I don't know if it was a matter of fraud, but it sounds of it. But if it wasn't a fraud case, he probably could have asserted a first amendment defense. That the regulation was compelled speech, and not narrowly tailored. I'm not a tax guy, but it is possible the IRS knew also further demonstrating the regulation wasn't narrowly tailored. He probably still could in an overbreadth attack (maybe 5th amendment grounds if he was desperate) if it was a fraud case, but since the coin went [essentially] to 0 then it wouldn't be the best case to raise such challenges.
Since much of his payment ended up being in that crypto, he may not have gained from it.If he did cash in and it is still listed on exchanges, he could silently try to give it new life for sh__s, giggles, and experimentation on market psychology. Would a controlled .1% to 1% daily gain a day on a dead-but tradable-coin for a few months lead to a bigger movements than him speaking?
yea who knows