Claims to have withdrawn value18.4 million dollars from token launches on Robinhood Chain 53 series

What's this about?

An analysis by Wazz, an anonymous analyst who studies data on the chain, indicates that there was a systematic withdrawal of tokens linked to 53 token launches on Robinhood chains within 2 months. Wazz estimates that such groups removed at least18.43 million US dollars and the figure may be higher because only activities directly related to the chain are counted.

The investigation started with the DEED token, but Wazz notes that DEED is not one of the top 10 most-withdrawable openings. The point was to find a wider network of token openings using related funding sources and wallets. Money from one token's launch is often transferred through an intermediary and then taken as funds for another token launch; in some cases, transfers take place only a few seconds before the original fund key is used on the next token.

Why is it important to readers?

The report does not say which tokens will go up or down in price, but points to patterns that may lead retail buyers into purchases without knowing most of the supply has been pre-purchased. Wazz found that almost all launches were overbought.70% Of the supply, and often packaged as 70 to 200 pocket sets, moreover, was mostly generated through Pons V2, a tool that allows for quick token sales if readers use platforms or chains based on new token releases.

Connection identified.

Wazz found 45 of the 53 launches were linked by means of a central fund transfer and continuous funding key, in addition to four launches that were connected with the same set of private keys signing off on funding packages, and another 4 launches which were linked through pooled wallets receiving funds from multiple launches.

An example of this is DRAFT and DEED Wazz, which states that the 98 wallets linked to DRAFFT move179.88 ETH into a central hub. The central hub then sends funds to the other wallet, which in turn sends20 ETH funds to DEED's fund key just 16 seconds later.

A fake opening that could create a movement.

The report also found some cases where the original token name appeared in multiple openings before the actual contract was launched. These fake launches could be used to create confusion and withdraw money before a prospective buyer knows exactly where it is located.

What does this have to do with the Thai and Myanmar markets?

In Thailand, digital token offerings must take into account the the SEC (Thailand) framework and users should check whether a board or provider is licensed. Local platforms such as Bitkub are among examples of boards that Thai users are familiar with, but seeing the names Token or Chen in the news does not necessarily mean the project has passed Thai regulations.

For readers holding the baht, the report uses U.S. dollars and ETH mainly so that the value seen may differ when converted to baht based on exchange rates and network fees; users in Myanmar may access tokens through platforms or wallets different from Thai systems and should check the legal status and license of providers before depositing or withdrawing funds.

What the reader can do without guessing.

Instead of asking if the price will go up, readers should ask whether the platform discloses the e-residency of the contract's major holders and source of funding; what initial purchases popped into their pockets; and whether there was a creation of fake launches or duplicate names prior to actual launches. If an activity on Chainlink indicates that money from one launch is being transferred as capital for another within seconds, the risk that the reader becomes vulnerable to organizing groups increases.