The Rise of the Hares: Is BAYC Under Attack?

“The Rise of the Hares” does not, by itself, establish that a named NFT collection has launched or attacked Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC). Without an exact collection name, official announcement, or verifiable collection contract, treat the phrase as an unconfirmed claim—not as evidence of a coordinated campaign.

The wording could refer to a rival project, online criticism, a market trend, or a story using “attack” metaphorically. Those are different situations with different evidence. A collection competing for attention is not the same as a hack, a legal challenge, or an organized effort to damage BAYC.

Before sharing or acting on the claim, pin down:

• Who or what are “the Hares”? Look for an exact project name and official channels.
• What does “attack” mean? Is the claim about criticism, copying, a security incident, or competition?
• What can be independently checked? Seek a contract address, court filing, or clear public statement—not just a repost or screenshot.

If those basics are missing, the sensible conclusion is that the claim remains unverified.

BAYC is a collection of 10,000 Ethereum profile-picture NFTs launched in 2021. It grew beyond collectible images into a prominent online community and brand. Celebrity attention and commercial expansion plans helped make it highly visible, but visibility never guaranteed that every NFT would keep its value.

In 2022, Yuga Labs held a sale for virtual land in its planned Otherside metaverse. The sale attracted strong demand and caused heavy Ethereum congestion, with users facing costly transactions. That episode showed both the scale of BAYC-related interest and a practical risk of NFT launches: high demand can make network fees and failed or delayed transactions a problem.

Coinbase also announced a BAYC-related film trilogy in 2022, another sign of the project’s ambitions outside NFT trading. But announcements and brand activity are not proof of lasting demand, guaranteed utility, or future returns.

The broad takeaway is that BAYC’s prominence came from a mix of community, marketing, celebrity visibility and expansion plans. You should separate that history from claims about a specific rival. A new collection can attract attention without displacing BAYC, and a famous brand can remain exposed to the same market and liquidity risks as other NFTs.

People often use “attack” loosely in NFT debates. Ask what is actually alleged before deciding whether the claim matters:

Type of claim	What it means	What to verify
Rival collection	Another project competes for buyers or attention	Collection identity, activity and stated goals
Criticism or satire	People dispute the project or make parody work	The specific statements or artwork and who made them
Intellectual-property dispute	A party alleges misuse of marks or imagery	Court records, filings and rulings
Security incident	Wallets, accounts or contracts may be compromised	Affected addresses, project alerts and transaction records

Competition can put pressure on a brand’s attention, but that is not the same as attacking its smart contracts or stealing assets. Criticism may affect reputation; it does not automatically establish that criticism is true. A legal filing is an allegation until a court resolves it, while a ruling must be described according to what the court decided.

Use precise language. If the claim is that “Hares” is taking market share, look for evidence of sales or activity. If the claim is a hack, seek a confirmed incident report. If the claim is infringement, identify the parties and legal status. Do not treat one category as proof of another.

One documented BAYC-related conflict was the trademark case involving artist Ryder Ripps and associated NFTs. Ripps and his co-defendant used BAYC-related imagery in their project. Yuga Labs sued, and a US court ruled against them in 2023 in a trademark infringement case.

That dispute involved intellectual-property claims and a court decision. It is not evidence that a project called “the Hares” exists, and it should not be conflated with a security breach or an ordinary competitor attracting collectors. The distinction matters: a court ruling answers a legal question in a particular case; it does not settle every argument about NFT art, culture or market value.

When you see a post connecting a supposed new collection to the Ripps case, check the names and documents rather than assuming the stories are related. Useful questions include:

1. Are the same people or companies involved?
2. Is there a filed case or an actual ruling, and what did it decide?
3. Is the post quoting a document accurately, or merely comparing two projects?

A past legal dispute can explain why BAYC remains a subject of controversy. It does not, on its own, verify a new allegation.

A rival collection can challenge BAYC’s cultural attention without having any direct technical effect on BAYC NFTs. Buyers may move between projects, creators may experiment with different styles, and online discussion may shift. Those are competitive pressures, not proof that BAYC’s blockchain records or holders’ wallets have been attacked.

Price and trading activity are also easy to misread. NFT sales can be irregular, and a displayed floor price is only the lowest current listing—not a guaranteed sale price or a measure of what every token is worth. A quiet market, a falling floor or a burst of activity can have several explanations, including broader changes in demand. None alone proves a coordinated campaign.

If someone claims that the Hares are “taking down” BAYC, ask for measurable evidence: verified collection activity, a clear connection between the parties, or documented damage. Then consider alternative explanations, such as a temporary trend or an NFT-market downturn.

BAYC’s name recognition and past visibility do not make it immune to competition or market risk. Conversely, a new project’s sudden attention does not establish that it has displaced BAYC. Treat both claims as hypotheses until the evidence supports them.

If you are considering an NFT tied to this story, assess the asset rather than buying into the headline. Use this checklist before connecting a wallet or making an offer:

• Confirm the collection. Check its exact name, blockchain and contract address against the project’s official channels. Similar names and copied images can mislead.
• Inspect the item and transaction. Confirm the token, seller, currency, network and final price. Include marketplace charges and network fees in your cost.
• Read the wallet prompt. Make sure it matches the action you intend to take. Do not approve an unfamiliar contract interaction just to view a collection or claim a reward.
• Check the rights and terms. Owning an NFT does not automatically give you copyright or unrestricted commercial rights. Read the collection’s terms.
• Plan for resale risk. Listings are not sales, and a buyer may not appear when you want to exit. Do not rely on a promised floor price or future utility.

OpenSea is one marketplace where NFTs may be listed, but a familiar platform name does not prove that a particular collection is genuine or safe. Verify the chain and contract yourself. If you cannot establish what you are buying, pause rather than signing.

The most common mistake is treating a dramatic label as a verified event. “Attack” may mean nothing more than rivalry or criticism, while a reposted claim can omit the collection address, named parties or evidence. Do not send funds, approve a wallet prompt or publish an accusation until you know which claim is being made.

Also avoid treating past popularity as a valuation method. BAYC’s cultural reach, past expansion plans and legal history do not guarantee future demand. A new collection’s buzz does not guarantee that its NFTs will retain buyers, either. NFT markets can be thin, prices can move sharply, and a listed token may not sell.

Keep these distinctions in view:

• A market rival is not automatically a hacker.
• An allegation is not the same as a court finding.
• A floor listing is not proof of a sale or fair value.
• NFT ownership does not necessarily transfer copyright or other rights.
• A wallet approval can create risks beyond the immediate transaction, so review what you are authorizing.

The practical verdict is straightforward: the phrase “The Rise of the Hares” is not enough to verify an attack on BAYC. Identify the project and the alleged action first; then assess the evidence and any financial risk separately.