Key takeaways
- Reporting describes a wallet roughly three hours old minting the token, acquiring about 79% of supply for around $9,300, and naming one permanent recipient of every creator fee.
- The deployer is reported to have sold most of its remaining tokens shortly after launch, for an estimated profit near $26,000.
- Deployer wallet age, supply concentration, fee routing and post-launch selling are all visible on-chain before you commit anything.
- The permanence of the fee routing is genuinely unusual and cuts against the simplest reading, which is worth saying rather than ignoring.
- These figures come from reporting and on-chain analysts. I could not independently confirm the wallet age or the 79% figure from an explorer, and have said so where it matters.
A token launched on a well-known Solana launchpad this week, and the structure described in the reporting is worth walking through — not because this one token matters, but because every element of it is something a reader can check before committing money, and most people do not know where to look.
Before anything else: what follows comes from reporting and from on-chain analysts, and I will mark where that matters. I could not independently verify the wallet age or the supply percentage from a block explorer myself. Several outlets report the same figures consistently, which is reassuring but is not the same as confirmation.
What the reporting describes
The Defiant reports that a wallet roughly three hours old minted the coin, acquired around 79% of the supply for about $9,300, and named a single address as the permanent recipient of every creator fee. On-chain analysis cited in the same coverage indicates the deployer then sold most of its remaining tokens shortly after launch, for an estimated profit near $26,000.
Crypto Briefing adds a detail that complicates the easy story: the fee arrangement cannot be changed. The deployer did not keep the fee stream, and did not retain the ability to redirect it later.
Hold onto that, because it matters, and I will come back to it.
Check one: how old is the deployer wallet
Every token has a deployer — the address that created it. On any explorer you can see when that address first transacted.
A wallet created hours before it launches a token tells you something specific: there is no history to examine. No prior deployments to judge, no track record, no reputation that would cost anything to abandon. That is not proof of bad intent. Privacy-conscious developers use fresh wallets, and plenty of legitimate projects launch from new addresses.
But it changes what you are relying on. With an established deployer you can look at what they did before. With a fresh one, the only thing backing the launch is whatever they say about themselves, which is the weakest form of evidence in this industry.
Check two: who holds the supply
Supply concentration is the single most useful number on a new token and it takes seconds to find — the holders tab on any explorer.
When one address holds most of the supply, the price you see quoted is not a price in any meaningful sense. It is the price of the small fraction actually circulating. The holder of the rest can change that number whenever they choose, and nothing in the market structure stops them.
Reported here: roughly 79%, for about $9,300. Both halves matter. The percentage tells you the control; the dollar figure tells you how little it cost to acquire it, which tells you how little selling it costs them.
Check three: where do the fees go, and can that change
This is the one almost nobody checks, and it is the most interesting part of this particular launch.
Launchpads that pay creator fees have to send them somewhere, and that destination is a configurable parameter. Three questions follow: where do they go, can the destination be changed, and by whom.
On this token, the reporting says every creator fee flows permanently to one address, with no mechanism to reassign it. That is a stronger commitment than most launches make, and it is genuinely at odds with the simplest cynical reading. A deployer purely extracting value would normally keep the ability to redirect the stream, because optionality is worth something. Giving it up permanently is a choice that costs them.
I do not know why they did it, and neither does anyone writing about it. It could be a credibility signal. It could be a commitment to a named beneficiary. Saying confidently that it is one or the other would be guessing, and I would rather tell you the fact is unusual than pretend to know what it means.
Check four: what did the deployer do after launch
The first hour of a token's transaction history tells you more than any announcement. You are looking for one thing: did the people who created it sell into the buyers it attracted.
Here the reporting says yes — most of the remaining deployer holdings sold shortly after launch, estimated profit near $26,000 on about $9,300 committed.
That is the pattern worth recognising, and it is visible in real time to anyone watching the deployer address. Not afterwards, in a post-mortem. While it happens.
One refinement, because the obvious version of this check produces false alarms. A deployer moving tokens is not automatically a deployer selling. Transfers to a market maker, to a locked contract, or to an address that then holds them are different events from tokens hitting a trading pair. The question is not whether the balance went down but where it went, and an explorer shows you that in the same view. People who skip that distinction end up accusing honest projects and ignoring dishonest ones.
