MASTRtrade intelligence traced the wallet of Rasmr through the solana:9cRCn9rGT8V2imeM2BaKs13yhMEais3ruM3rPvTGpump sales and the $KIMCHI. The transactions show substantial early profits, but they also contain details missing from the the screenshots circulating in CT: Context first: on 20 October, Pumpfun announced Kimchi as a creative partner. $KIMCHI launched that night at 23:00:15 UTC, and its creator sent 750,000,000 tokens, 75% of the original supply, to the wallet linked to @kimchi1x. On 20 October, the Rasmr-attributed wallet sold 2,098,961.58 ANSEM across 6 transactions between 08:02 and 13:13 UTC, receiving 194,799.86 USDC. At 17:16 UTC, it bought ANSEM back through 3 purchases of 25,000 USDC each. Those 75,000 USDC in buybacks belong in the account of what happened, whether they fit the preferred narrative or not. At 23:02:59 UTC, the same wallet made its first purchase of the larger KIMCHI, 2 minutes and 44 seconds after the token was created. Across 3 purchases, it spent 20,000 USDC. It sold the position through 15 transactions, receiving 152,103.59 USDC by 00:19:30 UTC on 21 October. That leaves a documented positive USDC trading cashflow of 132,103.59 USDC. The timing and the money are verifiable. Claiming those trades prove advance knowledge or coordination goes beyond the evidence. Before its first KIMCHI purchase, the wallet already held 565,772.68 USDC. Its funds were mixed, so the 20,000 USDC spent on KIMCHI cannot be traced to those specific ANSEM sales. Rasmr was not the earliest large buyer. Bgce…KhQF bought roughly 9.91 million KIMCHI at 23:00:46 UTC, 31 seconds after creation. Across its reviewed KIMCHI transactions, its net SOL cashflow was +977.48 SOL, while it still held about 5.10 million KIMCHI at the snapshot. That is cashflow with a remaining position, not a full profit figure. Who funded it has not been traced yet by me. ANSEM and the other new KIMCHI, 9EQb…pump, created 8 minutes after the known one, share a creator address: yHCx…6PRe. That is the same deployer that sent 65% of ANSEM’s supply to Ansem in June. The larger CSocn…pump was created by a different address, EFSr…56oF, funded with 110.19881 SOL from a wallet labelled Binance 2 at 03:48 UTC, before the solana:9cRCn9rGT8V2imeM2BaKs13yhMEais3ruM3rPvTGpump sales. Common control between the two creators has not been established. There are substantial, documented early gains here, and a launch pattern that has now appeared twice. I found no direct transfer between the Rasmr-attributed wallet and the other watched wallets in the reviewed transactions, and I’m not going to turn profitable timing into an insider allegation that the evidence does not establish. Rasmr-attributed wallet: 9CNyLECt2j8tnDhqxtjYk5HUhZ2b8Nwnyb7sfYN7vND2 solana:CSocnzcRpgSCr1naKcNTieWZUxb6rABe45j844m7pump investigated: CSocnzcRpgSCr1naKcNTieWZUxb6rABe45j844m7pump Review: 774 transactions. Balance snapshot: 21 October 2026, 11:21 UTC.

This is too important to disappear under a long investigation, so here is the short version for everyone who did not want to read the full thing. For 5 days, I recorded almost every Solana token launch I could capture. The system collected 145,228 launches, roughly 29,000 new tokens per day. Then I stopped looking at the tokens and started following the wallets behind them. The first thing that stood out was concentration. Just 10 addresses created 8,895 tokens in 7 days. The largest created 1,621, roughly 1 launch every 6 minutes, around the clock. These are normal keypair wallets, not Pumpfun service addresses. One of them repeatedly creates a token and then sells its own token within seconds or minutes. The economics explain why this is possible. A launch requires roughly 0.0089 SOL of rent-funded account creation, around $1 at the observed price. Much of that rent can later be reclaimed when accounts are closed. In other words, producing another token is effectively close to free. Once the cost of manufacturing the asset approaches zero, the scarce resource is no longer capital. It is attention. Then it gets more interesting: I followed the funding layer behind one creator and found another wallet that had funded 22,258 token accounts, repeatedly with the exact same 0.00148844 SOL amount. In one transaction, it distributed the same token in the exact same quantity to 11 different wallets. It shows something important: holder counts can be manufactured mechanically and cheaply. The wallet had spent about 33 SOL just funding the accounts behind those distributions. I followed one of those recipient wallets further. Its recent activity consisted of DFlow swaps between roughly 0.0551 and 0.0567 SOL, repeating every few minutes with almost no variation. Based on the observed cadence, that single wallet would generate roughly 17 SOL of trading volume per day. Extrapolated across the 11 wallets from that distribution transaction, the observed rate would be around 190 SOL per day. That second figure is an estimate, not a measured daily total, but the transaction pattern itself is directly visible on-chain. So the structure I found looks like this: -Layer 1 creates the asset. -Layer 2 can manufacture the holder count. -Layer 3 can manufacture activity and volume. Those are 3 of the main signals retail traders routinely use to decide whether something looks alive, distributed and actively traded. And this is not just 1 wallet cluster. I checked 6 of the top 10 creator wallets. They were funded from different sources, including Binance, Bybit, OKX and unrelated wallets, with wallet ages ranging from 10 days to more than 1 year. I could not establish a common operator between them. That actually makes the finding more interesting: this appears less like 1 operation and more like a repeatable business model that multiple independent operators have discovered. One of those creator wallets was also receiving Axiom Rewards, meaning the generated trading activity can potentially create an additional revenue stream through trading-terminal incentives. The metadata has the same factory-like fingerprints. In the portion I had processed, usepaid-app appeared on 569 different tokens, elonmusk was claimed as the X handle by 73, and individual image files were reused across more than 50 tokens. Only 13.8% of the relevant metadata had been processed at that point, so those are minimum counts, not estimates. The trading results: Across hundreds of thousands of measured entry points, only 8.0% were profitable after 30 seconds, 8.7% after 60 seconds and 12.8% after 120 seconds. Average returns were negative at every one of those horizons. A realistic bonding-curve round trip cost about 2.47% through fees, spread and impact before the trader had even made a directional mistake. My ultra-fast test entered within 12 seconds of launch and exited within 30 seconds across 1,771 different tokens. It still averaged -2.41% per trade, with only 108 winners. The underlying directional edge was about +0.06%. The friction was about 40 times larger. There was even a trap inside my own data. The 5-minute survivors showed a positive average return, but only 16.5% of the original observations still had a measurable exit price at that point. The apparently bullish result was survivor bias. Most of the sample had already disappeared from the calculation. The chain already shows that tokens can be produced at industrial scale for almost nothing, holder counts can be engineered, trading activity can be automated, metadata can be recycled, and the average retail trader entering these launches is fighting brutal execution costs and terrible base rates.