An onchain investigation has linked a cluster of memecoin launches on Robinhood Chain to a repeated strategy that gave connected wallets control of most tokens before public trading began, with pseudonymous analyst Wazz estimating that the operation extracted at least $18.43 million from 53 launches between July 10 and Sept. 21.
The activity centered on launch settings in Pons V2, a token-creation system that uses a bonding curve to sell new tokens before liquidity moves to a Uniswap v4 pool. Pons applies a 99% charge to very early purchases, intended to deter automated sniping, but its documentation also allows token creators to exempt as many as 32 wallet addresses from that charge.
Onchain records reviewed for 10 launches listed by Wazz show creators repeatedly granting exemptions to groups of wallets before opening purchases. In nine cases from late August onward, a creator exempted 15 to 25 wallets, followed one to three blocks later by a single transaction that bought tokens for every exempt address in a batch.
Those transactions emptied the tokens available on the bonding curve and shifted trading into Uniswap v4. By the end of the opening activity, the creator and exempt wallets controlled between 82% and 86% of token supply in each of the nine launches, according to the onchain review.
The pattern turns an anti-sniping setting into a mechanism for concentrated early ownership. Public buyers could face the Pons early-buy tax while pre-approved wallets acquired most of the supply at launch, giving those wallets an immediate position from which to sell into subsequent demand.
Crumbs, legs and pink led the estimated proceeds
Wazz’s estimate covers 53 tokens, though the $18.43 million total was not independently reproduced in the separate onchain review. The largest individual launch on the analyst’s list was CRUMBS, which Wazz attributed $3.12 million in proceeds to, followed by LEGS at $2.9 million and PINK at $1.44 million.
The analyst linked 45 launches through a funding trail in which the collection wallet from one project sent funds to the wallet used to finance the next token. Four additional launches were connected by private keys that signed batch-funding transactions for more than one project, while another four shared a collector wallet.
Wazz also identified at least two other serial token deployers whose activity appeared similar but could not be tied to the same wallet cluster. That suggests the launch mechanics used in this group were available to more than one operator, although the available data does not establish common control across those additional clusters.
A table published by Wazz included 11 launches, 10 of which used Pons V2. The separate review found onchain records matching each of those 10 Pons launches. One earlier token, EQUITY, displayed the same general structure without the later batch-buy contract.
EQUITY’s creator exempted 31 wallets from the early-buy charge. Twenty-one of those wallets purchased tokens in separate transactions within roughly one second, leaving the creator and exempt addresses with 65.7% of the supply. The lower concentration and separate transactions made the launch less uniform than the later examples, but the pre-approved allocation pattern remained visible.
Batch tool appears across 25 launches
All nine batch purchases in the late-August-to-September sample were executed through the same unverified smart contract, created on Aug. 28. Wazz described it as a commercial bundling tool used by unrelated users, rather than a contract demonstrably controlled by the wallet cluster behind the launches.
The contract’s use alone therefore does not identify a token deployer. Its role in the transactions was to purchase tokens for multiple exempt addresses in a single operation, allowing a coordinated group to enter immediately after the creator enabled fee waivers.
Wazz’s list indicates that 25 of the 53 launches used the same tool for their opening buys. The operator of the contract could not be identified through the reviewed onchain data.
That separation is relevant because token-launch infrastructure can be neutral software even when it is used in coordinated trading. The stronger links in Wazz’s analysis came from wallet funding, shared collection paths and repeated use of signing keys across launches, rather than the batch-purchase contract by itself.
Draft and deed show a traceable funding path
One set of transfers involving tokens called DRAFT and DEED provided a clearer picture of how proceeds and launch funding moved between participant wallets.
At 9:36 a.m. ET on Sept. 14, 98 wallets that had held DRAFT sent ETH to the same address within three seconds, transferring a combined 179.88 ETH. That address then forwarded the full amount to a wallet beginning with 0x9d06.
A week later, on Sept. 21 at 7:09 p.m. ET, the 0x9d06 wallet transferred 50 ETH to another address. That address sent 20 ETH two minutes later to a wallet beginning 0xf268. Sixteen seconds after receiving the ETH, 0xf268 distributed 15.98 ETH to 50 addresses in one batch, including DEED’s creator, the wallet that paid for its opening purchase and the other 24 wallets exempted from the Pons snipe tax.
DEED launched about 40 minutes later, at 7:51 p.m. ET. The creator and exempt wallets ended the opening buy with 86% of the supply.
The 0x9d06 wallet also funded another token named DEED on the same day. It sent 18 ETH at 5:53 p.m. ET to a separate address that funded the opening-buy wallet less than a minute later.
Sales by wallets tied to the DEED launch generated 130.75 ETH from trading into the Uniswap pool, according to the onchain records. Those sales began one second after launch. DEED’s creator also withdrew 69.06 ETH in creator fees from a Pons fee-escrow contract.
Together, the two flows totaled about 199.8 ETH, valued in the supplied analysis at roughly $535,000. Wazz attributed 228.92 ETH to DEED, covering 98 wallets and 67.55 ETH in creator fees. The analyst calculated a lower figure of 212.94 ETH after deducting the 15.98 ETH batch funding transfer.
On Sept. 24, the 0x9d06 wallet deposited about 86.5 ETH into a contract associated with Relay, a cross-chain bridge. Relay delivered about 86.3 ETH to an Ethereum wallet, where it was swapped for approximately 231,000 DAI. The stablecoins were sent to a new address the following day and remained there as of Sunday, according to the supplied onchain review.
Launch design creates a visible due-diligence check
Robinhood Chain, an Ethereum layer 2 built with Arbitrum’s technology stack, launched on July 1. Pons activity later helped push the network’s daily fees to a reported record of $6 million earlier this month.
The investigation places scrutiny on how launch tools handle privileged wallet exemptions. Pons V2’s documentation openly describes both the temporary 99% early-buy charge and the creator option to waive it for selected addresses. The issue exposed by the reviewed launches is the combination of those settings with coordinated funding and rapid batch purchases that can establish dominant holdings before ordinary buyers can assess distribution.
Traders examining new Pons-style launches can identify some of these conditions directly onchain: the number of wallets exempted from early-buy fees, whether those wallets receive funding from a common source, the concentration of supply after the first blocks, and whether opening purchases were made through a batch transaction. These checks cannot establish intent on their own, but they can show whether a token’s earliest ownership is broadly distributed or concentrated among wallets connected by funding and transaction timing.
Worried about memecoin risks on new chains? Learn safer strategies in this detailed crypto scam prevention guide.
Disclaimer: The content on this page is provided for general informational purposes only and does not represent the views or financial advice of Toobit. We make no guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of this information and shall not be held liable for any errors, omissions, or outcomes resulting from its use. Investing in digital assets involves risk; users should independently evaluate their financial situation and the risks involved. For further details, please consult our Terms of Service and Risk Disclosure.
