---
name: screen-log-2
description: Continuation of [[screen-log]] from 2 Sep 2026, after that file hit the 32KB cap. Same rules and columns — one row per screen, written BEFORE the verdict, screen-time facts only, outcomes scored in [[screen-log-outcomes]]. Read and append on every screen.
sources: [cowork]
aliases: [screen-ledger-2]
---

# Screen log, part 2 (from 2 Sep 2026)

Rules and columns are in [[screen-log]]. Rows under 2KB.

## Log

### 2026-09-02 PONS-curve sweep (drivers of the PONS 10x + earlier-stage analogs). Multi-token, ~03:30 UTC
- method: DefiLlama overview/fees/robinhood dailyRevenue all 141 protocols, acceleration = last-day vs 30d avg → DexScreener join → X (twitterapi.io) → purealpha (bridge live; surfaced Quotrons, normie `0x92ef7caa35f85f50311fa5ed7ade2d9786c61612` day-0 meme +3,025%, EARN; nothing on the revenue axis)
- PONS driver confirmed: rev $40-50k/d flat 12-23 Aug → $141k 25 Aug → $868k 30 Aug (18x/8d); price $0.0394 22 Aug → $0.4434 1 Sep = 11.3x/10d, ~2d lag behind revenue; 80% TWAP buyback-burn + 100% float + pump.fun comp gap. Plateau day 4: $840-950k/d, price flat, mc $304M
- o1 Launchpad: RH-leg revenue $439 → $6,736 → $74,333 → $242,019/d (29 Aug-1 Sep), corroborated by X launchpad fee board (@TheDegenBoii). O token (Base `0x182fa643e5f29d5eca75e7b9cf9336a3fe4620b2`) mc $87.3M / FDV $545M, 16% float, a16z+CBV seed, 1y cliff. Whitepaper: "not entitled to any payments... no guarantees regarding future revenue, buybacks"; the 30% platform fee share goes to the platform, not the token. **NO as PONS analog: steepest ramp on the chain, zero routing.** DELTA-class trap
- UP: rev $17.5k/d 21 Aug → $146,986 1 Sep (3rd consecutive ATH), closest curve match ~9 days behind PONS; price -6% into the rev ATH. Fees to veUP lockers only, no buyback; UP weekly emission ratio + veUP lock durations UNMEASURED. **WATCH until both are read**
- SLVR `0x791229E3EbD6CFdC3D8157f48722684173C29aD9`: rev $13k avg → $64,390/d ATH; mc $2,984,003, liq $186,156, +33.7% 24h. Net emission at spot $137.71: $77.9k/d vs rev $64.4k/d = **1.21x, down from 2.00x on 31 Aug** — revenue outgrowing the fixed token-denominated mint. PROBE candidate, gate = revenue clearing net emission
- RVH `0x96765066f6a040a21EB027167D2315B707c82633`: mc $1.04M +245%, $19k LIFETIME revenue, one-day spike $7,573; @RobinhoodAlphas (53k) "next 1000x" = DEBT shill pattern → NO/late
- LUTE rev ATH $11,407/d, 66.7% team multisigs, stays killed · RAPH day-2, 227K%-3.3M% APR emissions, $33M mc on $9.9k vol → NO · GIGA/Orvex no verified token · Long (long.xyz @longdotxyz) = RH stock-pair launchpad, heavy chatter, NO TOKEN — watch TGE
- falsifiers: (1) SLVR rev <$40k/d by 9 Sep or net emission >1.5x (2) UP rev <$80k/d 3 straight days (3) o1: on-chain buyback/burn of O from launchpad fees flips its NO
- OUTCOME: pending, scored in [[screen-log-outcomes]]

### 2026-09-02 RH launchpad sector sweep — "best pads after Pons". Multi-token, ~09:30 UTC. Full workup in [[rh-launchpad-sector]]
- method: DefiLlama overview/fees/robinhood dailyRevenue+dailyFees, 48 Launchpad rows → per-slug totalDataChartBreakdown for chain split → DexScreener → RH RPC balanceOf(0x…dead)/totalSupply on every pad token → twitterapi.io claim audit → project APIs (pair.fund/api/stats/protocol, docs.o1.exchange whitepaper)
- SECTOR IS A MONOPOLY: Pons V1+V2 $1,106,437/24h rev = 76% of all pad revenue. #2 with a fee-capturing token does 2%.
