Religious faith became the conduit through which hundreds of people invested their savings into a little-known cryptocurrency. INDXcoin, a project promoted in the United States by married couple Eli and Kaitlyn Regalado, had primarily reached networks of evangelical families and believers; when the venture collapsed, many participants lost the entirety of the funds they had deposited.
According to the reporting published by MIT Technology Review in partnership with Type Investigations, more than 500 people handed over a collective total of over $3 million to the Regalados. The digital coin was pitched in environments where personal reputation, membership in the same community, and the conviction of following a spiritual calling could outweigh the precautions typically associated with a financial investment.
The case is significant beyond its local scope as well. It shows how the language of faith can overlap with the already risky promise of getting in early on a new digital market. And it serves as a reminder of how easy it is to create and sell tokens lacking the structure, oversight, or transparency required of traditional financial products.
From preaching to selling a token
Eli Regalado was already active as an online preacher and communicator when, in 2021, he and his wife began taking an interest in cryptocurrencies. The pair claimed to have interpreted their entry into the sector as a divine calling. According to their subsequent court testimony, the initial episode reportedly dated back to October of that year, following a cryptocurrency gift received from family members.
From there, the idea developed to offer digital assets to fellow Christians and, subsequently, to create a proprietary currency. The Regalados had no specific experience in the crypto space, but launched INDXcoin learning as they went, initially bringing in those close to them: relatives, friends, acquaintances, and contacts made within evangelical networks.
Promoting an investment through relationships of trust does not, on its own, prove wrongdoing. However, it profoundly alters how recipients evaluate its credibility. In this case, the decision was not perceived merely as a financial bet: for some buyers, it was endorsed by the judgment of ministers, longtime friends, or figures deemed credible within their circle.
Debbie and Jose Bonilla, a retired couple cited in the investigation, bought INDXcoin after hearing about it from friends who were themselves ministers and investors. Starting in November 2022, they withdrew a total of $70,000 from their respective retirement accounts, a substantial portion of their savings. Within about a year of the purchase, however, the project had collapsed, and their capital was lost.
The collapse and questions over the funds raised
The failure of INDXcoin left investors with losses that, for many, were insurmountable. Those who had put money from pensions, family savings, or severance payments into the token were not facing the normal volatility of a publicly traded, liquid asset, but rather the total inability to recover the funds entrusted to the project.
The investigation notes that several participants wondered where the funds raised had gone and whether the operation might amount to fraud. These are central questions, but they do not equate to a verdict: allegations and disputes concerning the case must be distinguished from the formal determination of liability by competent authorities.
Yet the material reality remains: over $3 million flowed into the ecosystem built around INDXcoin, and investors lost everything. For those who joined based on personal relationships or religious convictions, the loss also extends beyond their wallets. It shatters trust in people viewed as mentors, in friends who recommended the investment, and in the community that amplified it.
The case also illustrates a recurring problem with tokens designed and distributed outside major platforms and regulated markets: understanding what gives them value, who actually controls the funds raised, what constraints exist on issuers, and whether an exit from the investment is possible. Without verifiable answers to these questions, the promise of future growth can quickly turn into a transfer of funds to entities that buyers are unable to hold accountable.
Fertile ground for crypto scams
The context in which INDXcoin emerged is that of a market that continues to blend experimentation, speculation, and fraud. Interest in digital assets has generated high-profile success stories, fueling the idea that simply getting in early on a project guarantees outsized returns. Yet the very ease with which a new coin can be issued dramatically lowers the barrier to entry for opaque ventures lacking any economic foundation.
CoinMarketCap reported that in August 2026 alone, over 3 million cryptocurrencies were created. It is a figure that highlights the stark imbalance between the sheer volume of available tokens and the ability of non-professional investors to vet them individually. In most cases, there are no consolidated financial statements, audited balance sheets, or protective mechanisms comparable to those of more conventional investment offerings.
According to Chainalysis, in 2025 crypto scammers took in at least $14 billion worldwide, up 17% from the previous year. In the United States, victims of fraudulent cryptocurrency investment schemes reported $7.2 billion in losses to the FBI. While these two figures do not automatically define the nature of every failed project, they show the scale of an ecosystem where promises that are difficult to verify can quickly reach inexperienced savers.
Jason Ghetian, a former FBI special agent and expert witness in crypto cases, sums up the problem by noting that creating a cryptocurrency is within anyone's reach. The technical act of generating a token is therefore no proof of a venture's viability or the existence of real demand. Still less does it certify the integrity of those promoting it.
The precautions this case makes essential
The Regalado case highlights a specific vulnerability: investment schemes become far more persuasive when they lean on a shared identity, whether religious, professional, or familial. In these settings, advice can feel safer because it comes from someone within the same community. Yet trust is no substitute for risk assessment, nor does it make a token liquid, regulated, or sustainable.
- Verify who issues the token, where the funds are held, and who can access them.
- Determine whether a genuine market exists to sell the asset and under what conditions.
- Be wary of implicit or explicit returns tied to prophecies, moral certainty, or peer pressure.
- Never invest retirement savings or essential funds in instruments that are not fully understood.
For INDXcoin investors, these precautions come too late. Attention is now focused on the funds raised, the liability of those who created and promoted the project, and any legal fallout. Meanwhile, the story adds a significant precedent to the debate over consumer protection in the crypto sector: when a digital currency is sold as an expression of spiritual faith, the financial loss risks leaving behind a far deeper fracture.
