Elon Musk's recent Dogecoin-themed meme raised questions about potential market manipulation

Elon Musk’s recent social media posts referencing "D.O.G.E." have once again raised questions about his influence on Dogecoin (DOGE).

A recent tweet mentioning the "Department of Government Efficiency (D.O.G.E.)" caused a brief spike in DOGE’s price, even though Musk’s reference was tied to a political project rather than the cryptocurrency itself. This pattern has led to speculation over whether Musk intentionally impacts the meme coin’s value through his posts.

Musk has a history of causing DOGE price fluctuations with his tweets. In September, a similar post mentioning "D.O.G.E." led to a short-lived price surge.

Critics argue that Musk’s ambiguous language—referencing Dogecoin-related themes without directly discussing the cryptocurrency—may provide him plausible deniability while still affecting its market value.

This debate has escalated with a class-action lawsuit accusing Musk of fraud and insider trading. Investors allege that Musk has intentionally used his social media influence to inflate DOGE’s value since 2021. They claim his posts are not coincidental but part of a deliberate strategy to manipulate the market for personal gain.

Supporters counter that Musk’s interest in Dogecoin could stem from his fondness for internet memes rather than market manipulation. They note that the Doge meme predates Musk’s involvement with the cryptocurrency, suggesting his posts might be driven by humor rather than financial motives.

Legal and ethical questions about Musk’s influence persist, particularly as the lawsuit unfolds. If his actions are influencing the market, critics argue that his use of terms like "D.O.G.E." could shield him from accountability.

This controversy highlights the complexities of social media’s role in cryptocurrency markets and the potential for individuals with large platforms to sway digital asset prices.

As Musk’s legal battle continues, the crypto community is left grappling with the implications of his influence and how regulators might address similar cases in the future.