- PONS `0x39dbed3a2bd333467115de45665cc57f813c4571` mc $275.6M, rev $1.106M/d = 0.68x run-rate cap/rev (3.28x trailing 30d). **Burn verified 293,199,140 = 29.32% of supply, lifetime rev $12.17M so avg burn price ~$0.033 vs spot $0.3898 = 11.7x.** PUMP comp mc $4.24B / rev $1.326M/d = 9.5x. Pons does 83% of pump.fun daily revenue at 6.5% of its cap. VERDICT: cheapest thing in its own sector; "after Pons" has no answer at scale
- PAIR `0x6b1d42927B1a84eC28Fa88d4fC6FA7AF404966be` mc $4.9M, liq $263,077, rev $6,341/d. Multipool v4 launches paired to 1-5 RH stock tokens (`launchTokenMulti`/`allocations[]` confirmed in ABI). **Burn 83,129,220 = 8.31% verified.** No mint/pause/owner/blacklist selectors. Own Dune API: 24h vol $7,872,323, 94 launches, netflow **-$101,980**, top-3 concentration 88.7% (AMC+SPY). TIER: PROBE, small
- o1 Launchpad: RH rev $439→$268,286 in 5d, take rate 53.7%. $O is on BASE, 16% float / FDV $545M, whitepaper gives holders fee discounts and a right to "apply" for revenue share. **NO — confirms this morning's o1 call, no correction needed**
- STONKBROKER mc $34.2M (-52% from $70.9M on 30 Aug), rev $22,374/d = 4.2x, burn 0.05%. CASHCAT mc $272.4M on $6,721/d = **111x**. Pools/FRONG: $1.51M 30d fees but $0 protocol take, POOLS burn = 138 tokens. NOXA $4.22M 30d fees, $0 rev, stopped launches mid-July = corpse not candidate. INJOH mc $3.5M, burn 4.65% verified, levered to Pons
- **LONG (@longdotxyz, long.xyz) is the real untokenised prize and is not on DefiLlama at all**: $425M/24h stock-token volume, ~$12M stock TVL = ~20% of all onchain stock TVL, 39.1% of all onchain stock traders, 51% of stock-pair volume since launch, ~20% of circulating NVDA stock tokens locked, LongX NVDA3x leveraged spot via Lighter holds 16% of Lighter NVDA OI. "LONG exists to give anyone a stake in the upcoming tokenization supercycle." Watch TGE
- claim audit: "$787M pair.fund 24h volume" (@cfm_sol 30k) **FALSE, 100x out**, own API says $7.87M · "$400k of PAIR burnt" TRUE at spot but cost ~$96k · 90% fee-to-burn split UNRESOLVED, no doc · **PHISHING LIVE on $PAIR** ("claim portal open for holders", correct CA, drainer) plus a listing-vote bot farm and a reply-praise farm under @rizzkola · zero tier-one coverage of any post-Pons pad
- falsifiers: (1) Pons daily rev <$500k for 3 straight days kills the 0.68x (2) PAIR netflow stays negative and 24h volume <$5M by 9 Sep (3) LONG announces a token, which re-rates the entire stock-pair category and dates PAIR instantly
- OUTCOME: pending

### 2026-09-04 STONK / StonkFun. Solana `6GmAFSYs4gk3FDao5FzzySQpPZaWsa4rUJHacpMpUNgx`. ~10:00 UTC. Ben pasted 5 X screenshots (JG @TheJG_Official_, @QueenAmy177, @SuperJeepa) asking "is it undervalued, check the revenue stats, growth and on-chain metrics"
- market: price $0.02210, **mc $19,665,691**, FDV $22,103,017, agg liq $2,428,707 across 30 pairs, agg vol24 $6,243,240, buys/sells 17,109/16,386, h1 -10.84% h6 -8.9% h24 -0.65%. Pair born 5 Aug 2026. Socials x.com/LaunchOnSF (13,364f, verified, created 2023), t.me/StonkFunXyz
