Blockchain analyst Wazz has linked 53 meme-coin launches on Robinhood Chain over roughly two months to the same group of operators, alleging that at least $18.43 million was withdrawn. On-chain checks confirmed highly similar launch-sniping patterns in 10 of the projects, although the full $18.43 million estimate has not been independently verified.
Most of the projects launched through Pons V2. In an analysis published on September 27, Wazz said that wallets in clusters of 70 to 200 addresses bought at least 70% of the token supply in almost every project shortly after launch. The projects were linked through fund flows, private keys used to sign batches of transfers and common receiving wallets. Those methods connected 45 projects, while four others were tied through private keys used in batch funding transactions and another four shared a receiving wallet.
Wazz said proceeds from one project appeared to fund the next. CRUMBS involved the largest amount at about $3.12 million, followed by LEGS at roughly $2.90 million and PINK at about $1.44 million. The analyst also identified at least two other serial token deployers with similar patterns, but said it could not yet be confirmed whether they belonged to the same operation.
Pons V2 exemptions enabled concentrated launch buying
Pons V2 sells newly issued tokens through a bonding curve. Platform documentation says a 99% “sniping tax” applies during the first few seconds after launch, with the rate falling to zero in about five seconds to deter automated buying. Creators can exempt a group of wallets from the fee for simultaneous launch purchases, with up to 32 addresses covered.
Of the 11 projects reviewed in the analysis, 10 used Pons V2, matching the projects listed by Wazz. Checks of nine projects, particularly those launched after late August, showed that creators removed the sniping tax for 15 to 25 wallets in the deployment transaction. One to three blocks later, a separate transaction bought tokens for those wallets at the same time.
The batch purchases then nearly exhausted the bonding curves and pushed the tokens into Uniswap v4 liquidity pools. Once the launch trades were complete, the creator and exempt wallets together held between 82% and 86% of the total supply, broadly matching Wazz’s estimate of the share acquired through sniping.
All nine launches used a contract created on August 28 that had not been verified. Wazz described it as a commercial batch-execution tool with many users unrelated to the projects in question. Of the 53 projects on the list, 25 used the tool for launch purchases. The operator of the tool could not be identified.
EQUITY, launched on August 12, predated the contract and used a looser version of the same pattern. Its creator exempted 31 wallets from the sniping tax, and 21 of those wallets bought tokens through a separate transaction about one second after launch. The creator and those wallets ultimately held 65.7% of the supply.
Wazz’s list also includes three project groups named CRUMBS, PINK and DEED. Each group contains three tokens with the same name, launched one after another within roughly a day. The analyst said the operators may have first released fake projects using popular narratives to attract buyers before publishing the genuine contract address. That interpretation requires further confirmation from on-chain records or project materials.
DRAFT funds moved into DEED
Wazz said DEED was one of the projects that prompted the investigation, with funds from the earlier DRAFT token later used to support DEED. On-chain transactions show that at 9:36 a.m. Eastern time on September 14, 98 wallets that had held DRAFT sent a combined 179.88 ETH to the same address within three seconds. That address then transferred the entire amount in one transaction to a wallet beginning 0x9d06.
At 7:09 p.m. on September 21, the 0x9d06 wallet sent 50 ETH to another address. Two minutes later, that address transferred 20 ETH to a wallet beginning 0xf268. Sixteen seconds after that, 0xf268 used a batch transaction to send 15.98 ETH to 50 addresses. The recipients included the DEED creator, wallets that funded DEED’s launch purchases and the remaining 24 wallets exempted from the sniping tax.
DEED launched 40 minutes later, at 7:51 p.m. After the launch purchases, the creator and exempt wallets together held 86% of the token supply. On the same day, 0x9d06 also funded another project called DEED. At 5:53 p.m., it sent 18 ETH to another address, and that money was transferred to the wallet funding the project’s launch purchases less than a minute later.
DEED trades generated about 199.8 ETH in outflows
On-chain data shows that 92 wallets funded by 0xf268 later obtained 130.75 ETH by selling DEED through Uniswap liquidity pools. The wallets began selling about one second after the project launched. The DEED creator also withdrew 69.06 ETH in creator fees from Pons’s fee escrow contract.
Together, those two amounts total about 199.8 ETH, worth approximately $535,000 at current prices. The calculation covers only wallets directly funded by 0xf268. Wazz included 98 wallets in a broader calculation and counted 67.55 ETH in creator fees, producing a DEED-related total of 228.92 ETH. After subtracting the 15.98 ETH used for further funding, the figure was 212.94 ETH. The different calculation methods are material when assessing the overall amount withdrawn.
On September 24, the 0x9d06 wallet deposited about 86.5 ETH into a contract belonging to the cross-chain bridge Relay. Relay then transferred about 86.3 ETH to a wallet on Ethereum. That wallet exchanged the funds for roughly 231,000 DAI and moved the stablecoins to a new address the following day. As of September 27, the DAI remained at that address.
Meme-coin activity remains central to Robinhood Chain
Robinhood launched Robinhood Chain on July 1. The Ethereum layer-2 network is built using the Arbitrum technology stack, and trading activity to date has been driven mainly by meme coins and stock-linked tokens. In early September, fees associated with Pons helped push the network’s daily fee revenue to a record of about $6 million.
The case shows how fee exemptions for designated wallets can create close on-chain links between launch supply, coordinated purchases and subsequent selling. For users, key questions remain around the identities of project creators, the actual control relationships among exempt wallets, the operator of the batch-execution tool and whether the funds were ultimately controlled by one team. Those issues require further review of contract permissions, wallet ownership and additional transaction records.