Thomson Reuters Heiress Loses Over $80 Million in Crypto Scheme Linked to Psychic Advice

Billionaire heiress Taylor Thomson, tied to the Thomson Reuters empire, has suffered a jaw-dropping loss of over $80 million in cryptocurrency investments, a disaster reportedly fueled by psychic guidance and alleged mismanagement by her former best friend. This bizarre and cautionary tale, set against the backdrop of crypto’s wild volatility, exposes the dangerous underbelly of speculative digital assets, unorthodox decision-making, and the ever-present scourge of scams and security failures.

• Taylor Thomson’s crypto portfolio, once worth $140 million in 2021, cratered by over $80 million.
• Alleged unauthorized trades by Ashley Richardson and a $40 million flop in Persistence (XPRT) sparked a fierce legal battle.
• Crypto security woes loom large, with billions lost to hacks and scams in recent years.

Thomson’s $80 Million Crypto Catastrophe

The unraveling of Taylor Thomson’s crypto fortune is a textbook case of boom-to-bust in the digital asset space. During the 2021 bull run, when Bitcoin and countless altcoins skyrocketed on a wave of hype and institutional fervor, Thomson’s holdings—managed by her then-close friend Ashley Richardson—hit a staggering peak of over $140 million. But the party didn’t last. The 2022 bear market, driven by rising interest rates, geopolitical uncertainty, and catastrophic implosions like Terra/Luna and FTX, obliterated trillions in market value across the board. Thomson’s portfolio wasn’t spared. According to Guidepost Solutions, a consulting firm hired to assess the damage, her losses topped $80 million, with fingers pointed at over 450,000 trades—allegedly unauthorized and recklessly high-risk—executed by Richardson. For those new to crypto, a bear market is a prolonged period of declining prices, often wiping out speculative gains faster than you can say “blockchain.” Thomson learned this the hard way, as detailed in a report on her massive crypto losses.

What makes this story stranger than fiction is the reported role of psychic guidance in her investment choices. Sources suggest Thomson leaned on spiritual advisers and psychics, including a figure named Robert Sabella, to steer her financial moves. While her spokesperson downplays this as merely a “sounding board,” the idea of a billionaire heiress turning to crystal balls over cold, hard data in a market as brutal as crypto is, frankly, a reckless middle finger to basic financial sense. It’s not just about poor judgment—it’s a glaring red flag about how desperation or distrust in traditional systems can push even the wealthiest into absurd corners. Crypto’s promise of freedom from Wall Street’s suits often attracts iconoclasts, but there’s a fine line between rebellion and outright folly, as explored in a detailed account of Thomson’s 2022 losses and legal fallout.

The $40 Million Altcoin Gamble: Persistence (XPRT) Collapse

A massive chunk of Thomson’s losses—$40 million to be exact—came from a bet on Persistence (XPRT), a proof-of-stake blockchain project pitched as a “BTCFi Liquidity Hub.” For the uninitiated, proof-of-stake is a consensus mechanism where users “stake” their coins to validate transactions, unlike Bitcoin’s energy-hungry mining process. BTCFi, short for Bitcoin Finance, refers to platforms aiming to enhance Bitcoin’s utility in areas like lending or trading without altering Bitcoin’s core protocol. Persistence’s goal was to tackle fragmentation in the Bitcoin ecosystem by powering a decentralized exchange with near-zero slippage swaps—meaning trades with minimal price deviation due to market volatility. It’s an ambitious niche, one Bitcoin itself doesn’t directly address, and in theory, it could streamline liquidity for Bitcoin-related assets. Sounds promising, right? Not so fast.

According to data on Persistence (XPRT) price history and credibility, XPRT’s token price nosedived 99% from a high of $16.59 in May 2021 to a pitiful $0.037 today. Altcoins—smaller cryptocurrencies compared to giants like Bitcoin or Ethereum—often promise moonshot gains during bull runs but collapse under low liquidity, shaky fundamentals, or pure hype. Persistence’s vision may have been innovative, but execution and adoption fell flat, leaving investors like Thomson holding a near-worthless bag. Were there red flags? Likely. Token economics (how a coin’s supply and demand are structured) and team credibility often signal an altcoin’s viability—or lack thereof, as further analyzed in this in-depth look at XPRT’s collapse. Compare this to a project like Stacks, which also focuses on Bitcoin utility and has seen relative stability; it’s clear not all BTCFi experiments are doomed, but most are speculative traps. Thomson’s gamble underscores a harsh truth: without deep due diligence, altcoin investments are akin to throwing darts blindfolded.