- **ATH $0.035775 on 1 Sep (daily close basis) = $31.77M mc. Now -38% off an ATH set 3 days ago. NOT late** per Ben's 60-70% rule
- ON-CHAIN VERIFIED: supply **888,179,234.79** of 1,000,000,000 → **111,820,765 burned = 11.18%**. `mintAuthority` null, `freezeAuthority` null. Both of JG's supply claims TRUE
- DefiLlama `stonkfun` (Launchpad, Solana): 24h $37,598 · 7d $236,409 · 30d $1,216,331 · **lifetime $1,250,347 over 40 days** (first data 26 Jul). dailyFees == dailyRevenue, so Llama books 100% of fees as protocol revenue
- **GROWTH IS FLAT TO DOWN, and this is the finding Ben asked for.** 7d avg $33,773/d vs 30d avg $40,544/d = **0.83x**. Last 10 days: 15,113 / 54,779 / 29,067 / 13,002 / 31,873 / 22,832 / 35,806 / 49,760 / 45,538 / 37,598. Choppy, no trend up
- **THE COMP INVERTS ON RUN-RATE, which every bull post misses.** PONS mc **$462,063,610** (not the $280-300M / $297M / $700M variously claimed), 24h rev $1,255,801 → $458.4M/yr → **1.01x run-rate cap/rev (3.28x trailing 30d). STONK 24h $37,598 → $13.72M/yr → **1.43x run-rate**; 30d → $14.80M/yr → 1.33x trailing. **So STONK is cheaper on TRAILING 30d (1.33x vs 4.18x) and MORE EXPENSIVE on RUN-RATE (1.43x vs 1.01x), because PONS revenue is accelerating 4.1x (24h vs 30d avg) while STONK's is 0.93x.** PUMP mc $1,722,369,334, 30d rev pump.fun $36,574,801 + PumpSwap $15,809,313 = $52.38M → $637.3M/yr → 2.70x (3.87x on the pad alone)
- BUYBACK IS THE REAL BULL CASE AND IT IS REAL: project's own posts, cumulative $430k (18 Aug) → $584,616 / 97.89M burned (26 Aug) → $614,132 / 100.01M (27 Aug) → 1 Sep alone $76,854 / 3.05M. ~$805k over 40 days = **~$7.3M/yr of buy-and-burn against a $19.67M cap = ~37% of market cap per year**, and the 111.82M burned is verifiable on chain
- **REVENUE DEFINITION GAP, unresolved and material: the project posted "Revenue $131,343" for 1 Sep; DefiLlama shows $49,760 for that date. 2.6x apart.** Likely the project counts total platform fees including the reward payouts it routes ("Rewards distributed: $4,697,843" per its 26 Aug post) while Llama books only the protocol take. Buybacks ($76,854) EXCEED Llama's revenue for the same day, so Llama's figure is not the buyback base. Do not annualise the project's number without resolving this
- CLAIM AUDIT: "$1.4M fees in ~6 weeks" ~TRUE (Llama lifetime $1,250,347/40d, overstated 12%) · "1 in 9 burned" **TRUE** · "mint and freeze off" **TRUE** · "token ~$19M" TRUE · "STONK 1.5x annual rev" TRUE on trailing (1.33x) · "PONS 3.5x" ~TRUE trailing (4.18x) · "pump.fun 4.7x" OVERSTATED (2.70x combined) · **"PONS $280-300M" FALSE, "$297M" FALSE, "$700M" FALSE — it is $462M** · **"~$10M/day volume" FALSE, aggregate is $6.24M** · "7d fees $202K" understated, real $236,409 · "$25M mcap" FALSE, $19.67M · "$137M volume paired with tokenized stocks/RWAs" UNRESOLVED, no independent source
- X hygiene: **impostor @LaunchOnnSF (double-n, 202f, unverified) posting fake daily revenue cards** against real @LaunchOnSF (13,364f, verified) · a second unrelated pump.fun "STONK" CA `ZBiaJRiUjvNoYGXs8joyjr4k3LcBvyw6wEFNdPepump` circulating · **bot farm live**: dozens of 36-76 follower accounts posting the correct CA with "vote for Moonshot spotlight" links and GemRadar referral spam · genuine mid-tier interest: @bon_g (39,456f) bullish, @BlockCap (3,095f) on the ecosystem, Japanese CT (@cc416_) calling it "the next PONS"
