A reported $18.43 million extracted from 53 memecoin launches has drawn attention to activity on Robinhood Chain. Yet the evidence available so far points mainly to token-launch mechanics, wallet funding patterns and anti-sniping exemptions involving a specific launchpad, rather than a flaw in Robinhood Chain’s underlying infrastructure.

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 reviewed the allegations and confirmed the reported sniping pattern in 10 of the launches, as well as one of the funding flows used by Wazz to connect the projects. It did not independently reproduce the full $18.43 million estimate.

Robinhood Chain’s Memecoin Surge

Robinhood launched its Ethereum layer 2, Robinhood Chain, on July 1 using Arbitrum technology. Since then, memecoins and stock-linked tokens have accounted for much of the network’s trading activity.

Pons, the launchpad at the center of the allegations, has contributed significantly to that activity. Fees generated through Pons helped the network reach a record $6 million in fees in a single day earlier this month.

Robinhood’s gas subsidies have also made token deployment inexpensive and predictable. That environment makes a coordinated strategy involving 53 launches over roughly two and a half months feasible.

However, a high volume of low-cost token launches is not evidence of a network exploit. It simply creates favorable conditions for rapid launches and coordinated wallet activity.

Wallet Activity Raises Coordination Questions

Wazz said nearly all of the launches under review were targeted by snipers, with groups of 70 to 200 wallets allegedly acquiring at least 70% of the available supply. Most of the transactions reportedly went through Pons V2.

The analyst linked 45 launches by following transfers from one project’s collection wallet into the funding wallet for another. Four more were connected through private keys used to authorize batch-funding transactions, while another four shared a collector wallet.

CRUMBS represented the largest alleged extraction at $3.12 million, followed by LEGS at $2.9 million and PINK at $1.44 million.

Wazz also pointed to two other groups of serial deployers that allegedly extracted funds from Robinhood Chain but could not be tied to the same operation. Their activity could mean the total amount involved is higher than the $18.43 million figure.

The analysis does not identify the individuals behind the wallets. Wazz based the connections on transaction patterns, shared keys, repeated funding paths and common collector addresses. Those characteristics may indicate coordination but do not prove real-world identities or legal responsibility.

Pons V2’s Anti-Sniping Exemptions

Pons V2 uses a bonding curve to launch new tokens. Its documentation says purchases during the opening seconds are subject to a 99% snipe tax, which falls to zero after roughly five seconds.

Creators can avoid the tax by bundling initial purchases across as many as 32 wallets. While this feature can be used for legitimate coordinated launches, it can also be exploited.

The Block examined nine launches from late August onward in which creators exempted 15 to 25 wallets. One to three blocks later, a single transaction purchased tokens for all of the exempt wallets.

Those purchases drained the bonding curve and sent the tokens into a Uniswap v4 pool. The creator and exempt wallets were left holding between 82% and 86% of the supply before public buyers could participate.

All nine launches used the same unverified contract, created August 28. Wazz described it as a commercial bundling tool that also has unrelated users. Twenty-five of the 53 launches in the analyst’s list reportedly used the contract.

An earlier example involving EQUITY showed a similar pattern. On August 12, the creator exempted 31 wallets, with 21 making purchases within approximately one second of launch. The group ultimately held 65.7% of the supply.

DEED Offers a Detailed Funding Example

DEED became a central 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 were then sent to a wallet beginning with 0x9d06.

On September 21, that wallet transferred funds to an address beginning with 0xf268. The latter then distributed 15.98 ETH across 50 addresses, including DEED’s creator and other wallets that had received launch exemptions.

DEED launched approximately 40 minutes later, with those wallets collectively controlling 86% of its supply.

The Block traced 130.75 ETH in sales from 92 wallets funded through 0xf268, along with 69.06 ETH in creator fees. The combined total was about 199.8 ETH, worth roughly $535,000.

Wazz’s adjusted calculation was 228.92 ETH because his analysis included a different set of wallets.

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 remaining holdings stayed in ETH.

Overall, the evidence points toward the use of launchpad features, coordinated wallet funding and token-distribution mechanics. It does not, based on the information reviewed, establish a direct exploit of Robinhood Chain itself.