Blockchain analytics firm Bitquery has identified approximately $2.62 million in token sales by nine early recipients of the Solana-based ANSEM memecoin, while finding that two wallets associated through behavioral evidence with cryptocurrency trader Ansem continue to hold more than 58% of the token’s circulating supply.
The findings come from a revised on-chain investigation published on October 15, 2026, which reconstructed four months of transfers, decentralized exchange transactions and token ownership following ANSEM’s June launch.
Researchers identified 580.4 million ANSEM tokens held across the two wallets, representing 58.2% of approximately 997.4 million outstanding tokens. Neither wallet was found to have sold tokens through Solana decentralized exchanges during the period examined.
However, one of the wallets distributed approximately 74 million tokens to other addresses, including a group of nine recipients who received nearly 50 million tokens one day before a broader community distribution.
The investigation raises questions about concentrated token ownership, early-recipient advantages and the ability of large holders to exit positions without severely disrupting market prices. Importantly, Bitquery has not independently established that Ansem personally controls the wallets or that the identified transfers involved coordinated misconduct.
Nine Early Wallets Sold $2.62 Million in ANSEM Tokens
According to Bitquery’s revised October 15 investigation, ANSEM launched through Pump.fun on June 16, 2026, when its developer acquired approximately 792.45 million tokens for 84.74 SOL, valued at $6,275 at the time.
Just 37 seconds after the initial transaction, the developer transferred 650 million tokens, equivalent to 65% of the original supply, to a separate wallet that Bitquery subsequently associated with Ansem.
The developer then sold its remaining holdings through seven transactions, generating approximately $11,915 in proceeds and an estimated $5,640 profit.
ANSEM initially attracted relatively limited activity before Ansem publicly claimed the token on June 27. Trading accelerated sharply following that announcement, with daily decentralized exchange volume rising from approximately $60,000 on June 26 to $87.9 million by June 28.
On June 28, the wallet associated with Ansem transferred approximately 49.99 million ANSEM tokens to nine addresses.
These transfers occurred one day before a wider June 29 distribution that sent approximately 17.47 million tokens to 695 wallets, with recipients receiving roughly 25,000 tokens each.
The nine earlier recipients began selling almost immediately. Bitquery calculated approximately $1.18 million in combined decentralized exchange sales on June 28 alone, increasing to $1.39 million before July 8 and $2.62 million by October 15.
One recipient received eight million tokens and sold the entire allocation through four trades lasting just 44 seconds. However, the sales occurred approximately two hours and 26 minutes after the initial receipt, rather than 44 seconds after receipt as incorrectly stated in the original investigation.
That wallet generated approximately $207,257 from the transactions.
By October 15, the nine wallets collectively retained approximately 3.77 million tokens, with nearly all the remaining balance concentrated in one address.
Revised Investigation Corrects Trading Data and Wallet Profit Estimates
Bitquery’s October 15 publication replaces an earlier October 13 investigation and corrects several material findings.
The revised analysis establishes that 47% of measured trader wallets were profitable, rather than the previously reported 40%. It also corrects the developer’s sale proceeds, the timing of early transactions and the distribution of trading activity across decentralized exchange aggregators.
Researchers examined 554,160 trader wallets for which they could reconstruct a sufficiently complete trading history. Approximately 259,063 were profitable, while 294,841 recorded losses, with a smaller number approximately breaking even.
Those calculations valued unsold ANSEM holdings at $0.107 per token, the October 15 snapshot price. They also excluded transaction fees and wallets whose transfers to exchanges or other addresses prevented reliable profit calculations.
Although the measured wallet group showed approximately $47.9 million in aggregate gains, the profits were heavily concentrated. The 100 most profitable wallets accounted for 59% of the total.
ANSEM reached an estimated $428 million market capitalization around July 6 and 7 before declining approximately 75% from its peak by October 15.
Across the four-month period, Bitquery recorded approximately $1.8 billion in decentralized exchange trading volume involving nearly 560,000 trading addresses.
Two Ansem-Linked Wallets Hold 580 Million Tokens Against Limited Liquidity
The investigation’s most significant finding concerns the imbalance between concentrated ownership and available market liquidity.
Bitquery identified two wallets holding approximately 580.4 million tokens. One had received the original 650 million token allocation, while another received approximately 491 million tokens through transfers between July 31 and August 1.
Researchers found no identifiable lockup or vesting arrangement restricting those holdings.
The ownership attribution is based on the timing of the initial distribution, subsequent transfers and activity surrounding Ansem’s public association with the token. Blockchain records alone cannot establish who controls the private keys.