- **Ansem (@blknoiz06) has engaged @LaunchOnSF twice ("yes", "it's true") but has made NO call on $STONK.** Two-word replies, not an endorsement. Read `ansem-worldview` §5 before anyone upgrades this
- catalyst pending: LaunchLab integration, announced "almost complete" 27 Aug and "finalizing" 31 Aug, still unshipped as of 4 Sep
- UNRESOLVED: holder concentration. Solana RPC `getTokenLargestAccounts` 429'd on first call, per the standing rule it was not retried
- VERDICT: **small buy / probe.** Cheapest launchpad token on trailing revenue with a verified 11.18% burn and a ~37%-of-cap annual buyback, but revenue is flat while the comp it is sold against is accelerating 4x, and the bull posts get PONS's cap wrong by 35-50% in both directions
- falsifiers: (1) daily Llama revenue <$25k for 3 straight days kills the multiple (2) the project/Llama revenue gap resolves in Llama's favour, halving the buyback yield (3) LaunchLab integration ships and daily revenue does not step up within a week
- OUTCOME: pending, score in [[screen-log-outcomes-2]]

### 2026-09-04 STONK PASS 2, ~10:30 UTC. Ben pasted 4 more screenshots (@wealthmaxxer 25 Aug dashboard, @StarPlatinum_ DefiLlama 7d table, StonkFun's own 2 Sep LaunchLab post) and said "more info". THREE OF MY PASS-1 CALLS WERE WRONG.
- **CORRECTION 1, the big one. "GROWTH IS FLAT TO DOWN" WAS WRONG.** I compared 7d avg ($33,773) to 30d avg ($40,544) and got 0.83x, but the 30d average is dragged up by a mid-August spike ($83,346 on 14 Aug) that has nothing to do with the current trend. **The 7-day average bottomed at $20,602/day on 25 Aug and has risen every reading since: 25,125 (26 Aug) → 25,608 → 26,348 → 26,973 → 28,925 (31 Aug) → 33,874 (1 Sep) → 33,773 (3 Sep). That is +64% off the trough in 9 days.** Revenue is RECOVERING, not falling. **STANDING LESSON: never call a trend from a 7d-vs-30d ratio when the 30d window contains a spike. Print the rolling average series and read its slope.**
- **CORRECTION 2. My "project revenue is 2.6x off DefiLlama, do not trust it" warning was WRONG on the number that matters.** Cumulative reconciles almost exactly: **project dashboard said $931,362 at 25 Aug; DefiLlama cumulative at 25 Aug is $930,092. A 0.14% gap.** Also matches at the other two checkpoints: project "surpassed $700,000" on 17 Aug (Llama cumulative $754,579), "surpassed $1,000,000" on 26 Aug (Llama $984,871 on 26 Aug, $1,013,938 on 27 Aug). **The project's reporting is honest.** The single daily card ("Sept 1st revenue $131,343" vs Llama's $49,760) remains unexplained and is not a clean multi-day sum either, but it is one card against a fully reconciled cumulative series. Do not repeat the warning.
- **CORRECTION 3. My PONS comp was on mismatched windows.** On an identical 7d-annualised basis: **STONK 1.60x, PONS 1.42x, PUMP 3.05x, ANSEM 23.64x.** STONK and PONS are essentially the same price on revenue, not 1.33x vs 4.18x.