Why this is a pattern and not a scandal
I want to be careful about the framing, because there is a version of this article that is much more exciting and much less honest.
Nothing described above is hidden. It is all on a public ledger, which is the one genuine advantage this asset class has over traditional markets. Supply concentration, deployer age, fee configuration and selling behaviour are visible to anybody who looks, immediately, without permission or a subscription.
The failure mode is not that information is concealed. It is that the information is available and unread, while the thing competing for attention — a name, an announcement, a chart moving — requires no effort at all.
We looked at the same shape when a "liquidity locked" label did not stop a $14 million drain. There, too, the reassuring thing people checked was not the thing that mattered, and the thing that mattered was sitting in public the whole time.
The two minutes
Paste the contract address into an explorer and answer four questions before anything else:
- When did the deployer wallet first transact? Hours ago means no history to judge.
- What percentage does the top holder control? If it is most of the supply, the quoted price describes a fraction.
- Where do fees go, and can that be changed? Changeable routing to an anonymous address is a different proposition from a permanent one.
- What has the deployer done since launch? Selling into early buyers is visible as it happens.
None of those four answers tells you a token is good. Three of them can only tell you something is wrong. That asymmetry is the honest position: this is a process for avoiding the obviously bad, not for identifying the good, and anyone selling you the second thing is selling you something that does not exist.
Which is still worth two minutes, because the alternative is finding out afterwards, from somebody else's reporting.
Frequently asked questions
Where do I actually check these things?
A block explorer for the relevant chain. Paste the contract address, and the deployer address, holders list and transaction history are all on the default view. No account or subscription is needed - this data is public by design.
Is a brand-new deployer wallet automatically a red flag?
No. Privacy-conscious developers use fresh wallets routinely and plenty of legitimate projects launch from new addresses. What it removes is your ability to judge them on anything other than their own claims, which is the weakest evidence available.
Why does supply concentration matter so much?
Because when one address holds most of the supply, the quoted price only reflects the small fraction actually circulating. The holder of the rest can move that number at will, and nothing in the market structure prevents it.
If the fee routing is permanent, isn't that a good sign?
It is genuinely unusual, and it cuts against the simplest cynical reading - a deployer purely extracting value would normally keep the option to redirect the stream, because optionality is worth something. What it means beyond that is not knowable from the chain, and anyone telling you confidently either way is guessing.
How reliable are the figures in this article?
They come from reporting by The Defiant and Crypto Briefing, and from on-chain analysts cited in that coverage. Several outlets report them consistently. I could not independently confirm the three-hour wallet age or the 79% supply figure from an explorer myself, which is why those are attributed rather than asserted.
Do these four checks tell me a token is safe?
No, and that distinction matters. Three of the four can only tell you something is wrong; none can tell you something is right. This is a process for screening out the obviously bad, not for finding the good.
Sources
Every figure and quote above traces to one of these. Checked on publication day.
- thedefiant.io — A Wallet Three Hours Old Minted Kimchi's Coin and Routed Every Fee to One Address - The Defiant
- cryptobriefing.com — Pump.fun's Kimchi coin routes every creator fee to one address - Crypto Briefing
- cryptotimes.io — Pump.fun Taps Meme Coin Trader Kimchi for Creative Role Amid Scrutiny - Crypto Times
- kucoin.com — Specter: Kimchi Wallet Linked to Multiple Token Launches - KuCoin News
- bitget.com — Wallets associated with Kimchi accused of short-term buying and selling after listings - Bitget News
Deepmoni Das, Editor
I read the primary filings, exchange notices and post-mortems behind each story and write up what they actually say — with every source linked so you can check me. I am not a trader and I do not hold positions in anything covered here. Research and drafting are AI-assisted; the sourcing, the edits and the mistakes are mine.
Not financial advice. Crypto assets are volatile and unregulated in many jurisdictions. In India, gains are taxed at 30% with 1% TDS on transfers. Do your own research and never invest money you cannot afford to lose.
Editorial note: Crypto Shakti uses an AI-assisted research and drafting workflow. Every article is grounded in the linked primary sources and live market data captured at publication time.