The world of memecoins and micro-cap tokens is very fast-paced. But the recent work surrounding the $IPO on Pump.fun is making us ask some very serious questions about what is allowed trading versus what is not.
Some are even secretly wondering if this amounts to trading in a way that could get someone into very serious trouble—like, you know, with a ‘M’-word that rhymes with ‘splinside’ and could land someone in the comics. Comic books that contain stories about infamous figures who did bad, bad things with the financial markets.
This move was not an impulsive bet or a quick ape into a new token; it was clearly planned. The buyer waited for the liquidity to materialize, signaling the decision to enter only after the market structure had been established. What followed was a quiet yet deliberate disbursement of tokens to multiple addresses, forming the architecture for an exit that was supposed to look like retail-level trading.
Not a Whale, But 27 Wallets: The Masked Exit Strategy
Following the first purchase, the wallet sent different amounts of $IPO tokens to 27 separate wallets. At first glance, this might seem like a measure to ensure the portfolio remains secure—that is, a way to diversify holdings so that if one thing fails, there’s a good chance the rest will hold up. But it appears these transfers were made not really for safekeeping but as a way to move the tokens and avoid regulatory scrutiny that might come from making a big cash-out announcement.
Bundlers aren’t poor traders.
Take this setup as a clear example.
A fresh wallet bought $392.53K worth of $IPO receiving 200.2M tokens shortly after the liquidity pool went live on Pumpfun
This wasn't a speculative play before the token launched, it was a calculated entry,… pic.twitter.com/L4CCQDyBWM
— Stalkchain (@StalkHQ) June 9, 2025
The original buyer guaranteed that any selling done in the future would appear to be no different from the ordinary buying and selling that happens between all of us retail investors. They broke up their holdings and distributed them across 27 different wallets and, in so doing, created 27 different potential narratives for future, retired sale activity with each wallet that would be responsible for any future sale done in what seemed to be accordance with the retail investor’s slightly uptrended price.
This setup is arranged not merely for profit but for trickery. It lets the orchestrator slowly drain liquidity by giving the appearance of organic selling from individual traders, thereby avoiding the signaling that would accompany a dump done in coordination with other actors. This not only sidesteps the risk of giving latecomers the spook they need to exit but also entices more buyers to enter, driving the price even higher—thus deepening the trap.
Classic Playbook: The Liquidity Trap by Design
What is most alarming about this event is how well it fits a known pattern in high-risk, low-regulation crypto that we just experienced: the liquidity trap. The idea is simple but effective—create the appearance of a healthy, growing token with active buyers, and then slowly extract the value of that token without causing visible price damage until you’re too late for those who bought in last.
Here, the trap was set with striking accuracy. The buyer didn’t try to outmaneuver the launch or get into a position prior to the injection of liquidity. Instead, they bided their time, waiting for the pool to be well stocked, and then went in with considerable heft and produced a clean buy, signaling confidence and perhaps sucking in others to act on the pretense that the token had “smart money” backing it.
From there, the exit was set in motion. The distributed tokens now sit in wallets that are ideally positioned to sell into strength. As retail traders see the price going up and FOMO kicks in, these wallets can offload their holdings in what appears to be natural profit-taking. But make no mistake—the underlying goal was always to sell, not to hold or build a long-term position.
Lessons for Retail: Recognizing the Setup
The latest instance with $IPO is a vital reminder for casual investors and retail traders who are moving in the nascent token markets. Not every price surge is the result of real demand, and not every large buyer is a true believer in the asset. Often, as was the case with this setup, that surge is the result of something called a pump. And in this instance, the pump was part of a larger scheme to misdirect investors.
The blockchain’s anonymity enables (and some would say entices) strategies that can’t be easily replicated in traditional finance.
These include distributing assets across numerous addresses, buying at just the right moment to induce FOMO (fear of missing out), and selling in a way that more or less guarantees any observer that the volume is healthy—a.k.a. liquidity.
The also-anonymous platforms on which these strategies can be executed are just icing on the cake. Pump.fun is not anonymous, but it doesn’t have to be. All that’s required is for a few participants to be in on the scheme while the majority are none the wiser.
The continual evolution of markets—and the increasingly sophisticated tools available for on-chain analysis—demand that participants be ever more aware and informed. A large single buy could be a bona fide signal or, perhaps more disturbingly, could be bait. It’s also worth noting that when it comes to market manipulation, token launches are ground zero. The most straightforward chart could mask a diabolical and elaborate plan to extract value from unsuspecting traders.
With $IPO, a signal that appeared to be bullish might actually be the very beginning of a dump that was—quite clever—hidden until now. Many will have to learn that lesson the hard way, with red on their balance sheets.
Disclosure: This is not trading or investment advice. Always do your research before buying any cryptocurrency or investing in any services.
No Comments