- **MECHANISM NOW DISCLOSED AND VERIFIED, this was the open question.** @wealthmaxxer quoting the StonkFun dashboard: *"The platform automatically claims its trading fees. Approximately 60% of the platform revenue is used to buy $STONK on the open market and burn it. The rest is retained."* Measured: buybacks $537,568 / revenue $931,362 = **57.7%**. CONFIRMED. **Forward: 7d revenue annualised $12.33M × 60% = $7.40M/yr of open-market buy-and-burn against a $19.67M cap = 37.6% of market cap per year.**
- Dashboard figures at 25 Aug (stonkfun.xyz/revenue, tabs Buybacks/Revenue/Burns/$STONK FDV): lifetime traded volume **$320,026,548**, revenue $931,362, buybacks $537,568, **burned $814,542 of value** (burn value exceeds purchase cost because the bought tokens appreciated ~51% before destruction), daily buyback average **$25,069 across 21 complete days**
- **THE COMP THAT MAKES THE CASE, from DefiLlama's own 7d table (@StarPlatinum_): ANSEM.io does $210,456 of 7d revenue at a $259,365,223 cap. StonkFun does $236,409 at $19,665,691. STONK EARNS MORE AND IS WORTH 13x LESS. Same chain, same category, same source table.** That single pair is worth more than every other argument in the bull thread.
- Rest of that table: pump.fun $14.21M fees / $10.84M rev / $1.7B · Pons $21.04M fees / $3.82M rev / $297M (Pons 7d revenue has since risen to $6.23M, +63% in 2 days, and its cap to $462M) · Flap sh $2.62M/$2.62M · Bags $1.52M/$759,817 · o1 $826,095/$452,541 · Binance Alpha $339,561 · StonkBrokers $210,899/$111,840/$47M
- **LaunchLab migration, from StonkFun's own 2 Sep post (27K views, 364 likes), is both the catalyst and the admission of what is currently broken.** It promises to fix: snipers · permissionless deployments and no single-wallet launches · low deployment costs · launchers no longer forced through StonkFun's API · CPMM with a compounding LP fee. Interim measure: max dev-buys raised to disincentivise snipers until LaunchLab. Also working with Sunrise to stop pre-announcing "hyped" pairings because people were front-running the listings. **Read the flip side: today the platform is permissioned (must use their API), snipers are a live unsolved problem, and listings have been front-run. Those are real defects, disclosed by the team.**
- **OPEN RISK NOT YET PRICED: moving to Raydium LaunchLab could change who captures the fee.** StonkFun's whole valuation is the 60% fee-to-burn. If LaunchLab takes a cut of the pad's economics the take rate falls. No doc found either way. **This is the number to read the day it ships.**
- VERDICT UPGRADED from "small buy / probe" to **BUY.** Reasons the upgrade is justified and not drift: revenue is recovering (+64% off trough, correction 1), the project's reporting reconciles to 0.14% (correction 2), the 60% burn mechanism is now disclosed and measured at 57.7%, and the ANSEM comp shows a 13x gap on higher revenue. Against that: $19.67M cap is a memecoin-sized bet on a 40-day-old pad, and PONS at 1.42x is not meaningfully more expensive.
- REVISED falsifiers: (1) the 7d rolling average rolls back under $25,000/day (2) LaunchLab ships and the fee-to-burn take rate falls below 60% (3) daily buyback stops appearing on the dashboard or supply stops shrinking below 888.2M
- STILL UNRESOLVED: holder concentration (Solana `getTokenLargestAccounts` 429s, standing rule says do not retry) · the "$137M of volume paired with tokenized stocks" claim, no independent source

### 2026-09-05 COMMOTITTES. Robinhood Chain `0xF9E04be607E30020526E6Bbb45E5b754aAb888E3`. ~07:30 UTC. Ben pasted the CA, asked for onchain metrics, tax, and how much money goes into the silver/gold reserves
- **New launchpad discovered: Nest, makeanest.fun, @nestpadrh.** Full workup in [[nest-launchpad]]. Not a fork: it launches on the Pons V2 factory `0x7eD598BcEf8bd9Edd8C97A195C6d13f40801EC7e` and only redirects the Pons `creatorFeeRecipient` to a per-coin vault that buys tokenized RH Stock Tokens for holders