Legal Showdown: Accountability in a Lawless Frontier

The financial wreckage has ignited a bitter legal feud. Thomson sued both Richardson and Persistence, demanding $25 million in damages for what she claims was gross mismanagement and unauthorized trading. While she’s reached a settlement with Persistence, the clash with Richardson persists. Richardson countersued for $10 million, alleging defamation and insisting she followed Thomson’s lead. Her defense is unequivocal:

“Everything I did was based on her instructions, as part of her effort to minimize losses.”

Thomson’s team isn’t having it. A spokesperson shot back with venom:

“Ms. Richardson has taken her bogus story to the media in an attempt to extract more money from Ms. Thomson.”

This nasty back-and-forth exposes the murky reality of accountability in crypto investing. Without formal contracts or regulatory guardrails—hallmarks of traditional finance—personal agreements can devolve into he-said-she-said chaos when millions evaporate. Was Richardson a rogue trader gambling with Thomson’s fortune, or a convenient fall guy for joint decisions made in the heat of a bull run? The courts will untangle this mess, but the implications are broader. Crypto’s decentralized ethos is a double-edged sword: it grants freedom but often leaves investors naked against human error or deceit. Could Thomson’s case set a precedent for how mismanagement is handled in this digital frontier, where code is king and scams are the bandits? It’s a question worth watching as legal battles increasingly intersect with blockchain’s wilds, with more context available in this summary of Thomson’s crypto disaster.

Crypto’s Dark Underbelly: Scams and Hacks on the Rise

Thomson’s nightmare isn’t an isolated incident—it’s a microcosm of a systemic plague. Take a separate case flagged by blockchain analytics platform Lookonchain: an investor lost $3.05 million in Tether (USDT), a stablecoin pegged to the U.S. dollar, to a phishing scam. These scams trick users into revealing private keys or signing malicious transactions, often through fake emails or websites mimicking legit platforms. Zoom out further, and the numbers are staggering. Blockchain security firm CertiK reports over $2.2 billion lost to hacks, scams, and breaches in recent data (we’re cross-referencing exact timelines, likely 2023 or 2024, as 2025 figures seem speculative), with wallet breaches accounting for $1.7 billion and phishing raking in $410 million across 132 attacks. Wallet breaches exploit flaws in software or hardware wallets—tools storing your crypto keys—while phishing preys on human gullibility. For newbies, imagine storing your life savings in a digital safe, only for a hacker to crack it or a con artist to trick you into handing over the combination. As crypto adoption surges, so does the target on every investor’s back, with discussions on such trends found in this thread about phishing scams and wallet breaches.

These stats are a brutal wake-up call. Bitcoin maximalists like myself argue that sticking to BTC, with its battle-tested network security and decentralization, might’ve spared Thomson this carnage. Altcoins and flashy projects often lack Bitcoin’s resilience, making them juicier targets for exploits or outright rug pulls. Yet, I’ll concede that innovation in niches like BTCFi—where Bitcoin can’t or shouldn’t tread—requires experimental blockchains, even if most flop. The tradeoff? Investors bear the brunt of these growing pains. Thomson’s saga, paired with rampant scams, proves that no amount of wealth insulates you from crypto’s predators. If you’re wading into this space, secure your funds with hardware wallets like Ledger or Trezor, enable two-factor authentication, and never click dubious links—basic hygiene could save you a fortune, as echoed in broader conversations on phishing risks in crypto.

