Crypto has never lacked for volatility. What it has increasingly struggled with is accountability.
As billions continue to flow into Web3 infrastructure, the industry’s weaknesses are no longer limited to smart contract exploits or exchange collapses. A quieter vulnerability has taken shape in marketing and advisory services, particularly among early-stage projects navigating rebrands, fundraising rounds, or international expansion. And few names now surface more frequently in founder circles than Yaroslav “Iaros” Belkin.
Over the past several years, Belkin has positioned himself as a Web3 marketing strategist specializing in Asian market penetration. His Hong Kong-based firm, Belkin Marketing, advertises fractional CMO services, exchange relationships, influencer networks, and media access across key crypto hubs. On LinkedIn, his profile projects confidence and deep industry integration.
But a growing body of public complaints and documented accounts from crypto teams paint a far darker picture, including allegations of misrepresentation, blackmail, retaliation, and six-figure losses.
The most detailed case to emerge comes from Epic Chain, formerly Ethernity Chain, a project that previously secured listings on major exchanges such as Binance and built a substantial community. In 2025, following a strategic pivot toward real-world asset tokenization and a community-approved rebrand, Epic Chain sought to expand into Asian markets. The team reportedly allocated $100,000 for targeted regional marketing.
According to Epic Chain’s public statements, Belkin presented himself as uniquely positioned to execute the expansion. He allegedly cited regional influencer networks, exchange relationships, and media contacts across South Korea, Hong Kong, Japan, and Singapore. Contracts were signed. Funds were transferred.
What followed, Epic claims, was a collapse in delivery.
The team reports that communication slowed almost immediately. Promised influencer campaigns generated no measurable engagement. Media placements never materialized. Exchange introductions did not occur. Deliverables described as Asia-specific reportedly came across as generic. Months later, Epic Chain states it had nothing substantive to show for its $100,000 outlay.
More troubling, Epic says that when concerns were raised, clarity never came. Instead, excuses replaced metrics, and assurances replaced proof.
As Epic Chain began reaching out privately to other founders, they say they uncovered more than 20 projects describing similar experiences. While not all have spoken publicly, the alleged pattern appears consistent: strong initial positioning, polished materials, upfront payments, declining responsiveness, minimal execution, and no measurable ROI.
Earlier documentation from another blockchain project, MOBU, echoes similar claims dating back years. MOBU publicly alleged that, after terminating its relationship with Belkin Marketing, it faced retaliatory actions, including negative ratings and warnings regarding access to media coverage. The project later stated that it retained records of inappropriate communications related to those events. Portions of MOBU’s account were reportedly removed from mainstream platforms but remain archived online.
Belkin has publicly advocated for transparency and improved standards within crypto. Yet critics argue that the suppression of negative coverage, combined with repeated allegations of intimidation, directly contradicts that positioning.
The geography complicates accountability. Belkin’s Russian origins and Hong Kong base span multiple jurisdictions, making cross-border legal recourse expensive and uncertain. For startups already under capital pressure, pursuing litigation often becomes impractical. Silence becomes the easier path.
That silence may have allowed the alleged pattern to persist.
None of the projects involved claim to expect restitution. Their stated objective is prevention. And that may be the most important dimension of this story. Web3 startups operate under immense urgency. Rebrands require momentum. Token launches demand visibility. Asian expansion remains a recurring strategic goal. These moments create vulnerability — fresh capital combined with time pressure and unfamiliar markets.
Marketing fraud thrives in that intersection.
Even experienced teams are not immune. Other projects that have come forward such as TFM, Polkastarter and Epic Chain are not inexperienced startups. Epic Chain had community support, exchange listings, and legal review. Yet it still reports losing $100,000, now characterizing it as a coordinated deception.
The broader lesson extends beyond one individual. Web3’s global structure enables extraordinary innovation. It also allows reputations to be constructed faster than they can be verified. LinkedIn endorsements, conference appearances, and sleek websites are not diligence. In crypto, verification requires direct reference checks, performance-based contracts, and proof before payment.
Belkin Marketing’s website remains active as of early 2026. Outreach continues. New projects are fundraising every month.
The industry’s challenge is not whether marketing services are necessary. They are. The challenge is that in an ecosystem where trust is already fragile, operators who allegedly weaponize credibility for extraction do more than harm individual teams, they erode confidence in the infrastructure of growth itself.
Whether regulators will ever intervene is uncertain. What is clear is that founder-to-founder documentation has become the primary defense mechanism.
In crypto, transparency was supposed to be the solution. In cases like this, it may be the only shield left.