- token: PonsV2LauncherToken, plain OZ ERC20 + Burnable. **No mint, owner, pause, blacklist or transfer tax in the token.** Supply 1,000,000,000, all minted to curve. Launched 06:07 UTC, graduated inside ~1h
- TAX: base trade fee 1.00% (30% Pons / 70% recipient) + creator tax 1.00% set at launch = **2% round-trip leg, ~1.7% of volume reaching the vault**. `creatorSplitBps() = 0` → **creator takes zero of the harvest, 100% goes to the basket.** Buyback off. Creator `0x685678712cB5af7174e47Bd58Ad7791A7BCd14CF` holds 0 tokens
- basket GLD 50% / SLV 50%. Vault `0x76Df63aa3878987AfF589965060aCE7A42Ca7EC6` holds **12.5778 GLD ($5,130) + 85.4153 SLV ($5,128) = $10,258** at 07:30, from ~$597k of first-hour volume = 1.72% of volume, matching the doc's stated ~1.7%. GLD `0xC9a981FEE1F9DEc688bb123ccDeCc63D0deBFC4e` $407.85 · SLV `0x411eFb0E7f985935DAec3D4C3ebaEa0d0AD7D89f` $60.045
- market at screen: mc $218,606, liq $42,892 (V4 ETH pair `0x22ec840a3deb7e2e8a712165b0c6ca75cdb70e14dce584b87f7dee0d1006c858`), vol24 $597,442, holders 527, txns h1 1791b/1539s. **Backing = 4.69% of mcap.** Top non-protocol holder 4.04%; PoolManager 9.3%, Pons locker `0x267444d099b10fb5ed7c3cc7b7c767adca574952` 8.16%
- Nest peer backing ratios measured same hour: **COMMOTITTES 4.69% · MAG7 2.90% ($3,860 / $132,882) · SP69000 1.93% ($1,305 / $67,483) · COMPUTE 0.00% (vault empty, unharvested)**. COMMOTITTES is the largest Nest launch to date and the only commodity basket among 27
- X: no project account, no thesis. Only sub-3.3k caller accounts (@Jeffrey56Z 181f, @sol_lord111 3,247f, @factotum1205 2,818f) posting "5x/10x/18x/20x call" and a `dex_event_live` bot. **Zero tier-one coverage.** No phishing campaign found on this CA yet
- falsifiers: (1) backing ratio stops rising because volume dies → the only floor stops growing (2) a Nest coin's merkle root is published and does not verify (3) holders fall on two consecutive reads
- OUTCOME: pending, score in [[screen-log-outcomes-3]]

#### COMMOTITTES pass 2, 5 Sep ~07:40 UTC. Ben: "do some due diligence on the metrics, compare to other similar situations, it is a couple of hours old, how does it look for that type of coin?"
- **Age-matched base rate built for this, now in [[base-rates]] as the stack's first real one. 119,588 tokens launched on Robinhood Chain in 3 days (~450/hour).** COMMOTITTES at 541 holders in its first 90 minutes ranks **1,198th of 119,588 = top 1.0%**. Survival of that bucket: **46% still have any transfer after hour 24**, versus 5% for the 20-50 bucket.
- **ATH $416,137 mcap at 06:57 UTC, 50 minutes after launch. Now $178,019 = -57.3% off, 40 minutes later.** Per Ben's standing rule this is NOT called late on the drawdown alone; the 57-70% band is the consolidation zone and the other reads have to decide it.
- Reads that are still positive at 07:37: **holders 510 → 527 → 541 → 566 in 23 minutes**, no stall. Buys still lead sells on 5m (42/33) and h1 (1,813/1,535). **Vault $10,258 → $11,085 → $11,522 in the same 23 minutes**, so the floor is compounding at roughly $500 per 10 minutes at this volume.
- **Chain context that sets the ceiling: only 20 of the top 100 RH pools by 24h volume are under 24h old, and the best same-age comp today, CATSTRO at 2.7h, did $6,937,039 of volume on $1,143,901 FDV, 11x this token's $640,447 on $178,019.** Also today: SLINK 13.5h $65.6M vol, ZZZ 7.7h $20.1M, LIGERCOIN 9.3h $20.8M. **COMMOTITTES is not in the chain's top 100 pools by volume. Top 1% of launches is not the same as a chain leader, and the gap between those two statements is the whole verdict.**
- STANDING METHOD ADDED: for any token under ~6 hours old, run the h90 percentile from Dune 8613013 AND the same-day young-winner comp from GeckoTerminal `pools?sort=h24_volume_usd_desc` filtered to `pool_created_at` under 24h. One gives the percentile, the other gives the ceiling. Neither alone is an answer.

