God told them to sell crypto. Their investors lost everything.
This article was produced in partnership with Type Investigations and with support from the Fund for Investigative Journalism. When Eli Regalado first heard God speak to him, he wondered whether he was hallucinating. Now he likens the experience to having “a thought that is not my thought.” Divine words echo in his mind like a…
- 1. More than 500 investors provided over $3 million to the Regalados for the INDXcoin venture.
- 2. The Denver district attorney charged Eli and Kaitlyn Regalado with 40 felony counts including racketeering and securities fraud.
- 3. A civil court judge ruled that INDXcoin was an unregistered security and found that the Regalados misled investors.
Article analysis
Skim this article about "God told them to sell crypto. Their investors lost everything.": 3 key takeaways and more.
God told them to sell crypto. Their investors lost everything.
skim AI Analysis | MIT Technology Review
MIT Technology Review on God told them to sell crypto. Their investors lost everything.: skim's analysis surfaces 3 key takeaways. Eli and Kaitlyn Regalado raised over $3 million for INDXcoin by targeting Christian communities before the cryptocurrency collapsed. Read the takeaways in seconds, then decide whether the full article is worth your time.
Category: Business. News article analyzed by skim.
Summary
Eli and Kaitlyn Regalado raised over $3 million for INDXcoin by targeting Christian communities before the cryptocurrency collapsed. Colorado authorities charged the couple with 40 criminal felonies, while a civil court ordered them to pay $3.4 million in restitution.
Key Takeaways
- In all, more than 500 people handed over a total of more than $3 million to the Regalados.
- Then, in July 2025, Denver’s district attorney charged the Regalados with 40 felonies, including theft, racketeering, and securities fraud.
- The judge disagreed, finding that INDXcoin was a security and that the Regalados had misled investors about its true value and risks, where their funds went, how many coins had been given away, and more.
Statement Breakdown
- Claimed Facts: 55% of statements the article presents as facts
- Opinions: 25% of statements classified as editorial or subjective
- Claims: 20% of statements surfaced for additional reader evaluation
Credibility & Bias Reasoning
Credibility assessment: The reporting relies on verified court records, civil filings, criminal indictments, and on-the-record interviews with state regulators, legal experts, affected investors, and the defendants themselves. Quotations and factual assertions are corroborated across official legal transcripts and direct testimony.
Bias assessment: Investigative Regulatory Accountability. The narrative focuses critically on regulatory gaps and financial exploitation within faith-based cryptocurrency schemes. It maintains journalistic distance by giving substantial voice to the Regalados, quoting their defense, and documenting varying perspectives among defrauded investors.
Note: Covers pending criminal and civil allegations alongside direct statements from defendants.
Credibility flag: Well-Documented Fraud
Claimed Facts (7)
- This is a factual description of formal allegations filed in state court.
- This statement cites public market data regarding monthly cryptocurrency generation.
- This describes political campaign expenditure figures and federal policy outcomes.
- This reports the concrete technical score from a commissioned software audit.
- This statement records the legal settlement terms agreed to by a named defendant.
- This marks the verified calendar timeline of the project closing operations.
- This describes a specific monetary judgment rendered by a civil court judge.
Opinions (6)
- This presents a legal scholar's subjective characterization of cryptocurrency asset mechanics.
- This is a former colleague's personal opinion of Eli Regalado's personality and sales style.
- This expresses an investor's personal belief about the defendants' internal intent.
- This represents a supportive investor's subjective defense of the founders' religious sincerity.
- This is an academic expert's assessment of current United States cryptocurrency regulation.
- This is a regulatory official's analytical observation regarding affinity fraud dynamics.
Claims (5)
- This promotional comparison falsely claimed the token was immune to market manipulation despite lacking underlying assets.
- This marketing material promised high financial returns alongside minimal risk, which is financially implausible.
- This legal justification omitted the fact that the token was explicitly sold to buyers with promises of monetary returns.
- This claim presents charitable giving as proof that a financial project cannot be a fraudulent scheme.
- This assertion treats an impending criminal trial and potential prison sentence as temporary divine trial rather than legal accountability.
Key Sources
- Tung Chan — Securities Commissioner, Colorado Division of Securities
- Timothy Massad — Former Chairman, US Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Carol Goforth — Law Professor, University of Arkansas
- Hilary Allen — Law Professor, American University
- Jason Ghetian — Former FBI Special Agent and Crypto Expert Witness
- Jose Bonilla — Defrauded INDXcoin Investor
- Debbie Bonilla — Defrauded INDXcoin Investor
- Eli Regalado — Co-founder, INDXcoin
- Kaitlyn Regalado — Co-founder, INDXcoin
- John Benemerito — Founder, Benemerito Attorneys at Law
- Jan Mazotti — Former Editor-in-Chief, Icosa Magazine
- Dan Wheeler — Cryptocurrency Analyst and Influencer (360Trader)
- Troy Bramblet — Former Pastor and INDXcoin Investor
This analysis was generated by skim (skim.plus), an AI-powered content analysis platform by Credible AI. Scores and classifications represent the platform's AI-generated assessment and should be considered alongside other sources.
skim analyzes recent MIT Technology Review coverage for what holds up, what reads as opinion, and what may not be fully supported. Last updated 10th September 2026.