Jester

DEX influencer
In Solana we trust

[Jester @jestfi]

Why give away 15–20% of your SOL just to reclaim your own rent?

I built HokoLabs — a simple tool for reclaiming SOL locked in unused token accounts.

Fee comparison:

HokoLabs — 1.5%
Sol Incinerator — 2%
RefundYourSOL — 15% base fee
ClaimFreeSOL — ~15%
ClaimYourSOL — ~20%

With HokoLabs, you keep 98.5% of the SOL you reclaim.

Simple idea: your SOL, not the reclaim tool’s.

https://t.co/X0lsKYetIx

[Jester @jestfi]

@Schoen_xyz Shoen, which cold wallet would you suggest? I’m looking forward to ledger nano, but it’s hard to get it in my country

[Jester @jestfi]

Wall Street is discussing how to make U.S. equities trade almost 24/7.

Crypto is already several steps ahead — and it got weird fast.

Today the SEC is holding a roundtable with participants including Robinhood, BlackRock and major U.S. market infrastructure players to discuss the mechanics of near-24-hour stock trading.

Meanwhile, tokenized equities are already being used as programmable assets onchain.

And memecoin traders found one of the first use cases.

Over a recent 30-day period, roughly 148,000 stock-paired memecoins were launched, generating around $5.97B in trading volume.

Instead of the usual:

MEME / SOL

we now have markets like:

MEME / NVDA
MEME / HIMS
MEME / other tokenized stocks

Pumpfun has already added dozens of tokenized equities as Custom Pair quote assets.

Pons and other launchpads pushed the model even further: trading activity can generate fees and rewards denominated in the underlying stock token.

This is the part people are missing.

The important shift isn’t just putting stocks on a blockchain.

It’s making stocks composable.

Once an equity becomes an onchain asset, someone can build:

liquidity pools around it,
memecoins against it,
lending markets,
perps,
holder rewards,
automated fee strategies,
and products we haven’t invented yet.

Robinhood Chain is already showing what happens.

It was designed around tokenized real-world assets.

One of its first major consumer use cases became memecoin speculation.

That sounds absurd.

But it may also be an early stress test of what programmable equities actually look like.

There are serious problems too.

A tokenized stock isn’t automatically the same thing as owning the underlying share.

Holder rights, custody, redemption, issuer consent and regulation can all differ.

And once you pair a speculative memecoin with a tokenized representation of an equity, you’re stacking two completely different layers of risk.

So today’s SEC roundtable isn’t an endorsement of stock memes.

It isn’t about Pons or Pumpfun.

But the direction is hard to ignore:

24-hour equities → tokenized equities → composable equities → entirely new markets built on top of stocks.

Wall Street is currently asking how stocks should trade around the clock.

Degens already moved on to the next question:

What can we build once stocks never have to leave the internet?

[Jester @jestfi]

@JustSkud I think that it will be to late because everyone wants a stability on this coin but nobody gets it

[Jester @jestfi]

They’re not automatically proof of malicious intent.

So reducing a complex wallet graph into one score is extremely useful for traders — but it also creates the risk that people stop doing the analysis completely.

A green score can become the new:

“RugCheck says good.”

And that would be a mistake.

There is another angle worth watching.

Bubblemaps already operates more than pure research infrastructure.

Its $BMT token is used around Intel Desk.

Projects can receive visibility on the platform.

The interface contains Featured Tokens.

And now the same ecosystem is adding execution.

Again, none of that means the scoring is manipulated.

But once one platform combines:

research + ranking + discovery + visibility + trading

the separation between those functions becomes important.

I’d want to know exactly whether commercial placement can ever affect organic discovery, whether sponsored tokens are visually separated, and whether Bubblemaps scores are completely isolated from promotional relationships.

Because the business model has changed.

Previously Bubblemaps could say:

“We show you what happened onchain.”

Now it is moving closer to:

“We decide what is worth showing you, tell you how risky it looks, and give you the button to trade it.”

That’s a much more powerful position.

And potentially a much bigger business.

If this works, Bubblemaps stops being the website traders open after someone gets rugged.

It becomes one of the places where the next trade begins.

The irony is that a company built around exposing hidden influence in memecoin markets may now become influential enough to move liquidity itself.

That’s the part of this update I’m watching.

