2026-01-06 19:21:50

An interesting perspective worth considering — team members may receive tokens at multiple wallet addresses to maintain anonymity. In this way, the project appears to have about 11 contributors on the surface, but the actual token receiving addresses number 23, which explains the discrepancy. This multi-address dispersal approach is not uncommon in crypto projects, as it can protect privacy while also creating some confusion when tracing on-chain. However, it also raises questions about project transparency — how much information is actually publicly verifiable?

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

8 Likes

Reward
8
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

GetRichLeek

· 9h ago

Damn, just by this analysis, it matches! I’ve suspected these numbers were off for a while; the on-chain data is clearly written out, and now the case is solved. After all this, it’s just the multi-wallet thing, which has been a common scam in the crypto world for ages, we’ve all seen it. The question is, what’s really going on with this transparency? I need to get some peace of mind about my positions, bro. This kind of confusing operation... It’s called privacy protection in a nice way, but in a harsh way, it’s just information asymmetry, and that’s what I fear the most. Late-night review: I’ve fallen into a similar trap before, with multiple addresses scattered around. In the end, the project team just said "privacy protection," and that was it. We retail investors are left in the dark, all just blind boxes.

View OriginalReply0

MevHunter

· 01-06 19:51

This is the classic "mismatch" magic, with one person managing over a dozen wallets.

View OriginalReply0

ContractFreelancer

· 01-06 19:51

This move is really awesome, spreading across multiple wallets for receipt, on-chain tracking is just confusing.

View OriginalReply0

PriceOracleFairy

· 01-06 19:49

nah this is classic misdirection playbook tbh... 11 vs 23 addresses screams statistical anomaly waiting to be arbitraged imo

Reply0

BTCWaveRider

· 01-06 19:37

This tactic is too old-fashioned. Under the guise of privacy protection, anything can be done. Anyway, on-chain data is a tangled mess that no one can see clearly.

View OriginalReply0

SerumSquirrel

· 01-06 19:35

Damn, isn't this just a shell game with hidden tricks? 23 addresses for 11 people—who would believe that? --- Multi-chain wallets have been played out for a long time, but doing it this way really makes transparency questionable. --- It's the same old story: under the guise of privacy protection, everything is a black box. How can I trust that? --- When on-chain data doesn't match up, it feels really uncomfortable. The reasons seem legitimate, but I always suspect there's something fishy. --- This kind of operation is too common in shitcoins. Rationalizing with a cover story is truly the best. --- Those who understand privacy play like this, but can the project team really be trusted? That's a question mark. --- The era of one wallet, one identity is long gone. Now anyone can make up stories.

View OriginalReply0

GasWrangler

· 01-06 19:27

technically speaking, if you analyze the onchain data properly, 23 addresses for 11 contributors is... actually pretty inefficient governance structure ngl. the math doesn't even optimize right

Reply0