A reported $18.43 million extracted across 53 memecoin launches may suggest a problem affecting the wider Robinhood Chain. However, the evidence reviewed so far points primarily to token-launch procedures, wallet funding patterns and anti-sniping exemptions on one launchpad, rather than a vulnerability in the underlying blockchain.
Pseudonymous onchain analyst Wazz alleged Sunday that a coordinated group extracted at least $18.43 million from 53 Robinhood Chain token launches between July 10 and September 21.
The Block examined the claims and confirmed the alleged sniping pattern in 10 of the launches, as well as one of the wallet-funding trails cited by Wazz. It did not independently confirm the full $18.43 million total.
Robinhood Chain’s Memecoin Surge Provides the Backdrop
Robinhood introduced Robinhood Chain, an Ethereum layer 2 using Arbitrum’s technology, on July 1. Since its launch, memecoins and stock-related tokens have generated much of the network’s trading activity.
Pons, the token launchpad involved in the allegations, has also been a significant contributor to network activity. Fees generated through Pons helped Robinhood Chain reach a record $6 million in fees in a single day earlier this month.
Robinhood’s gas subsidies have made token deployment relatively inexpensive and predictable. That low-cost environment makes a coordinated extraction involving 53 launches over roughly two and a half months possible.
Cheap and frequent token creation, however, is not evidence of a blockchain exploit. It simply creates the conditions in which strategies involving rapid launches and coordinated wallets can take place.
Wallet Activity Suggests Coordination
According to Wazz, nearly all of the launches in the alleged group were subjected to sniping, with bundles involving 70 to 200 wallets acquiring at least 70% of the available supply. Most of these transactions reportedly used Pons V2.
Wazz connected 45 launches by tracking transfers from the collection wallet of one project to the funding wallet used for another. Four additional projects were connected through private keys that signed batch-funding transactions, while another four were tied together through a common collector wallet.
CRUMBS was identified as the largest alleged extraction at $3.12 million. LEGS followed with $2.9 million, while PINK accounted for $1.44 million.
The analyst also identified two other groups of serial deployers that allegedly extracted funds from Robinhood Chain but could not be connected to the same operation. Their inclusion could push the total exposure beyond the reported $18.43 million.
The wallet analysis does not identify who controlled the addresses. Wazz based the alleged links on recurring transaction patterns, shared signing keys, repeated funding paths and common collection wallets. These factors can support a case for coordination but do not establish the real-world identities of the parties involved or legal responsibility.
Pons V2’s Exemption Feature Comes Under Focus
Pons V2 uses a bonding-curve model for new token launches. Its documentation says purchases made during the first few seconds are subject to a 99% snipe tax, which falls to zero after roughly five seconds.
Creators can exempt opening purchases from that tax by bundling transactions across up to 32 wallets. The function can support legitimate coordinated launches, but the same mechanism can also be misused.
The Block examined nine launches from late August onward where creators exempted between 15 and 25 wallets. In each case, a single transaction one to three blocks later purchased tokens for all of the exempt wallets.
Those transactions drained the bonding curve and transferred the tokens directly into a Uniswap v4 pool. The creator and exempt wallets consequently held between 82% and 86% of the token supply before other buyers could participate.
All nine launches used the same unverified contract, which was created on August 28. Wazz described the contract as a commercial bundling service with other unrelated users. Of the 53 launches in the analyst’s list, 25 reportedly used the contract.
A similar pattern occurred earlier with EQUITY, although on a smaller scale. On August 12, the project’s creator exempted 31 wallets, with 21 of them purchasing tokens within roughly one second of launch. The group ultimately controlled 65.7% of the supply.
DEED Provides a Closer Look at the Funding Trail
DEED became a central part of Wazz’s investigation into the alleged operation.
On September 14, 98 wallets holding DRAFT transferred 179.88 ETH to one address in less than three seconds. The funds were subsequently moved to another wallet beginning with 0x9d06.
Seven days later, the 0x9d06 wallet transferred funds to an address beginning with 0xf268. That wallet then distributed 15.98 ETH to 50 addresses, including DEED’s creator and other wallets that had received exemptions.
DEED launched approximately 40 minutes afterward, with those wallets collectively controlling 86% of its supply.
The Block traced 130.75 ETH in sales from 92 wallets funded through 0xf268. It also identified 69.06 ETH in creator fees, producing a combined total of roughly 199.8 ETH, or about $535,000.
Wazz calculated a different amount because the wallets included in the analysis differed, putting the adjusted DEED figure at 228.92 ETH.
On September 24, the 0x9d06 wallet transferred approximately 86.5 ETH to the Relay bridge. The funds were converted into around 231,000 DAI, while most of the assets remained in ETH.
The findings point to a pattern centered on launch mechanics and coordinated wallet activity rather than evidence of a direct exploit in the Robinhood Chain base layer.
