The alleged extraction of $18.43 million from 53 memecoin launches has raised questions about activity on Robinhood Chain. However, the evidence available so far points to token-launch mechanics, wallet funding patterns and anti-sniping exemptions on a particular launchpad rather than a vulnerability in Robinhood Chain itself.
Pseudonymous onchain analyst Wazz alleged on Sunday that a coordinated operation extracted at least $18.43 million from 53 token launches on Robinhood Chain between July 10 and September 21.
The Block reviewed the allegations and verified the reported sniping pattern in 10 of the launches, along with one of the funding flows Wazz used to connect the projects. It did not independently verify the overall $18.43 million figure.
Memecoin Activity Creates the Backdrop
Robinhood launched its Ethereum layer 2, Robinhood Chain, on July 1 using technology from Arbitrum. Memecoins and stock-linked tokens have accounted for a large share of trading activity since the network went live.
Pons, the launchpad involved in the allegations, has also contributed heavily to network activity. Fees generated through Pons helped Robinhood Chain record a daily high of $6 million in fees earlier this month.
Robinhood’s gas subsidies have kept token deployment costs low and relatively consistent. That makes a coordinated operation spanning 53 launches over approximately two and a half months technically possible.
However, frequent and inexpensive token launches do not by themselves indicate an exploit. They instead provide the environment in which coordinated trading and funding strategies can be carried out.
Wallet Patterns Point to Possible Coordination
Wazz said almost every launch included in the analysis was subjected to sniping, with groups of 70 to 200 wallets allegedly acquiring 70% or more of the token supply. Most of those transactions reportedly passed through Pons V2.
The analyst connected 45 launches by tracing transfers from one project’s collection wallet to the funding wallet used for the next launch. Four others were linked through private keys that signed batch-funding transactions, while another four shared a collector wallet.
The largest alleged extraction involved CRUMBS at $3.12 million, followed by LEGS at $2.9 million and PINK at $1.44 million.
Wazz also identified two additional groups of serial deployers that allegedly extracted funds from Robinhood Chain but could not be connected to the same operation. If those cases are included, the total amount potentially affected could exceed $18.43 million.
The analysis does not establish who controlled the wallets. Wazz’s conclusions rely on transaction patterns, shared signing keys, repeated funding routes and common collector addresses. While those signals can indicate coordination, they do not establish a person’s real-world identity or legal responsibility.
Pons V2 Exemptions Draw Attention
Pons V2 launches tokens through a bonding curve. Its documentation states that purchases made within the first few seconds face a 99% snipe tax, with the charge declining to zero after approximately five seconds.
Creators can exempt opening purchases from the tax by bundling buys across up to 32 wallets. While intended for coordinated launches, the feature can create risks if used improperly.
The Block reviewed nine launches from late August onward in which between 15 and 25 wallets received exemptions. A single transaction one to three blocks later then purchased tokens for each of those wallets.
The transactions emptied the bonding curve and moved the tokens directly into a Uniswap v4 pool. This left the creator and exempt wallets controlling between 82% and 86% of the supply before public buyers could enter the market.
All nine launches used the same unverified contract, created on August 28. Wazz described it as a commercial bundling tool that is also used by unrelated parties. Of the 53 launches on the analyst’s list, 25 reportedly used the contract.
A less extensive version of the same behavior appeared in the August 12 EQUITY launch. Its creator exempted 31 wallets, 21 of which purchased tokens within roughly one second. Together, those wallets ended up holding 65.7% of the supply.
DEED Highlights the Flow of Funds
DEED became a key example in Wazz’s investigation.
On September 14, 98 wallets holding DRAFT transferred 179.88 ETH to a single address in less than three seconds. The funds then moved to another wallet beginning with 0x9d06.
On September 21, 0x9d06 transferred funds to a wallet beginning with 0xf268. That address subsequently distributed 15.98 ETH among 50 wallets, including DEED’s creator and other exempt addresses.
DEED launched around 40 minutes later, with the wallets collectively holding 86% of its supply.
The Block tracked 130.75 ETH in sales from 92 wallets funded through 0xf268, along with 69.06 ETH in creator fees. Combined, the transactions amounted to roughly 199.8 ETH, worth approximately $535,000.
Wazz’s calculation was higher at 228.92 ETH after adjustments because the wallets included in the analysis differed.
On September 24, the 0x9d06 wallet moved approximately 86.5 ETH to the Relay bridge. The funds were converted into about 231,000 DAI, while most of the remaining assets stayed in ETH.
The available evidence therefore centers on how tokens were launched, funded and distributed rather than demonstrating a direct technical compromise of the Robinhood Chain base layer.
