None of this is novel. Every mechanic below is documented, litigated or academically measured. The right-hand column is how this specific contract scores against it.
Wash trading / volume bots
matches this tokenOne actor, or a ring of wallets it controls, buys and sells a token against itself to fake depth and climb trending boards. Round trips complete in seconds at near-identical sizes and net roughly zero profit before fees.
On-chain signature
Volume far exceeds what the holder base can produce; buy/sell counts near parity; price flat or falling despite record volume.
Documented case
Bitquery (2026) traced a large share of one day's entire Solana DEX volume to three wallets, one of which finished its job in 52 seconds.
Here: $154.7k of volume against a $44.4k pool and 478 holders, while price fell 28.7%. 94% of it classified inorganic.
Sybil clusters from one funding source
matches this tokenHundreds of fresh wallets are funded in near-identical amounts from a single parent address or CEX withdrawal, then all buy the same token to manufacture a holder count and a crowd.
On-chain signature
Cluster graphs fan out from one parent; wallets trade once and never return; trader count outruns holder growth.
Documented case
Bubblemaps' investigations of HAWK and comparable pump.fun launches repeatedly mapped insider wallets fanning out from a single funder minutes before launch.
Here: 401 wallets traded in 24h against 478 total holders and just 18 organic buyers. The traders pass through and leave nothing behind.
Bundled / sniped launches
partial matchBundler bots submit dozens of buys in the same block as the mint, so insiders own a large share at launch price before anyone outside can react — then sell into the retail wave.
On-chain signature
Many distinct wallets landing buys in the identical slot as pool creation, funded from one source.
Documented case
Endemic across pump.fun launches; flagged in Solidus Labs' 2025 rug-pull report and tracked by public bundle-detection dashboards.
Here: The bonding curve completed in 79 minutes and the deployer wallet's own history is a documented sniper-bot profile. Slot-level attribution needs an archival indexer to confirm.
Soft rug (slow bleed) vs hard rug
matches this tokenA hard rug drains the pool in one transaction. A soft rug is quieter: insiders sell their allocation into buy pressure over days while marketing keeps insisting everything is fine.
On-chain signature
Steady net outflow from insider wallets and shrinking liquidity while promotion continues, rather than one catastrophic block.
Documented case
Solidus Labs' 2025 report named soft rugs the dominant pattern on pump.fun, not the dramatic one-block drain people watch for.
Here: Liquidity is down 20.6% in 24h and 16.2% in the last six hours, sells lead buys 1,231 to 961, and the deployer still holds 3.05%. This is the soft-rug shape, in progress.
Serial deployers / token factories
matches this tokenOne wallet mints token after token from the same template, rugs most of them, and lets the rare survivor fund the operation. The branding changes; the machinery does not.
On-chain signature
A single deployer with many create calls and near-identical lifecycle curves across all of them.
Documented case
CoinGecko's study of 18.67M pump.fun tokens found ~69% stop trading the same day they launch and only ~5% survive 90 days — a curve driven by repeat deployers.
Here: Nine mints and four migrations from this one wallet, with the current token four days old and already down 29%.
Creator & celebrity impersonation
matches this tokenLaunch a token wearing a real person's name, likeness and socials so buyers assume endorsement. The named person is usually the last to find out and takes the reputational damage either way.
On-chain signature
Token metadata mirrors a public figure while no wallet controlled by that figure ever signs anything; links point at unverifiable community pages.
Documented case
$LIBRA (Feb 2025) cost investors roughly $251M with about $99M pulled by insiders within hours. $HAWK collapsed ~90% in an hour in Dec 2024 and produced a securities class action in E.D.N.Y.
Here: Uses the @ivyvibing handle, ships no website, and its 'X' link is an X Community page that anyone can create and nobody can prove they own.
Insider pre-launch allocation
partial matchDeployers and associates acquire a large share at negligible cost before public trading, then distribute into the price rise driven by everyone who came after.
On-chain signature
Wallets active in the first seconds after pool creation holding balances no organic early buyer could reach, later selling in coordination.
Documented case
The central allegation in the HAWK litigation: insider allocations disclosed only after the price had already collapsed.
Here: Top holders control 21.85% of supply — about $57k of overhang against a $44k pool. Whether those wallets are insiders needs cluster attribution we cannot prove from public RPC alone.
Volume boosting sold as a service
matches this tokenVendors openly sell wash-trading as a product: pay a fee, get pushed onto trending boards with manufactured volume and holder counts. It is market manipulation with a Telegram support desk.
On-chain signature
Volume spikes uncorrelated with unique-wallet growth; price flat or down while volume surges; the same service wallets recur across unrelated tokens.
Documented case
Bitquery (2026) identified reusable 'service' wallets performing this across many unrelated tokens on the same day.
Here: Volume up 178.6% over the prior day while holders grew 4.6% and price fell 28.7%. Volume and demand have fully decoupled.
Mint / freeze authority abuse
not observedA retained mint authority lets the deployer print unlimited supply; a retained freeze authority lets them lock your tokens so you cannot sell at all.
On-chain signature
mintAuthority or freezeAuthority still set to a live address on the mint account.
Documented case
The mechanic behind the most abrupt hard rugs, where a token goes to zero in a single block.
Here: Both authorities are revoked. This is the one genuinely clean finding — and it stops none of the eight patterns above.
98.6%
of pump.fun tokens analysed showed scam-like or fraudulent trading patterns; only ~97,000 of ~7M ever sustained $1,000 in liquidity.
Solidus Labs, Rug Pull Report 2025
69%
of pump.fun tokens stop trading the same day they launch. Only about 5% are still alive after 90 days.
CoinGecko, 18.67M token study
~$251M
in investor losses from the $LIBRA impersonation launch alone, with roughly $99M withdrawn by insiders within hours.
Reuters / court filings, 2025
Base rates vary by methodology and blend outright fraud with tokens that simply failed. Treat them as directional context, not a verdict on any single contract — the verdict here comes from sections 02 through 04.