Hunter Biden has called on an unnamed market maker connected to the LAPTOP memecoin’s launch to buy back tokens and burn them after a third-party forensic review described extremely shallow opening liquidity, rapid price swings, and substantial USDC proceeds linked to early trading.
The review, published Wednesday by Groom Lake, examined wallet funding, token allocations and liquidity movements during LAPTOP’s first minutes of trading. Its findings point to a launch structure in which a very small amount of token inventory was available in the principal liquidity pool, leaving the quoted price unusually sensitive to even minor purchases.
Groom Lake did not name the market-making firms it examined, and the report does not establish that any party intentionally manipulated LAPTOP’s price. Yet the combination of thin liquidity, concentrated token control and a near-immediate price reversal creates a familiar risk profile for newly issued memecoins: early buyers can receive prices that look reliable on a decentralized exchange interface but rest on only a few thousand dollars of available liquidity.
A $6 purchase reportedly moved laptop 5%
According to Groom Lake, a wallet it associated with “Market Maker 1” received $500,000 before LAPTOP began trading. The wallet deployed roughly $5,200 into initial liquidity positions, equal to about 1% of the funds Groom Lake said it received.
The report said that, across all liquidity providers, the main pool contained fewer than 30,000 LAPTOP tokens at launch. That represented approximately 0.003% of the token’s original 1 billion-unit supply.
Such a small pool can produce distorted prices because automated market makers calculate token values from the balance between two assets in a liquidity pair. When the LAPTOP side of the pool is scarce, buyers remove a meaningful percentage of available tokens even with modest trades. Groom Lake estimated that a purchase of only $6 raised LAPTOP’s quoted price by 5%.
LAPTOP reportedly rose from $0.05 to around $320 in less than two minutes before ending its first hour about 98% below that peak, according to the review. The move illustrates how the displayed price of a low-liquidity token can diverge sharply from the level at which a larger holder could realistically sell.
A trader who bought during the spike would have faced far different market conditions from a buyer who entered shortly after the pool rebalanced. The headline price may have suggested a multibillion-dollar valuation at the peak, but the available liquidity remained too limited to support substantial buying or selling at that level.
Review tracks usdc flows and liquidity gains
Groom Lake linked approximately $2.18 million in net USDC receipts to trading activity involving a second market maker. It also estimated that Market Maker 1 generated roughly $686,000 through liquidity positions, although it said part of that amount was owed to a lender.
The report said the second firm’s activity coincided with a sharp depletion of liquidity after the initial surge. It did not identify the firm, describe the terms of its agreement with the LAPTOP project, or make a definitive finding about the purpose of the trades.
Those distinctions matter in assessing early token launches. Market makers may be contracted to seed liquidity, manage spreads or support trading across venues. Their wallets can also move large amounts of tokens and stablecoins quickly as part of routine inventory management. A forensic analysis can identify transaction patterns and wallet relationships, but intent generally requires contracts, communications or a response from the entities involved.
Biden’s demand for a buyback and burn places the focus on the token supply held or handled by the parties connected to the launch. A token buyback would involve purchases from the open market, while a burn sends tokens to an address from which they cannot be recovered. Either step could alter the circulating supply, though its effect would depend on the number of tokens involved, the source of funding and whether liquidity remained available for ordinary trading.
Founder allocation remains intact
Groom Lake said on-chain data showed that a founder wallet tied to Biden and the project team continued to hold all 300 million founder tokens as of Oct. 7. That allocation equals 30% of LAPTOP’s original supply.
The continued presence of the founder allocation does not by itself show impending sales or misconduct. It does, though, leave a large portion of supply under a concentrated group’s control. In memecoin markets, traders commonly examine whether team-held tokens are subject to vesting schedules, transfer restrictions or transparent wallet disclosures, since these factors affect how much supply could eventually reach the market.
The LAPTOP episode also underlines why liquidity depth can be more useful than a token’s quoted market capitalization during its first hours. Market capitalization multiplies the latest transaction price by the supply figure, which can make a thinly traded asset appear far more valuable than the capital actually committed to trading it.
For newly launched tokens, checking pool balances, wallet concentration and liquidity-lock arrangements can reveal risks that are invisible in a fast-moving price chart. Limit orders may help traders set a maximum purchase price where a venue supports them, although they cannot eliminate risks from abrupt liquidity withdrawals or severe price gaps.
Groom Lake’s findings leave unresolved questions about the identities and contractual roles of the two market makers. Biden’s proposed buyback-and-burn response would move the dispute from transaction analysis toward a practical test: whether parties associated with the launch are willing to reduce their token exposure and provide clearer accounting of how LAPTOP’s opening market was structured.
Concerned about thin liquidity and memecoin risks? Learn how liquidity in crypto trading shapes price stability and trader protection.
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.
