The Final Severance
Nike has officially severed ties with RTFKT, the digital fashion studio it acquired at the height of the 2021 NFT mania, completing a silent divestment that signals the sportswear giant’s total retreat from the metaverse. A Nike spokesperson confirmed to Bloomberg on Wednesday that the transaction closed on December 17, 2025, though the company refused to name the buyer or disclose the sale price.
The opacity of the deal, executed weeks before it was acknowledged, underscores the friction between legacy retail and Web3 communities. Nike’s handling of the exit, characterized by silence rather than a roadmap, has left holders of the once-blue-chip CloneX collection in limbo.
Market Reaction: A Long Way Down
The sale failed to ignite a recovery for RTFKT’s flagship assets. CloneX, which traded as high as 19 ETH during the 2022 peak, struggled to hold a floor price of 0.09 ETH ($310) following the news, with volume evaporating across marketplaces. The 99% drawdown from all-time highs reflects a broader capitulation of corporate metaverse strategies, as liquidity consolidates into protocols with clearer utility.
Institutional Context: The Hill Doctrine
This divestment is the capstone of CEO Elliott Hill’s “back-to-basics” reorganization. Since taking the helm in late 2024, Hill has aggressively cut experimental divisions to stabilize Nike’s stock (NKE), which had suffered from inventory bloat and competition from nimble rivals like On and Hoka. The message is binary: if it doesn’t move physical units, it goes.
“RTFKT transitioned to a new owner on December 17, launching a new chapter for the company and its community.”, Nike Spokesperson
Legal Liability Remains
While Nike has offloaded the asset, the liability may stick. The company faces an active class-action lawsuit filed in April 2025 by investors alleging the winding down of RTFKT operations constituted a “soft rug pull.” Plaintiffs argue that Nike’s strategic pivot effectively zeroed out the utility promised during the initial mints. The sale to an unnamed entity could complicate these proceedings, raising questions about who now bears the obligation to deliver on the project’s original roadmap.
