PIPPIN shocks with 80% concentration! 27 wallets suspected to be controlled by the same entity manipulating $380 million

Blockchain analysis platform Bubblemaps released a survey report on X platform, revealing serious centralization issues with the PIPPIN token. Internal addresses currently hold about 80% of the supply, worth approximately $380 million. The investigation found that since the last disclosure, 16 new wallets with identical patterns have appeared, suspected to be controlled by the same entity. The report was published as PIPPIN’s price continued to rise, sounding an alarm for investors.

Suspicious Common Features of 27 Wallets

(Source: Bubblemaps)

Bubblemaps’ investigation uncovered alarming patterns. These 27 wallets are not randomly dispersed investors but exhibit highly consistent behavioral characteristics. The first batch of 16 wallets all received initial funds from CEX exchanges, which is highly unusual for a single source. Normal retail investors’ funds should come from diverse sources, including different exchanges, OTC trades, or personal transfers.

Even more suspicious is that these wallets hold similar amounts of SOL. SOL is the native token of the Solana blockchain, used to pay transaction fees. If these were independent investors, the amount of SOL purchased should be randomly distributed. But the similar SOL amounts suggest these wallets were created and funded according to a unified plan.

The lack of transaction history is another red flag. These wallets had no activity before extracting PIPPIN, indicating they are newly created addresses for this purpose. Experienced investors typically have extensive on-chain transaction histories, whereas these “clean” wallets seem more like carefully designed tools.

Large withdrawals of PIPPIN from centralized exchanges are a key part of the pattern. This suggests that an entity first purchased or received large amounts of PIPPIN on exchanges, then dispersed it into multiple wallets. The purpose of this operation may be to obscure true centralization and create a false impression of distributed holdings.

Time Window Analysis of CEX-Related Wallet Clusters

The second group of 11 wallets associated with CEX exchanges provides further evidence. These wallets collectively hold about 9% of the PIPPIN supply, a smaller proportion than the first group but still a significant holding. The key is the high consistency in fund flow and timing windows.

Comparison of Suspicious Features of the Two Wallet Groups

First CEX-Related Group (16 wallets): single exchange source, similar SOL amounts, no history, large withdrawals

Second CEX-Related Group (11 wallets): consistent fund flow timing window, holding about 9% supply, repetitive behavior pattern

Overall suspicion: the 27 wallets across both groups are suspected to be controlled by the same entity, with total holdings approaching 80% of the supply.

The consistency in timing windows indicates these wallets performed similar operations within nearly the same time frame. If this were genuine retail behavior, the time distribution should be more random. But concentration within specific time windows suggests coordinated planning and execution behind the scenes.

Bubblemaps states that the conclusion of “suspected control by the same entity” is not mere speculation but based on pattern recognition from blockchain data. While 100% proof is impossible, multiple indicators pointing to the same conclusion greatly increase the likelihood.

80% Concentration Threatening PIPPIN Investors

An 80% token concentration is an extremely dangerous signal. In typical crypto projects, the development team, early investors, and community usually have clear token distribution plans, and this information is publicly transparent. But PIPPIN’s case shows that the vast majority of tokens are held by a suspected same entity, a fact only uncovered by Bubblemaps’ investigation.

This level of centralization grants the controller enormous market manipulation power. Holding 80% of the supply, they can sell large amounts at any time, causing a price crash, leaving retail investors defenseless. Even without immediate selling, this potential threat hangs like a Damocles sword over all investors.

More insidiously, the controller can create fake trading activity through these dispersed wallets. Transferring tokens between different wallets can simulate “active trading,” attracting more retail entry. They can also set buy and sell orders at key price levels to manipulate price movements and induce retail investors to make wrong decisions.

From a liquidity exit perspective, if the controller decides to sell, the market cannot absorb $380 million worth of sell pressure. Even phased sales would exert continuous downward pressure on the price. Retail investors in such a scenario are almost impossible to exit unscathed, as their sell orders would only be filled after the controller’s massive sell-off.

Contrasting the Risks with Robinhood Listing

Ironically, while Bubblemaps exposed these issues, PIPPIN was simultaneously listed on mainstream trading platform Robinhood. Listing on Robinhood is often seen as a positive signal, indicating the project has achieved a certain reputation and compliance standard. However, Bubblemaps’ investigation reveals a completely different picture.

This contrast highlights a fundamental problem in the crypto market: centralized exchanges’ token approval processes do not always detect centralization and manipulation risks. Robinhood may have evaluated PIPPIN’s liquidity and user demand but seemingly did not conduct an in-depth analysis of its token distribution structure.

For Robinhood users, the listing might give a false sense of security. Many retail investors might think, “Since Robinhood listed it, it must be safe,” but in reality, they could be entering a highly manipulated market. Robinhood’s convenience and user-friendly interface may even accelerate retail capital inflow into this high-risk token.