple aggregator sites; hard-fork framing matches the project's own marketing (treated here as a description of the project's claims, not a verified technical fact). - #8[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Token History and Market Collapse
“The token began listing on overseas exchanges including HitBTC, LBank, DigiFinex, Hotbit, and XT.com in October 2021.”
reviewerLTNM began listing on overseas exchanges including HitBTC, LBank, DigiFinex, Hotbit, and XT.com in October 2021Corroborated by period press releases (Crowdfund Insider, FinTech Futures) naming the same exchanges around October-November 2021/January 2022. - #13[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Token History and Market Collapse
“Monsoon Blockchain Corporation announced plans in January 2022 to expand to twenty total global exchanges, but this expansion did not materialize in any meaningful way before the project failed.”
reviewerMonsoon Blockchain announced plans in January 2022 to expand to twenty total global exchanges, which did not materializePress release date and '20 exchanges' figure both confirmed directly; the non-materialization is corroborated by the token's subsequent collapse to zero value. - #14[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Corporate Structure and Key Individuals
“Monsoon Blockchain Corporation was incorporated and headquartered in Palo Alto, California.”
reviewerMonsoon Blockchain Corporation was incorporated and headquartered in Palo Alto, CaliforniaPalo Alto HQ independently corroborated across multiple press releases. - #16[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Investor Impact
“Investors received SAFTs — contractual rights to receive LTNM tokens at a future date contingent on an operational milestone that Basile, through GIBF GP Inc., held sole discretion to declare. That milestone was never declared, and investors never received tokens.”
reviewerHundreds of investors across the US and internationally participated in the SAFT offering, totaling approximately $16 million; token-delivery milestone was never declared and investors never received tokensSAFT mechanics and non-delivery are consistent with how SAFTs are described in the SEC release and secondary coverage; the 'sole discretion' detail is a reasonable characterization of standard SAFT milestone provisions, not separately contradicted by any source found. - #17[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Current Project Status
“No criminal charges have been publicly reported.”
reviewerNo criminal charges have been publicly reported in connection with this matterConsistent with all available reporting, which describes this exclusively as a civil SEC enforcement matter.
How this fits together. The reviewer reads the published page and its cited sources and records one finding per claim. A human moderator decides whether each proposed correction is applied; those decisions, and the score changes they cause, appear in the audit log. Earlier review runs are not shown here; only the latest reflects the page as it stands.