The Psychic Paradox: Why Rationality Fails in Crypto

Let’s address the elephant in the room: psychic guidance in high-stakes investing. Laughable as it sounds, this absurdity mirrors a deeper chaos in crypto—where desperation often trumps logic. High-net-worth individuals like Thomson aren’t immune to the psychological traps of speculative markets. Fear of missing out (FOMO) during bull runs, distrust of traditional finance, or even personal eccentricities can drive irrational behavior. Studies on investor psychology show speculative bubbles often attract unorthodox coping mechanisms—think dot-com era superstitions or modern-day meme stock frenzies. Thomson’s alleged reliance on psychics might be less about naivety and more about a rebellion against the suits and spreadsheets of Wall Street, a sentiment many in crypto share. But here’s the rub: rebellion doesn’t justify skipping due diligence. If you’re betting millions, lean on whitepapers, audits, or seasoned advisors—not tarot cards. Her story is a stark reminder that emotional vulnerabilities can amplify crypto’s inherent risks, with further insights available on Thomson’s $80 million loss tied to psychic advice.

Playing devil’s advocate, though, let’s consider that the psychic angle might be overblown. Perhaps it’s a distraction from the real issue: a systemic lack of oversight and education in crypto. High-stakes environments push people to unconventional crutches, sure, but the absence of clear guidelines or trusted advisors in this space is the true villain. Thomson’s wealth didn’t protect her from this gap—imagine the average investor’s odds. Until the industry matures with better tools and standards, expect more casualties, psychic or not, as discussed in this exploration of what happens when crypto investments fail.

Lessons for a Decentralized Future

As champions of decentralization, we view Thomson’s loss through the lens of effective accelerationism—painful lessons are the forge for stronger systems. Her $80 million disaster could catalyze better security protocols, clearer investment frameworks, and a cultural shift away from blind speculation. Bitcoin’s unmatched security makes a compelling case for sticking to the king of crypto, but altcoins and niche projects like Persistence push boundaries in ways BTC isn’t meant to. Most will fail, as XPRT did, but the survivors might redefine finance. The catch is navigating this minefield without getting blown up.

Contrast Thomson’s plight with someone like Michael Saylor, whose MicroStrategy has amassed billions in Bitcoin with a disciplined, long-term strategy. Not every high-roller crashes and burns in crypto, but success demands rigor, not whimsy. For readers—newcomers and OGs alike—here’s a non-negotiable checklist: research every project like your livelihood depends on it (it might), lock down formal contracts with anyone touching your funds, use hardware wallets and 2FA religiously, and treat altcoin hype with the skepticism you’d reserve for a used car salesman. Freedom in crypto doesn’t mean free-for-all recklessness.

The road ahead for crypto is bumpy but brimming with potential. Thomson’s legal battles might shape how accountability evolves in this unregulated realm, while skyrocketing scam stats demand community-driven standards and relentless education. Will crypto’s promise of liberation always come at the cost of fools and their fortunes, or can we build a safer rebellion? That’s the million-dollar—or $80 million—question.

Key Takeaways: Unpacking Thomson’s Crypto Loss and Industry Risks

• What triggered Taylor Thomson’s $80 million crypto loss?
  A toxic cocktail of the 2022 market crash, a $40 million investment in Persistence (XPRT) that tanked 99%, and alleged unauthorized high-risk trades by Ashley Richardson obliterated her $140 million portfolio.
• Why is psychic guidance a red flag for crypto investors?
  Thomson’s reported dependence on psychics reveals the peril of basing huge financial decisions on irrational advice instead of data, a disastrous move in crypto’s unforgiving volatility.
• What legal challenges surface from crypto mismanagement?
  Her lawsuits against Richardson and Persistence expose the chaos of informal agreements in crypto, showing how lack of regulation fuels costly legal fights for accountability.
• How serious are crypto scams and hacks today?
  CertiK’s data pegs recent losses at over $2.2 billion from hacks and phishing, a grim sign that as crypto grows, predators targeting wallets and naive investors multiply.
• What can investors learn from Thomson’s downfall?
  Drill into due diligence, secure formal contracts with managers, protect wallets with hardware devices and 2FA, and approach altcoin hype with extreme caution—Bitcoin’s safer unless risks are clear.
• Why do altcoins like Persistence (XPRT) often flop despite innovation?
  Many altcoins tout bold ideas like BTCFi hubs, but low adoption, flawed token economics, and hype bubbles lead to crashes like XPRT’s 99% drop, burning investors like Thomson.