Archive · 24 Sep 2026
Entrepreneur Faces ₹40 Crore Claim After Failed Web3 Venture
An entrepreneur started a Web3 project with a co-founder.
The co-founder put in Rs 6 lakh, while the entrepreneur did the work.
They agreed to share the project equally.
The project never launched because the crypto market fell.
The co-founder later asked for the investment back with interest.
The co-founder then claimed Rs 40 crore based on revenue shown in a pitch deck.
The entrepreneur says the agreement did not promise a refund or guaranteed returns.
A court is now considering the next step in the disagreement, while lawyers and online commenters have offered different opinions about the claim.
The entrepreneur says a co-founder invested Rs 6 lakh in a 50-50 Web3 project.
Under their agreement, the co-founder provided capital while the entrepreneur handled the project’s work.
The project never launched after the crypto market declined, and neither person earned money.
The co-founder allegedly sought repayment with interest and later claimed Rs 40 crore in lost revenue.
The entrepreneur says the dispute is before the High Court over appointment of an arbitrator.
- Who
- An entrepreneur and a co-founder who invested Rs 6 lakh.
- What
- A failed Web3 venture has led to a legal dispute involving a claimed Rs 40 crore in lost revenue.
- When
- The parties met last year; the dispute developed over the following months, and the first High Court hearing was recently adjourned.
- Where
- The matter has been taken to the High Court; the specific court location is not stated.
- Why
- The co-founder is seeking money after the project failed, while the entrepreneur says the payment was an investment rather than a loan and that no returns were guaranteed.
Entrepreneur’s Account
Co-founder’s Claim
Nature of the Rs 6 lakh payment
Entrepreneur’s Account
The entrepreneur says it was startup capital and not a loan, with no refund clause or guaranteed returns.
Co-founder’s Claim
The co-founder first sought the Rs 6 lakh back with interest, according to the entrepreneur’s account.
Basis for the Rs 40 crore demand
Entrepreneur’s Account
The entrepreneur says the amount came from an optimistic projected-revenue slide in a pitch deck, not a contractual promise.
Co-founder’s Claim
The co-founder has reportedly claimed Rs 40 crore in lost revenue, using the pitch deck as evidence.
Strength of the case
Entrepreneur’s Account
The entrepreneur and supportive commenters argue that the agreement and arbitration clause do not establish an obligation to repay or guarantee revenue.
Co-founder’s Claim
The co-founder has taken the dispute to court to seek appointment of an arbitrator; the co-founder’s detailed legal position is not provided.
- Initial investment
- Rs 6 lakh
- Ownership arrangement
- The agreement described both parties as 50-50 co-founders.
- Entrepreneur’s contribution
- Artwork, website, branding and the full asset pack.
- Project outcome
- The project never launched, and neither party made money.
- Amount claimed
- Rs 40 crore in alleged loss of revenue.
- Dispute mechanism
- The agreement included an arbitration clause.
- Current legal status
- The first High Court hearing on appointing an arbitrator was adjourned.