A consortium led by Tim Stokely, founder of the adult content platform OnlyFans, and the HBAR Foundation, a cryptocurrency entity, has submitted a last-minute bid to acquire TikTok’s US operations from Chinese parent company ByteDance, according to Reuters.
The move, announced on 2 April, positions the group as an unconventional contender in a high-stakes geopolitical auction overseen by the White House.
Stokely’s new venture, Zoop, diverges sharply from OnlyFans by positioning itself as a mainstream, family-friendly platform that shares “the majority of revenue” with creators based on user engagement metrics.
Partnering with the HBAR Foundation, custodian of the Hedera blockchain network, the bid aims to decentralise TikTok’s governance and integrate Web3 principles, such as tokenised rewards and transparent revenue splits.
Zoop co-founder RJ Phillips framed the proposal as a “David vs. Goliath moment” against traditional tech giants, emphasising a shift from shareholder-driven models to creator empowerment. However, details of the bid’s financial terms and investor consortium remain undisclosed.
Amazon’s surprise entry, competing bids
The Zoop-HBAR bid faces stiff competition, including a late offer from Amazon. However, reports suggest the e-commerce giant’s proposal is not being taken seriously by White House negotiators.
Other contenders include: Oracle and Blackstone, collaborating to amplify existing US investor stakes in ByteDance; Project Liberty, a decentralisation initiative led by billionaire Frank McCourt and Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian; and a consortium involving AI startup Perplexity and influencer MrBeast.
The White House, spearheaded by Vice President JD Vance, is evaluating proposals ahead of the 5 April deadline for ByteDance to divest TikTok or face a US ban under national security laws.
The forced sale stems from bipartisan legislation citing fears that ByteDance’s Chinese ownership could enable data exploitation or influence operations by Beijing. However, TikTok has challenged the law as a violation of First Amendment rights, arguing it restricts access to a global media platform.
