What is Degen Zoo (DZOO) crypto coin? Facts, charity claims, and why it's fading fast

September 21, 2025

Crypto Investment Loss Calculator

Degen Zoo (DZOO) Investment Analysis

Based on data from the article, DZOO has declined over 98% from launch value with minimal trading volume and questionable charity claims.

Key Facts: Launched March 2023 at $0.006, currently $0.0017 (down 71.7%), market cap inconsistent, 270M+ tokens circulating, no verified charity donations.

Results

Enter your investment amount to see potential losses.

Degen Zoo (DZOO) isn't another crypto project trying to make you rich. It was built to call out a scam. Launched in March 2023, Degen Zoo emerged as a direct rebuttal to Logan Paul’s Crypto Zoo, which its creators called "nothing more than total fraud." Instead of promising returns, DZOO’s whole purpose was to highlight how fake animal-themed crypto games exploit people’s emotions - and then use the money raised to actually help real animals in danger.

The token started with a simple idea: take the same hype-driven model used by Crypto Zoo, but flip it. All profits from DZOO trading were supposed to go to charities protecting endangered species. The initial coin offering (ICO) ran from March 7 to 10, 2023, raising $1.65 million at $0.006 per token. That was the only real moment of momentum. After that, the project barely moved.

Today, DZOO trades as an ERC-20 token on the Ethereum blockchain. But its numbers tell a different story. On October 26, 2025, its price hovers between $0.00167 and $0.00173 - down more than 98% from its highest point. Some sources say it peaked at $0.086; others say $0.028. Either way, it’s a fraction of its launch value. The market cap? Around $700,000 to $9 million, depending on which site you check. The inconsistency isn’t a glitch - it’s a red flag. No real market is that fractured.

Trading volume is almost nonexistent. CoinMarketCap shows $0 in 24-hour volume. CoinGecko reports $1.16. Stoic AI says $2. For a token with over 270 million in circulation, that’s a ghost town. If no one is buying or selling, the price you see isn’t real - it’s just a number on a screen. And yet, some sites still list it as up 197% month-over-month. That doesn’t mean demand is growing. It means a handful of wallets are moving coins around to fake the appearance of activity.

The supply numbers don’t add up either. KuCoin says there are 1 billion DZOO tokens max, with 334 million in circulation. Cryptorank says 800 million total, 270 million circulating. CoinLore says 1 billion total and max. No one agrees. That’s not normal. Legitimate projects publish clear, audited tokenomics. Degen Zoo doesn’t. Its documentation is thin. There’s no whitepaper. No GitHub repo with code updates. No team bios. Just a Twitter account with 2,348 followers and no posts since 2023.

Even the charity angle is murky. The official Twitter account announced in March 2023 that "100% of profits go to animal charities." But there’s zero public record of any donations. No receipts. No charity partnerships listed. No press releases. No blockchain transactions linking DZOO profits to animal welfare orgs. If this was a real charity project, you’d see updates. You’d see names like WWF or the Wildlife Conservation Society. You’d see photos of rescued animals. You’d see proof. You don’t.

Compare it to real charity tokens like Pinkcoin or World Food Chain. They have active communities, regular donation reports, and years of transaction history. Degen Zoo has nothing. It’s not just inactive - it’s abandoned. Reddit threads about DZOO are sparse. One user in March 2023 summed it up: "another Logan Paul copycat token that will go to zero." That comment got 24 upvotes. People got it.

Why does this matter? Because Degen Zoo isn’t just a failed crypto. It’s a lesson. It shows how easily a project can ride the wave of outrage to raise money - and then vanish. It exploited the anger people felt toward Logan Paul’s Crypto Zoo. But it never built anything lasting. No app. No game. No community. No transparency. Just a token with a noble goal and zero follow-through.

It’s still listed on KuCoin and a few other small exchanges. But no one is trading it. No one is talking about it. No one is donating through it. The only people still checking its price are those hoping it’ll bounce back - a classic case of sunk cost fallacy. The token’s technical specs are fine (it runs on Ethereum), but that’s like saying a broken car has good tires. The engine is dead.

If you’re looking to support animal charities, there are better ways. Donate directly. Use platforms like Binance Charity or The Giving Block, which have real partnerships, audits, and public tracking. Don’t waste time on a crypto that’s more of a protest sign than a project.

Degen Zoo’s story isn’t about money. It’s about intention. It started with a real purpose: to expose fraud. But without accountability, even the best intentions fade. And now, DZOO is just another footnote in crypto’s long list of abandoned ideas - a ghost token with a conscience, but no future.