Meanwhile, the two main decentralized exchange liquidity pools contained approximately 11,720 SOL, valued at roughly $1.2 million.
Using the larger PumpSwap pool’s liquidity as of October 15, Bitquery estimated that selling just 1% of the tokens held by the two associated wallets would produce approximately 62% price slippage.
This is a hypothetical calculation based on the pool’s reserves, not evidence that such a transaction occurred or that the associated wallets intended to sell.
ANSEM Highlights the Gap Between Token Valuation and Exit Liquidity
The most revealing aspect of the investigation is the gap between ANSEM’s apparent market value and the amount of capital available to absorb substantial selling.
At $0.107 per token, the 580.4 million tokens held by the two associated wallets carry a theoretical market value exceeding $62 million. Yet the two principal pools contained approximately $1.2 million in SOL liquidity.
That disparity does not mean the holdings are worthless. It means their quoted valuation cannot automatically be converted into cash at the prevailing market price.
In automated market maker pools, each additional token sold changes the balance between assets and affects the execution price. Large transactions can therefore generate losses substantially exceeding the price movement visible before trading begins.
Bitquery’s 62% slippage estimate demonstrates how sensitive ANSEM’s liquidity structure could be to concentrated selling. Actual execution would depend on routing, arbitrage, changing reserves and available liquidity across other venues.
Similar liquidity concerns have appeared elsewhere on Solana. A previous Bitquery investigation into Meteora liquidity pools and automated trading found extensive liquidity withdrawals and trading patterns that complicated assessments of genuine market demand.
ANSEM presents a different problem. Its immediate risk is not a confirmed liquidity withdrawal but the potential market impact of an unusually large token position relative to available buying liquidity.
Early Allocations Raise Questions About Memecoin Market Fairness
The distribution to nine wallets before the wider community allocation introduces another important consideration: who receives tokens before speculative demand reaches its peak?
Early recipients can potentially sell into buying activity generated by public attention, while later participants may enter at significantly higher prices.
However, early distributions are not inherently improper. Projects commonly allocate tokens to contributors, community members, promotional partners and other participants. The ANSEM transactions establish when tokens moved and how recipient wallets traded, but not the reasons for those allocations.
The issue becomes more sensitive when token distributions coincide with influential public endorsements.
A related concern emerged in Bubblemaps’ investigation into trading before Pump.fun promoter Anglio’s public recommendations, where researchers identified suspected pre-announcement purchases and subsequent sales without conclusively establishing wallet ownership or misconduct.
ANSEM’s ownership concentration also recalls the Trump Digital Gold token collapse, where analysts reported unusually concentrated initial ownership before a sharp market decline.
These cases involve different circumstances, but all illustrate why token distribution deserves scrutiny alongside price performance and promotional activity.
What the Investigation Means for ANSEM Investors
For ANSEM holders, the most immediate concern is whether market liquidity can support orderly trading if significant token balances begin moving.
The absence of identified sales by the two major associated wallets is important, but it does not eliminate future selling risk. Equally, the presence of large holdings should not automatically be interpreted as evidence of an impending liquidation.
Future transfers from those wallets, changes in liquidity depth and the movement of early-recipient holdings are likely to be more informative than headline trading volume alone.
The revised investigation also demonstrates why blockchain research must be interpreted carefully. Its corrections to profit estimates, transaction timing and trading activity materially change several conclusions from the original publication.
For investors evaluating speculative tokens, wallet attribution, realized trading profits and theoretical portfolio valuations are distinct measurements. Combining them without considering their limitations can create misleading conclusions.
Ultimately, Bitquery has documented a highly concentrated ownership structure and millions of dollars in sales by early recipients, but it has not established coordinated manipulation or unlawful behavior.
The larger question is whether ANSEM’s available liquidity and ownership distribution can support a functioning market over time. Until those conditions improve, the token’s quoted valuation may provide a considerably more optimistic picture than the amount large holders could realistically recover through selling.
Johan Shamshad is a financial markets writer at Dave Finances covering cryptocurrencies, trading platforms, brokers, fintech, financial regulation, and developments across global markets. He previously worked at Gulf News, adding newsroom experience to his coverage of fast-moving financial and digital-asset markets.
His work focuses on identifying market-moving events, company developments, regulatory changes, product launches, and shifts in trading and financial infrastructure.
Johan contributes news and analysis designed to help readers understand not only what happened, but why a development matters and how it may affect the wider financial landscape. You can reach out to him via his social media accounts:
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/johan-shamshad-742851262/
X: https://x.com/Yasmine_FX
Investing: https://www.investing.com/members/contributors/279781574