[Jester @jestfi]

Bubblemaps quietly made one of the more important memecoin infrastructure moves this week.

For years the workflow looked like this:

token launches → everyone apes → token dumps → Bubblemaps investigates what happened.

Now they want to move themselves to the beginning of that chain.

The new Bubblemaps update adds three things:

a pre-screened token discovery feed,

a token-level insider score,

and a built-in swap.

That sounds like a normal product update until you think about what it actually changes.

The new feed doesn’t simply show every token that starts trending.

Bubblemaps says it screens launches for two patterns before surfacing them:

Bundles — groups of wallets buying in the same block or within seconds of launch.

Clusters — wallets connected through common funding sources or transfer patterns.

Those are exactly the patterns Bubblemaps became famous for exposing after major memecoin collapses.

Now they’re being used before the trade.

If a launch shows heavy bundling or suspicious connected supply, Bubblemaps can push it down in discovery before most users ever see it.

Then every token gets a Bubblemaps score intended to summarize insider concentration without forcing a trader to manually inspect the entire wallet map.

And once you’ve done the research, you can now swap the token without leaving Bubblemaps.

That means the product has effectively moved from:

forensics

to

discovery → risk scoring → execution.

That’s a much bigger change than adding another chart.

Because in the current memecoin market, discovery is power.

When 50,000–100,000 tokens can launch in a day, nobody actually sees “the market.”

You see whatever Pump, DexScreener, GMGN, your Telegram bot, X timeline or trading terminal decides to surface.

The ranking algorithm is effectively deciding what gets liquidity.

Bubblemaps is now entering that layer.

And its pitch is very different from most terminals.

Most platforms optimize for:

volume,
velocity,
market cap,
holder growth,
trending activity.

Bubblemaps is trying to add another variable:

How suspicious was the launch?

The timing isn’t accidental either.

Look at $LAPTOP.

After its launch, Bubblemaps found that roughly 80% of tracked traders lost money and around 60% of its top-holder wallets had no prior activity.

Whatever you think happened with LAPTOP, that’s exactly the kind of event where onchain analysis usually arrives too late.

By the time the wallet map goes viral, retail has already bought.

Bubblemaps is trying to reverse that.

Instead of publishing:

“Here is how insiders controlled the token that just collapsed,”

the product wants to say:

“Here is the insider structure before you click buy.”

That could be genuinely useful.

But there is also a much more interesting question here.

Bubblemaps is no longer just observing the market.

It is starting to participate in how the market is formed.

If its feed decides not to surface a heavily bundled token, that token loses potential distribution.

If another token receives a strong score, traders may treat that as a trust signal.

And if users can immediately swap from the same interface, the distance between a Bubblemaps rating and actual capital flow becomes very small.

That’s a lot of influence for one score.

And right now, I haven’t found a fully published methodology that lets users independently reproduce that score.

We know the broad inputs:

bundles,
wallet clustering,
insider concentration,
connected funding patterns.

But not enough to reconstruct exactly how one token becomes “safe enough” to surface while another gets pushed down.

That matters because these signals aren’t binary.

Ten wallets buying within seconds can be insiders.

They can also be independent snipers.

Connected wallets can represent hidden team supply.

They can also be market makers, bot infrastructure or legitimate operational wallets.

Onchain relationships are evidence.

[Jester @jestfi]

The entire current valuation of the pumped Fruit Fly is heavily dependent on one association:

CZ → immortal fruit flies → this token.

The middle arrow is real.

The last arrow isn’t.

If CZ eventually recognizes a specific implementation, interacts with another project or posts a completely different contract, liquidity could rotate brutally fast.

And because early buyers entered before the market reached millions in valuation, there is already enormous embedded profit waiting above new buyers.

That’s why I think this story is more interesting than the 800x headline.

We’re watching a market decide, in real time, who gets to own a meme.

The scientist created the idea.

YZi Labs translated it into an on-chain concept.

CZ gave it distribution.

Developers built competing implementations.

Traders are now deciding which ticker becomes the canonical one.

The fly may be immortal.

The tokens definitely aren’t.

[Jester @jestfi]

CZ tweeted one sentence:

“Would be cool to see someone make ‘immortal fruit flies’ on BNB Chain.”

Less than 48 hours later, the market had already turned it into an entire memecoin sector.

The biggest runner was Fruit Fly.