### 2026-09-10 IF vs HOTDOG head to head. Robinhood Chain. ~08:15 UTC. Ben pasted both DexScreener links: "which of these is the better pick"
- **VERDICT: HOTDOG.** IF has the better structure, HOTDOG has the flow. For a lottery ticket flow wins.
- IF `0x232CDFc415D10b673845D83Dc02ba2eaBe7e30d1` pair `0x39a200271525e9641e799127bdab299daef21953` (Uni v3, WETH). mc $7,559,465 · liq $394,210 · v24 $422,938 · h24 -5.11% · 660b/676s · age 61d (created 11 Jul 2026) · off peak -78.9% (ATH $0.039107, 2 Aug, ~$35.4M) · holders **7,450** (site claim "7.5K" CONFIRMED)
- **IF STRUCTURE IS THE CLEANEST ON THIS CHAIN.** Deployer `0xd9ec2db5f3d1b236843925949fe5bd8a3836fccb` received all 1,000,000,000 at genesis and sent **100% into one Uniswap v3 position**. Zero team allocation, zero treasury, zero presale, final balance 0. LP NFT #70641 minted to deployer then immediately moved to `0x7f03effbd7ceb22a3f80dd468f67ef27826acd85`, which still owns it and whose 4,823-byte bytecode has `collect` but **NO `decreaseLiquidity`, no NFT transfer, no withdraw**. Liquidity is permanently locked. Token has no owner (owner() reverts), no mint/pause/blacklist/setFee, no transfer tax (verified 1:1 pass-through on live swaps)
- **THE BURN IS REAL BUT IT IS NOT A BUYBACK, and this is the correction to the working hypothesis.** 94,489,184 burned = 9.449% (site claim "9.44%" CONFIRMED). All 108,957,552 IF that reached burner `0x9efdc1a8e6e94f16a228e44f3025e1f346ee0417` came from ONE source, and that source is the pool itself via the LP-fee `collect()` path, not open-market buying. It is the token half of the Uniswap fees, recycled. Current rate 136,890 IF/day = **~$1,143/day = 5.5%/yr of cap**. 57,676,339 (61%) of all burning happened on launch day 11 Jul; 479 legs since, daily with no gaps
- **THE ETH HALF IS SWEEPABLE.** Burner holds **29.788 ETH = $73,633** and its bytecode has `sweep` + `owner`. Both burner and LP contract are owned by `0x7e035fb048a31e0481b88074557415b1c187242b`, which holds 0.0488 ETH at nonce 45, i.e. **has not swept in 2 months**. Good faith, but not a guarantee
- **IF'S TAPE IS DEAD.** Top 5 wallets net flow over 7 days: 0 / +1,361,617 / 0 / 0 / 0. Frozen bags, nobody arriving, nobody leaving. Volume decaying $1.41M (4 Sep) → $423k (10 Sep). Still making lower lows (08 Sep 0.008328 → 09 Sep 0.008187 → 10 Sep 0.007668). Largest wallet `0xe36b1a9d671da4ee14a42991b0f010a81466d05a` 3.441%, pool 2.785%
- **TICKER NOW CONTESTED.** Copycat "IF / What If" `0x30A0f716F97dE3Bd0c93ffC8fe05e72f488b0f0f` launched 9 Sep, deployer `0x437198d3c9bc7655512459c4b80d31ff14948d22` (unrelated to the original team, so @0xAn2026's "the OG dev launched it" is FALSE). Only $70,509 mcap but **$1,213,901/24h volume on 5,109 buys**, more transactions than the original. @skrootimburg (13,751f) "the parody is at 9mil" is FALSE, it is $70.5k