Comments

  1. Shruti rana Rana
    Shruti rana Rana September 21, 2025

    This is absolutely devastating. đŸ„ș Degen Zoo had such a noble heart, but without accountability, even the purest intentions become hollow echoes in the void of crypto. I weep for the animals who never received a single cent. 🐘💔

  2. Rampraveen Rani
    Rampraveen Rani September 21, 2025

    DZOO was never about profit it was about protest and now its just a ghost story with a blockchain

  3. Chris Houser
    Chris Houser September 21, 2025

    This is a textbook case of how emotion can be weaponized in DeFi. The project had a moral compass, but zero operational structure. No whitepaper, no team, no audits - it’s like building a hospital with no doctors.

  4. Ashley Cecil
    Ashley Cecil September 21, 2025

    The lack of transparency here is not merely negligent-it is ethically indefensible. A project purporting to fund animal welfare must, by any standard of fiduciary duty, provide verifiable, blockchain-traceable donation records. Its absence constitutes fraud by omission.

  5. John E Owren
    John E Owren September 21, 2025

    I get why people got excited. It felt good to fight back against Logan Paul’s scam. But good intentions don’t build sustainable systems. Maybe next time, we build the infrastructure before we launch the message.

  6. Joseph Eckelkamp
    Joseph Eckelkamp September 21, 2025

    Oh wow. A charity token that didn’t donate? Shocking. Next you’ll tell me the Tooth Fairy doesn’t collect crypto. đŸ€Ą The fact that anyone still checks the price is proof that humans are the only species that willingly pay to watch their own financial corpses rot.

  7. Jennifer Rosada
    Jennifer Rosada September 21, 2025

    I'm genuinely appalled. This isn't just a failed project-it's a moral betrayal. The creators exploited righteous anger to rake in $1.65 million and then vanished. That’s not activism. That’s predatory capitalism in a panda hoodie.

  8. adam pop
    adam pop September 21, 2025

    This was all a setup by the Fed to discredit crypto charity. They knew DZOO was too real, so they buried it. Look at the volume discrepancies-those are coordinated wash trades by central banks trying to make crypto look unstable. The real animals? They’re being held captive in underground labs.

  9. Dimitri Breiner
    Dimitri Breiner September 21, 2025

    I think the real win here is awareness. Even though DZOO died, it showed people how easily a scam can be dressed up as a movement. That’s valuable. Now more folks know to check for audits, team transparency, and donation trails before investing in anything labeled 'charity'.

  10. LeAnn Dolly-Powell
    LeAnn Dolly-Powell September 21, 2025

    It’s so sad but also kind of beautiful that something meant to help animals became a symbol of how we break things we claim to love đŸ’”đŸŸ Maybe if we all just donated directly instead of chasing tokens, we’d actually be making a difference. Sending love to all the real creatures out there.

  11. Anastasia Alamanou
    Anastasia Alamanou September 21, 2025

    The structural flaw here wasn’t the idea-it was the execution. A charity token requires governance, accountability, and communication. Without those, you’re not building a movement; you’re building a digital monument to performative activism. The tokenomics were a distraction from the real work: building trust.

  12. Steve Roberts
    Steve Roberts September 21, 2025

    You people are missing the point. DZOO didn’t fail-it succeeded. It exposed Crypto Zoo as a scam. The fact that no one talks about it anymore means the mission worked. The scam got canceled. The token’s dead? Good. That’s the point.

  13. John Dixon
    John Dixon September 21, 2025

    Ohhh, so now we’re supposed to feel bad because a token with no whitepaper, no team, and zero donations... didn’t turn into a unicorn? Please. The only thing more tragic than DZOO is the fact that someone still thinks it’s worth a second thought.

  14. Brody Dixon
    Brody Dixon September 21, 2025

    I remember when this launched. I didn’t buy in, but I cheered. It felt like justice. Now I just feel sorry-for the animals, for the people who thought this was real, and for the fact that we keep letting ourselves be fooled by the same script over and over.

  15. Santosh harnaval
    Santosh harnaval September 21, 2025

    India also had many such tokens. People invest for emotion not logic. This is not unique. Just another crypto ghost.

  16. Claymore girl Claymoreanime
    Claymore girl Claymoreanime September 21, 2025

    I’m genuinely shocked that this was ever listed on KuCoin. Any exchange that allows a project with no team, no documentation, and zero donation proof to remain trading is complicit in market manipulation. This isn’t crypto-it’s a Ponzi theater with animal emojis.

  17. Petrina Baldwin
    Petrina Baldwin September 21, 2025

    It’s dead. Move on.

  18. Ralph Nicolay
    Ralph Nicolay September 21, 2025

    The absence of audited financial disclosures, coupled with the demonstrable lack of blockchain-based charitable disbursements, constitutes a material breach of the implied contractual obligations established by the project’s public representations. Legal recourse, though practically unenforceable, remains theoretically viable.

Write a comment