CA:
0x2b90BB9683383b6A1440e116309Ba0187ef67777

It went from essentially nothing to above $3M, then $5M, and briefly crossed an ~$8M market cap roughly 26 hours after launch.

24h volume reached around $10M.

It also picked up a CEX listing almost immediately.

At first glance the trade looks simple:

CZ mentions immortal fruit flies → someone launches the coin → market buys the “CZ narrative.”

But I dug deeper and found something much more interesting.

The token that pumped to ~$8M is not actually the project that built the immortal fruit fly CZ was talking about.

There are multiple competing Fruit Fly tokens.

The listed/pumped Fruit Fly uses:

0x2b90...7777

Meanwhile another project called Immortal Fruit Fly actually built the on-chain system.

Its token is $FLY:

0x23791a...7777

And that project has a completely different architecture.

It runs a real fruit-fly neural model based on the FlyWire connectome.

The fly has an on-chain identity.

Its brain state is checkpointed.

Its history and lineage persist.

It can die.

It can be resurrected.

It can breed.

Users burn $FLY to feed it, create new flies, resurrect them or stimulate the neural system.

The contracts are publicly verified.

So now the market has two completely different things competing for the same narrative:

1. The meme that captured the attention first.

2. The project that actually built the thing CZ described.

And this is where the trade gets interesting.

Memecoin markets usually don’t reward technical legitimacy first.

They reward:

speed,
ticker recognition,
liquidity,
distribution,
and narrative ownership.

The first token that successfully convinces traders that it represents an idea can become the “canonical” meme long before anyone checks whether it has anything to do with the underlying project.

That’s exactly what happened here.

CZ never endorsed the ~$8M Fruit Fly token.

He never posted its contract.

He never said this was the official implementation.

He commented on a concept.

The market did the rest.

Within hours, multiple teams were racing to claim the same sentence.

There is even another BNB project that built an Immortal Flies browser game around the CZ post.

Other BSC tokens started using the same fly-brain narrative.

And this wasn’t created from nothing either.

The fruit-fly brain meta had already existed before CZ entered the story.

A full male fruit-fly CNS model with roughly 166,700 neurons was released earlier this year.

People then connected versions of the brain to Minecraft, DOOM, Beat Saber and even a physical walking robot.

A previous $FLYBRAIN token on Robinhood Chain reportedly reached roughly $54M during that earlier wave.

So CZ didn’t create the narrative.

He moved an existing AI/brain meme onto BNB Chain.

That’s a much more powerful distinction.

The sequence was:

scientific research
→ viral fly-brain experiments
→ FLYBRAIN memecoin
→ YZi Labs discusses putting persistent fly identity on BNB
→ CZ amplifies it
→ BSC traders race to tokenize the idea
→ multiple competing “immortal fly” projects appear.

Now the question isn’t simply whether Fruit Fly can pump again.

It’s which project wins narrative ownership.

The ~$8M Fruit Fly currently has the advantage in liquidity and speculative recognition.

The $FLY project has the advantage in actually implementing the idea.

And history shows that those are not always the same winner.

DOGE didn’t need the best dog technology.

PEPE didn’t need a product.

Memecoins are Schelling points.

Once enough people collectively decide that one ticker represents the meme, being technically “more legitimate” doesn’t automatically move liquidity somewhere else.

But there is also a major risk here.

[Jester @jestfi]

Arc launched as infrastructure for global finance.

Within hours, it also became a memecoin battlefield.

I dug into what Arc actually is — and what day one tells us about where it could go.

Full breakdown below ↓ https://t.co/eysB43U5Y2

[Jester @jestfi]

@Schoen_xyz I think there is no way that attention will split from robinhood and solana to arc

[Jester @jestfi]

You can check your wallet here ↓

https://t.co/PMRmPbpRM6

No need to guess which accounts are eligible — it scans them for you.

[Jester @jestfi]

CT spends hours hunting for the next 10x

while leaving SOL locked in token accounts from trades they made 6 months ago.

So I built a tool that finds the dead accounts, closes them and sends the rent back to your wallet.

1.5% fee.

Check your wallet before you start looking for your next trade.

[Jester @jestfi]

@crypCE0 It’s just hype, take your time and market will revalues $PAID.

[Jester @jestfi]

$PAID is another launchpad that’ll be competing with MCAP alongside $OTC.

