Pump.fun co-founder disputes $436M “cash-out” narrative, calls transfers routine treasury moves
Pump.fun’s pseudonymous co-founder, known as Sapijiju, has rejected accusations that the project quietly off-ramped more than $436 million in stablecoins. He characterized the claims as “complete misinformation,” arguing that the funds in question were simply shifted between internal wallets as part of standard treasury management, rather than being sold or withdrawn from the ecosystem.
Responding to an on-chain report that traced hundreds of millions in USDC to exchange wallets, Sapijiju wrote that all of the funds originated from the PUMP token’s initial coin offering and had not been converted into fiat or other assets. According to him, the transfers were meant to extend Pump.fun’s operational runway and reinvest capital back into the project.
“What’s happening is a part of Pump’s treasury management, where USDC from the $PUMP ICO has been transferred into different wallets so the company’s runway can be reinvested into the business,” he said, adding that the team has “never directly worked with Circle,” the issuer of USDC. The comment was intended to counter speculation that the transferred funds had already been redeemed with the stablecoin provider.
In corporate and crypto finance, treasury management usually refers to how a team stores, allocates and moves its capital — including ICO proceeds, trading fees, operating reserves and emergency funds. These internal transfers can involve moving assets to different wallets for risk segregation, operational spending, market-making, or yield strategies. On-chain activity of this kind does not automatically imply selling pressure or an exit event, even when the destination includes exchange wallets.
The controversy emerged after blockchain analytics reported that wallets associated with the Solana-based memecoin launchpad had directed around $436 million in USDC to the exchange Kraken since mid-October. Many observers interpreted the flows as a sign that insiders were preparing to cash out, particularly given the size and timing of the transfers.
The fund movements coincided with a visible slowdown in Pump.fun’s revenue. According to on-chain data aggregators, the platform’s monthly revenue dipped below $40 million for the first time since July, falling to about $27.3 million in November. The combination of a revenue decline and large transfers to an exchange fueled speculation that the team might be de-risking or taking profits at scale.
Despite the suspicious-looking flow, several analytics dashboards tracking wallets labeled as belonging to Pump.fun still show a substantial war chest. The main Pump.fun-tagged address reportedly continues to hold more than $855 million in stablecoins, along with roughly $211 million in Solana (SOL). These balances suggest that, even if some capital has been moved off the main wallets, the project remains heavily capitalized.
Industry analysts have interpreted the on-chain signals in different ways. Nansen research analyst Nicolai Sondergaard viewed the transfers as potentially signaling further selling to come, reading the move to an exchange as a preparatory step ahead of distribution or liquidation. In contrast, EmberCN argued that the majority of the USDC originated from institutional private placements of PUMP tokens, not from ongoing dumping on retail buyers, framing the flows as settlement of prior deals or management of investor allocations.
Reactions from token holders and traders have been sharply divided. Some commentators argued that the wording of Sapijiju’s explanation left too much room for doubt. One critic, posting under the handle Voss, highlighted what they saw as a contradiction: the co-founder appeared to distance himself from the transfers while simultaneously stating that they were part of the team’s treasury management strategy. According to this view, the message raised more questions about who exactly controls the wallets and how decisions are made.
Another participant, known as EthSheepwhale, dismissed the entire statement as deflection. They accused Pump.fun of engaging in “price manipulation via airdrops” and criticized what they described as a poorly executed token launch that left PUMP trading below its initial offering price. For these critics, the flows to exchanges are less a technical matter of treasury positioning and more a symptom of deeper structural and communication problems.
Market data reflects the pressure on the token. PUMP currently trades around $0.002714, according to price trackers, which is about 32% below its ICO price of $0.004. From its September peak near $0.0085, the token has lost close to 70% of its value. That drawdown, combined with the scale of the treasury movements, has amplified investor anxiety and made on-chain behavior a focal point for trust.
Not everyone views the situation as alarming. Some users argued that a profitable platform should be free to manage its capital, including ICO proceeds and revenue, in whatever way it deems most effective, as long as it remains solvent and can honor its obligations. One supporter, Matty.Sol, emphasized that even if the transfers did represent profit-taking, it would still be within the project’s rights: the capital is its own revenue.
Another user, posting as Oga NFT, pointed out that serious projects frequently move stablecoins to exchanges or other custodial solutions after a token sale. From this perspective, the central question is not whether the funds move, but whether the reserves backing the circulating token supply are real, verifiable and sufficient. If reserves are intact and properly disclosed, large internal transfers can be consistent with responsible treasury operations.
The Pump.fun episode highlights a recurring tension in crypto between treasury autonomy and investor expectations. On one hand, teams require flexibility to manage runway, hedge against volatility, collaborate with market makers and deploy capital into growth initiatives. On the other, token holders often expect granular transparency around how raised funds are used, particularly when tokens trade below launch prices and sentiment turns fragile.
Large transfers to exchanges tend to trigger especially strong reactions. Exchanges are the primary venue for converting crypto to fiat or other assets, so any significant move in that direction is often interpreted as a prelude to selling, regardless of context. In reality, exchanges are also used for operational reasons: managing liquidity, paying partners, funding cross-chain bridges or rebalancing portfolios. Without a complementary communication strategy, however, even benign transactions can be read as red flags.
For projects like Pump.fun, which sit at the intersection of memecoins, speculation and retail participation, this communication gap can be particularly damaging. Memecoin ecosystems are prone to hype cycles and sharp corrections; trust can evaporate quickly when users feel out of the loop. Clear disclosures about treasury policies, counterparties, and reserve breakdowns can help stabilize sentiment, even when the underlying market is volatile.
Routine on-chain reporting and optional third-party verification are emerging as de facto expectations for major token projects. These can take the form of periodic treasury snapshots, attestations about reserves, or structured breakdowns of wallet roles (for example, differentiating between operational, market-making, strategic and security wallets). While not legally required in most jurisdictions, such practices act as a signal of maturity and risk awareness.
In Pump.fun’s case, many of the concerns raised revolve less around the legality of the transfers and more around optics and timing. A sharp revenue slowdown, a major drawdown in token price and hundreds of millions moving toward exchanges create a narrative that is easy to interpret negatively. Even if all assets remain within internal control and no substantial selling has occurred, a lack of advance context allows speculation to fill the vacuum.
For retail participants, the incident underscores the importance of not relying solely on wallet labels or isolated on-chain events when assessing risk. Labels can be incomplete, and the purpose of a transaction is not always self-evident from the receiving address alone. Evaluating a project’s health requires a combination of factors: treasury size, runway, historical behavior, communication quality, tokenomics, and market structure.
For project teams, the controversy offers a reminder that technical accuracy is not enough; perception matters. When large sums are moved, especially to exchanges, investors increasingly expect real-time explanations: why the funds moved, where they are likely to be used, and how the moves affect token holders, if at all. Transparent frameworks shared in advance can turn what might look like suspicious behavior into an anticipated operational step.
As the memecoin and launchpad sectors mature, norms around treasury disclosures, reserve transparency and post-ICO fund usage are likely to become more formalized. Projects that proactively define and communicate these policies stand a better chance of navigating market scrutiny, particularly during periods of declining prices or slowing revenue. Pump.fun’s response, and any further clarifications it may choose to provide, will serve as a practical case study in how token projects handle the growing demand for on-chain accountability.