-
A well known financial YouTuber with millions of followers promoted an investment method called ‘copying’, which revolves around mirroring the moves of expert investors.
-
The promoter highlighted a mysterious trader and posted an affiliate link, earning commissions for every new investor who joined through that link.
-
More than two thousand people began copying this trader, but the money disappeared overnight for many as losses mounted.
Thousands of small investors woke up on a summer morning to discover their funds had vanished from a platform touted as trustworthy. Some described the situation as unbelievable and shocking, while others expressed frustration or concern about regulatory oversight. The Telegram channel used for coordination grew louder with complaints, questions, and pleas for accountability. The mood shifted from disbelief to disappointment as traders and followers debated what went wrong and whether investigations would follow in various jurisdictions. Some observers warned that if a mutual fund suffered a similar loss, regulatory bodies would likely step in to examine the case.
The episode centers on a trader known as Leviathan, who ran a copy trading model on a platform registered in Belize and not regulated in several major markets. Copy trading automatically replicates a chosen trader’s positions in followers’ accounts, with commissions charged on profits earned by the copied trader. An analyst explained that when the copied trader wins, a portion of the gains is passed to the followers based on their invested amount. The overall situation sparked a wave of discussion about risk and transparency in copy trading strategies.
In this case, Leviathan was the focal point. The trader engaged in foreign exchange, buying and selling dollars and euros, with the initial minimum to copy allegedly around 3,000 euros. A commission of 25 percent on daily profits was reported. A Telegram channel purportedly maintained by Leviathan claimed a large cohort of investors who copied the trader, sharing earnings summaries and market commentary. After a day of silence, the trader issued an apology, attributed market tensions to a mix of global events and investor fear, and urged followers to keep going. The account later disappeared along with the main Telegram channel, leaving questions about accountability and traceability.
Rumors spread that Leviathan was a nickname for a small group based in Andorra. While screenshots of profiles circulated online with identifying details removed, the true identities remained unclear. The affected investors were described as diverse, including young people from Spanish-speaking regions. Some attempted to offer contact details or personal information as part of ongoing discussions, while many expressed a sense of helplessness about the outcome.
How did this situation unfold?
The promoter known as Adrián Sáenz, a content creator with a substantial following on multiple platforms, had shared content about monetizing online ventures for several years. His channel covered dropshipping, e-commerce, selling on marketplaces, online entrepreneurship, and investments in various assets. A video published months earlier introduced the concept of a copy trading business, framing it as a potential revenue stream. Other videos explored earnings in a weekly, monthly, and quarterly context, with some content later removed from public view, leaving a simplified narrative behind.
Details about Sáenz’s involvement point to a video where he described how a copy trading approach could work. He discussed placing an initial investment across multiple traders and noted a positive experience with one of them, Leviathan. He subsequently disclosed that he earned affiliate commissions through an investment platform that connected followers to the trader. While some clips claimed a successful track record, later commentary suggested the affiliate links were removed and questions about the longevity of the strategy persisted.
The progression saw Sáenz increasing his exposure, and reports indicated that substantial profits were claimed at times. The returns were described in terms that suggested dramatic gains in short periods. Critics questioned the sustainability of such results and whether the activity met regulatory standards for investment endorsements or financial advice. Legal experts cited the need for clarity around qualifications and the boundaries of marketing in financial spaces, noting that promoting investment services may carry regulatory implications depending on how information is framed and presented.
As the narrative continued, Sáenz indicated he would no longer promote copy trading or martingale-style strategies. He claimed to have removed affiliate links and invited followers to share ideas about what to do with earnings. A law firm involved in the case indicated interest in organizing a formal class action, but the outcome remained uncertain. Several investors expressed skepticism about the likelihood of redress, emphasizing the difficulty of recovering losses when the underlying platform or actor changes identity or disappears from public view.
Experts warned about high-risk strategies such as martingale in volatile markets. They noted that currency pairs can exhibit strong movements, and tactics that rely on doubling down after losses can lead to rapid erosion of capital. While some traders may report impressive short-term results, the long-term expectation is often negative in such schemes. The broader takeaway focused on the importance of due diligence, clear disclosure, and the avoidance of marketing tactics that blur the line between information sharing and financial advice.
In the aftermath, some affected investors considered collective action while others chose to monitor developments. Sáenz remained in the public eye, but his stance shifted toward caution, and he signaled a pause in recommending this approach. The conversation in the community continued, with questions about redress and accountability still to be answered. Legal commentators stressed that successful action would depend on how claims are framed and the remedies sought, underscoring that speculative investment carries real risk and potential losses.
* Clarification about investment thresholds appeared in early reports. Some sources indicated a €3,000 minimum for copying, while others noted smaller starting amounts. The discrepancy contributed to confusion among potential copy traders and highlighted the importance of verifying current platform requirements before participating in any trading scheme.
Related developments and further updates continue to unfold as authorities assess the situation and investors seek clarity about their options.