Taylor Thomson alleges psychic-linked XPRT token bets may have caused over $80M losses, sues former friend

• Heir sued a former friend after psychic-led crypto decisions led to major losses.

• Guidepost Solutions estimates losses exceeded $80 million; 450,000+ trades alleged.

• Thomson invested roughly $40 million in Persistence’s XPRT token, which fell ~99% from its 2021 high.

Taylor Thomson crypto lawsuit: Thomson alleges $80M+ crypto losses after psychic advice; read the case summary and next steps for investors.

The heir to the Thomson Reuters fortune is suing her former best friend after a psychic’s recommendation led to massive crypto bets costing millions.

Publication date: 2025-08-25 | Updated: 2025-08-25

What is the Taylor Thomson crypto lawsuit about?

The Taylor Thomson crypto lawsuit alleges that billionaire heir Taylor Thomson lost over $80 million in digital assets after following investment advice tied to a celebrity psychic and relying on her former friend Ashley Richardson to manage large crypto positions. The suit claims unauthorized trades, undisclosed fees, and misrepresentation tied to the XPRT token.

Who are the main parties and what are the alleged facts?

Taylor Thomson, a member of the family behind Thomson Reuters, sued Ashley Richardson and Persistence (the blockchain behind XPRT). Guidepost Solutions reported losses above $80 million and alleges Richardson executed more than 450,000 trades without formal authorization.

Thomson reportedly invested approximately $40 million in Persistence’s native XPRT token. CoinGecko data (plain text reference) shows XPRT peaked near $16.59 on May 15, 2021, and trades near $0.037 at the time of reporting — a decline of about 99% from the record high.

How did psychic advice factor into investment decisions?

According to reporting by Wall Street Journal (plain text reference), both women consulted a celebrity psychic and other spiritual advisers before making major crypto moves. Thomson says those consultations influenced her decisions. Richardson denies wrongdoing and says she acted on Thomson’s instructions to manage liquidity in thinly traded tokens.

What claims did Thomson make in court?

Thomson’s complaint seeks $25 million from Richardson and Persistence, alleging misrepresentation and a secret “finder’s fee” arrangement. Thomson’s legal team argues that trades were executed without proper authorization and exposed her to excessive risk during the 2021–2022 market cycle.

What is Richardson’s response?

Richardson counters that she followed Thomson’s oral instructions, had no formal contract, and did not profit from the arrangement. She filed a counterclaim seeking $10 million for defamation, after accusations that she committed fraud.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is the XPRT token significant to this case?

XPRT is significant because Thomson’s reported $40 million exposure to the token accounted for a large portion of the portfolio decline; public market data shows the token collapsed from its 2021 peak, magnifying losses.

Can an oral agreement justify large crypto trades?

Oral agreements may be legally valid in some jurisdictions, but large asset transfers and high-frequency trades typically require written authorization and clear fiduciary terms to avoid disputes and allegations of misconduct.

Key Takeaways

• Major loss and legal action: Thomson alleges more than $80M in crypto losses and has sued a former friend and Persistence.
• Allegations of unauthorized trades: Guidepost Solutions reports 450,000+ trades executed without formal authorization.
• Investor lesson: Use written agreements, clear authorization and independent oversight when delegating crypto asset management.

How can investors protect themselves from adviser-related crypto risk?

1. Require written agreements outlining authority and fees. 2. Use multi-signature wallets or custodial controls for large holdings. 3. Obtain independent audits and transaction logs regularly.

Conclusion

Taylor Thomson’s crypto lawsuit highlights the risks of delegated crypto management when formal controls are absent. The case underscores the need for written authority, custody safeguards and transparent reporting. Investors should treat this as a cautionary example and review governance on delegated crypto strategies.