- HOTDOG `0x1C1DAEF0300551aDBfbE403e7d567b6c5aFF566f` pair `0x6d16129c968395aa5b2b47527bc6ccd78bed27748271891b73baa323fdbca250` (Uni **v4**, paired to COST `0x4EA005168D7F09a7A0Ba9D1DEf21a479950E44C2`). mc $2,995,671 · liq $139,008 · v24 $751,351 · h24 -48.67%, h6 -19.69%, h1 +6.94% · 1,048b/901s · age 8d (2 Sep 2026) · off peak -63.0% (peak $0.007740, 3 Sep) · holders **3,728** (supply reconciles to exactly 1,000,000,000, dead 0)
- HOTDOG structure: Pons V2 template, no tax (the 0.8% seen on a swap is the aggregator router `0x6aa80dbbed9ae5ab45fbf61f9644fada3b29326e` taking a fee to `0xca5b3bbb368db39d223a9fa57a577f9a98a03638`, not the token). No owner powers. **8.163% (81,632,653) in the Pons locker `0x267444d099b10fb5ed7c3cc7b7c767adca574952`, owner `0x263ed295dafae1d9aadd6e56c4b6f9f38ee019dd` = the Pons platform. Unlock terms UNRESOLVED, ~$244k overhang**
- **HOTDOG ACCRUES NOTHING TO HOLDERS.** v4 Initialize on that poolId: fee 0, tickSpacing 200, **hook `0xe5e702641ea86f4ae6cc3cdaed2b886f976be044`** — a 15,167-byte shared Pons platform contract holding 77.7577 ETH across all Pons tokens, same owner `0x263ed295dafae1d9aadd6e56c4b6f9f38ee019dd`. All swap fees go to the launchpad. No burn, no treasury, no buyback
- **THE DECIDING MEASUREMENT: HOTDOG'S TOP 5 WALLETS ARE ALL NET BUYERS.** 7d net: `0xc6c8ce775f2ae60e5ce88842270190909c1b54b9` +34,557,314 (5.464%, an EIP-7702 EOA, still +708,567 in the last 3d) · `0x13c87e8604d928d214011928d1a87c0d6670b615` +22,317,767 · `0x4febf9186c71d7ed000510f3da6321e6386c6740` +20,038,672 · `0xf9c4d5f4a1ffc3d4c5c1ee7b91aa839dd2537d80` +12,794,852 · `0xffd43c97dec40e5e5db2d9c159bebb2bb25d251a` +17,696,611. **They accumulated through the -48% day.** The selling was dispersed: biggest 48h net seller `0x17e9d5945dcea0e5f51e9915b78e3be71ee0731b` -14,574,970 = 1.46% of supply ≈ $43k. No whale exit
- NET BUY TO RUN, constant product: **IF 10x = $426,196, 50x = $1,196,638. HOTDOG 10x = $150,287, 50x = $421,963.** HOTDOG is 2.8x cheaper to move and is already doing $751k/day. IF needs $426k of NET buying to 10x and is only doing $423k of total churn
- CHAIN CONTEXT SAME MOMENT: PONS $440,172,705 -23.5% · CASHCAT $158,563,223 -20.55% · STONKBROKER $17,246,518 -17.21% · TENDIES $14,508,893 -6.9% · GG $1,094,555 -34.22%. **IF's -5.11% is large relative outperformance; HOTDOG's -48.67% is worse than the tape.** This is the strongest single argument against the verdict and is recorded as such
- X: HOTDOG live and organic, 20 posts/48h, @whalewatchRH (7,291f) printing real buys, CMC listing 9 Sep, Robinhood Top-100 leaderboard vote push, @fbgThanos actively long. IF is a raid farm of sub-600-follower "What $IF" pun accounts. **ZERO tier-one coverage on either**
- falsifiers: (1) HOTDOG top-5 turn net sellers on a 3-day read (2) the Pons locker's 81,632,653 moves out of `0x267444d099b10fb5ed7c3cc7b7c767adca574952` (3) `0x7e035fb048a31e0481b88074557415b1c187242b` sweeps the 29.788 ETH from IF's burner (4) IF holders rise past 7,450 with its top wallets finally trading
- WHAT WOULD FLIP THE VERDICT: IF holder count rising past 7,450 with its top wallets moving, WHILE HOTDOG's top five turn net sellers. Both, not one
- OUTCOME: pending, score in [[screen-log-outcomes-5]]