A new academic study is putting hard numbers behind a suspicion many crypto users already had: most financial advice on social media is low quality, and the worst offenders in crypto follow a consistent pattern.
Researchers at Queen Mary University of London analyzed nearly 2,500 “finfluencers” (financial influencers) across Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube, alongside a survey of more than 4,200 UK adults. The findings were as follows:
- Nearly 90% of all finfluencer posts showed more negative than positive features, including poor sourcing and weak financial credibility
- Just 8% to 9% of posts disclosed the creator’s real financial expertise at all
- Only 12% to 13% included any disclaimer whatsoever
- Two in five UK adults said they use social media for financial guidance, compared with roughly one in ten who consult a licensed professional
Among people who acted on advice found online, most reported positive outcomes. But nearly all said they verify information using weak methods, like reading comments, rather than checking a source’s credentials or comparing claims against reputable websites.
Blockchain analytics firm Chainalysis tracked crypto’s version of this dynamic at scale:
- 2,063,519 tokens were launched in 2024
- 873,957 of those were listed on decentralized exchanges
- Chainalysis flagged 74,037 tokens launched in 2024 as suspected pump-and-dumps
- In roughly 94% of those cases, the same wallet that created the liquidity pool was also the one that dumped it
The average suspected scheme lasted 6.23 days. The median suspected pump-and-dump scheme survived zero days before abandonment, meaning most tokens were dumped almost immediately after launch, not slowly drained over time.
In April 2026, an operation led by the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority, involving 17 regulators globally, targeted the problem directly:
- 120 finfluencer accounts were flagged for removal
- Those accounts were responsible for 1,267 illegal financial advertisements
- The ads had reached at least 2,338,372 UK accounts
- 66% of those ads came from individuals or firms already listed on the FCA’s own warning list
That last figure raises a question that platforms weren’t just failing to catch new bad actors. They were continuing to distribute content from accounts regulators had already flagged.
Taken together, the data suggests this isn’t a story about a handful of bad apples. It’s a pattern built into how attention, credibility, and token creation interact online, one that regulators are only now beginning to measure in full.