[Jester @jestfi]

I investigated $PAID beyond the chart.

The product is real. The buybacks are real. But the team is opaque, part of the system is centralized, and the valuation is already far ahead of proven cash flow.

Here’s what I found ↓ https://t.co/YESoi32UUx

[Jester @jestfi]

@faceofsol Дальше - меньше

[Jester @jestfi]

@MadSolCook @ShifterCrypto That’s the point

[Jester @jestfi]

I investigated $PAID beyond the chart.

The product is real. The buybacks are real. But the team is opaque, part of the system is centralized, and the valuation is already far ahead of proven cash flow.

Here’s what I found ↓ https://t.co/YESoi32UUx

[Jester @jestfi]

$OTC’s X account getting suspended looks bad at first glance.

But after going through the timeline, I don’t think there’s enough evidence to call this a scam-related enforcement yet.

The strongest lead is actually much more boring:

OTC recently changed its X handle.

After the change, someone took the old username.

OTC then publicly said they reported that account.

That matters because it creates a messy identity problem for X.

You now have:

the real OTC account under a new handle
the old handle being used by someone else
old links across Pumpfun and other platforms still pointing to the previous username
multiple OTC-branded accounts and fake support profiles

And there was already a warning sign before the current suspension.

A user asked OTC why their X appeared as “suspended” when opening it through Pumpfun.

OTC replied that they had changed the account @ a few days earlier, someone grabbed the old handle, and they had reported it.

So the suspension issue was already showing up around the exact time of the handle migration.

That makes an account-integrity / impersonation false positive a very plausible explanation.

What I have NOT found so far:

No public statement from X saying OTC was suspended for fraud.

No evidence of an enforcement action tied to securities, market manipulation or a rug.

No announcement from Pumpfun, Meteora or other partners distancing themselves from OTC.

No visible exploit or treasury event immediately preceding the suspension.

That doesn’t prove OTC did nothing wrong.

It just means people claiming “X banned them because OTC is a scam” are currently jumping ahead of the evidence.

There is another possible explanation: mass reporting.

The launchpad space has become extremely hostile lately, and competing communities have been reporting each other aggressively.

Other ecosystem accounts have also faced suspensions recently, with users claiming coordinated reports were involved.

But there is no proof yet that this is what happened to OTC either.

So right now I see three scenarios.

Handle / impersonation issue

The most plausible from the public timeline.

OTC changes username → old username gets taken → OTC reports it → X’s automated systems get confused about which identity is legitimate.

If that’s the case, this is mostly an operational problem and the account should eventually be restored after appeal.

Mass-report suspension

Possible, especially given how tribal launchpad communities have become.

But currently unconfirmed.

Actual policy enforcement

This is the scenario everyone is immediately assuming, but I’ve found the least public evidence for it so far.

If X eventually provides a specific violation, then the thesis changes completely.

There’s one more detail people should check before panicking:

Are you opening the CURRENT OTC account?

Or are you opening an old Pumpfun / DexScreener link that still points to the abandoned username?

Because we already know that the old handle changed ownership after OTC’s rebrand.

It is entirely possible that some users are seeing a suspended old or impersonating account and assuming the main OTC profile was banned.

The next thing I’m watching is not the $OTC chart.

It’s whether the team confirms the exact account affected, whether X restores access, and whether an official violation reason appears.

Until then, the only responsible conclusion is:

the suspension is real somewhere in the OTC account history, but the reason is not publicly confirmed.

And the handle-change / impersonation timeline is currently the strongest explanation I’ve found.

[Jester @jestfi]

Yes — and that’s probably the most important takeaway here.

GoPlus traced the auth bypass to an unverified strategy executor at:

0x4f0055926c839D1d960a82CBF84E2eE933958ebC

The Safe itself wasn’t compromised. The executor could route a DELEGATECALL through an already-enabled module without properly authenticating the caller, so the normal signer threshold was effectively bypassed through a separate authorized path.

Bitquery has also published a detailed onchain reconstruction of the module path, although I haven’t seen a full vendor postmortem formally attributing the affected module yet.

And I agree on the UI point — showing “3/5” without surfacing enabled modules can seriously understate the wallet’s actual attack surface.

[Jester @jestfi]

A hacker found a way to drain roughly $7.8M from an Ethereum Safe.

He found the bug, built the exploit and sent the transaction.

