From Crypto Influencer Peak to Financial Crisis: Ben Armstrong's Livestream Shutdown

Ben Armstrong, once a prominent figure in the crypto content space, has announced the end of his daily livestream series after three years of continuous broadcasting. In a candid video posted to his personal YouTube channel, Armstrong revealed that the production costs had become unsustainable, with weekly expenditures reaching $25,000, and monthly legal fees climbing to approximately $100,000. The crypto personality, better known by his “Bitboy” branding, cited overwhelming financial pressure and mounting legal challenges as the primary reasons for stepping back from daily content creation.

The Rise of Bitboy: How Ben Armstrong Built a Crypto Following

Armstrong’s trajectory in the cryptocurrency space began around 2018, when he established himself as a polarizing but influential voice in crypto trading circles. His polished, energetic videos featured bold price predictions and cryptocurrency market analysis with sensational headlines such as “Make IMPOSSIBLE Gains with Bitcoin SUPERCYCLE.” The content resonated with retail crypto traders seeking both investment guidance and entertainment, quickly accumulating tens of thousands of views per video. This growing audience influence led Armstrong to capitalize on his personal brand by launching his own cryptocurrency token, $BEN coin, in mid-2023, further cementing his status within the crypto community.

Scandals and Legal Battles Unravel Ben Armstrong’s Career

However, Armstrong’s expansion into token creation triggered a dramatic reversal of fortune. Shortly after $BEN coin’s launch, he was removed from the BitBoy organization amid serious allegations regarding his personal and professional conduct. This separation sparked a protracted legal dispute, with Armstrong subsequently suing the company that controlled the BitBoy brand. The situation deteriorated further when revelations emerged of an extramarital affair involving Armstrong and the CEO of BEN Coin, culminating in Armstrong’s arrest at the residence of a former business partner—an incident that occurred live during a streamed broadcast. These cumulative scandals transformed Armstrong from a celebrated crypto influencer into a controversial figure facing simultaneous personal, professional, and legal crises.

Six Figures Monthly: The Unsustainable Cost of Daily Streaming

The financial reality of maintaining a daily crypto livestream proved incompatible with Armstrong’s legal entanglements. Producing professional-quality daily content demanded substantial resources—roughly $25,000 weekly—while his escalating legal battles consumed approximately $100,000 monthly. In his announcement video, Armstrong expressed the emotional and financial toll, stating, “We’re barely making it out here, guys. We’ve got lawyers coming at me from every angle. Everyone I know is coming after me right now.” These twin pressures—operational costs combined with legal defense expenses—rendered the daily streaming model financially unviable, prompting his decision to discontinue the show after three consecutive years of Monday through Friday broadcasting with minimal exceptions.

What Ben Armstrong’s Exit Means for Crypto Content Creators

Armstrong’s departure from daily streaming signals broader challenges facing crypto influencers and content creators in an increasingly scrutinized industry. His experience underscores the precarious financial model of cryptocurrency content creation, where revenue must cover both production expenses and potential legal liabilities. The situation also reflects how scandals in the crypto space can rapidly erode influence and create compounding financial pressures. For the broader crypto community, Armstrong’s downfall serves as a cautionary tale about the risks of mixing personal conduct with public influence, particularly in an industry where credibility directly correlates with audience trust. Meanwhile, other segments of the crypto market—including institutional players and lending platforms—continue navigating their own operational challenges, suggesting that financial pressures extend well beyond individual content creators.