Then someone else stole the entire hack from him.

The victim was holding around 2,900 rsETH in a Safe wallet. The issue wasn’t Safe itself or rsETH — it came from a custom strategy module connected to the wallet.

A bad authorization check allowed an external caller to route an arbitrary DELEGATECALL through a module that the Safe had already trusted.

For the attacker, this was basically the jackpot.

One transaction could drain almost $8M.

But he made one mistake:

he sent the exploit through the public mempool.

That meant the transaction was visible before it was confirmed.

An MEV searcher known as Yoink saw what the attacker was trying to do, copied the exploit and submitted its own transaction with higher priority.

Yoink landed first.

Around 2,882 rsETH were drained before the original attacker’s transaction could execute.

By the time the hacker arrived, the money was already gone.

So the final result looked something like this:

Victim: ~$7.8M lost
Original exploiter: found the vulnerability, got almost nothing
MEV searcher: captured almost the entire exploit

The hacker got front-run while hacking someone else.

And this is a perfect example of why Ethereum is sometimes described as a dark forest.

A pending transaction isn’t private information.

If you broadcast a profitable action into the public mempool, searchers can inspect it, simulate it and try to execute the exact same opportunity before you.

Normally we see this with arbitrage or liquidations.

This time the opportunity was an exploit worth millions.

There’s another important part of the story.

The vulnerability wasn’t a failure of the Safe core contracts. It came from additional infrastructure attached to the Safe.

That distinction matters.

A multisig can be perfectly secure while a module with excessive permissions effectively creates another path around that security.

Once the Safe authorizes a module, the security of the wallet partly becomes the security of that module.

Kelp DAO later moved to restrict the address that received most of the rsETH, and researchers also found additional wallets potentially exposed to the same issue.

So this wasn’t just a funny story about one hacker stealing from another.

It shows three things at once:

smart-contract security is only as strong as the weakest privileged integration,

public mempools create an adversarial market around every profitable transaction,

and even an attacker has to compete with MEV once his exploit becomes visible.

The hacker found a $7.8M vulnerability.

Yoink found the hacker.

[Jester @jestfi]

One of the more interesting memecoin stories today was $BATON.

Not because it launched with some revolutionary product.

But because it hit a very specific nerve inside the Pumpfun ecosystem.

BATON is built around an old piece of Pump lore.

Before Pumpfun became Pumpfun, “Baton” was one of the early names associated with the project.

That was enough to give the token a story.

But the real twist came from how it launched.

BATON didn’t just trade against SOL like a normal meme.

It launched as one of the first tokens paired directly against $PUMP through the new Custom Pairs system.

That changes the psychology of the trade.

Now people aren’t only buying a meme.

They’re buying a meme through Pump’s own token.

So every BATON trade also reinforces a bigger narrative:

what if Pump isn’t just a launchpad anymore?

What if it’s trying to build its own internal token economy, where memes trade against $PUMP the same way old Solana memes naturally traded against SOL?

That’s why BATON mattered today.

The move itself was strong.

Volume picked up fast, the token started trending, and then the story got a second leg when a centralized exchange listing followed almost immediately.

That gave the market exactly what it loves:

a recognizable narrative,
strong short-term price action,
and a sense that something “first of its kind” might be forming.

But the important part is not whether BATON itself becomes a long-term winner.

The important part is what it might represent.

If Pump-paired memes start gaining real traction, then $PUMP stops being just the token people hold because they like the platform.

It starts becoming a quote asset.

And quote assets matter.

A quote asset sits at the center of activity.

If traders want exposure to new pairs, they need the base token.
If more projects choose to launch against it, demand becomes more structural.
If enough liquidity forms around it, the token stops being just a bet on sentiment and starts becoming part of the market’s plumbing.

That’s the bigger idea behind BATON.

It may end up being just another fast meme cycle.

That happens all the time.

A narrative catches fire, early traders pile in, a listing arrives, and then attention rotates somewhere else.

But if BATON is the first sign of a broader $PUMP pair meta, then the token was never the whole story.

It was the test case.

That’s why I think BATON is worth watching even if you don’t care about the coin itself.

It may be the first real glimpse of Pump trying to turn its own token into the center of a native meme economy.

And if that works, more BATON-like launches will follow.

The meme is interesting.

The market structure behind it is much more interesting.