Blockchain analytics firm Bubblemaps has identified five cryptocurrency wallets allegedly connected to Pump.fun promoter Anglio that repeatedly purchased tokens shortly before his public recommendations, raising fresh concerns about whether influential traders are profiting from the buying activity of their followers.
In an investigation published on October 14, 2026, Bubblemaps examined 534 token callouts made over two weeks and found that the suspected wallets purchased tokens before approximately 61% of those recommendations. The purchases occurred an average of just 20 seconds before the callouts appeared, while selling reportedly began around four minutes afterward.
The firm estimated that the activity generated approximately $130,000 in combined proceeds, including $50,000 in trading profits and $80,000 in rewards associated with Pump.fun’s Callout Rewards program.
However, the findings remain allegations based on blockchain transaction analysis. Bubblemaps has not independently established that Anglio controlled the five wallets or that the observed trading involved intentional misconduct.
Five Wallets Allegedly Purchased Tokens Seconds Before Public Recommendations
According to Bubblemaps’ October 14 investigation, the five suspected wallets displayed a recurring pattern of purchasing cryptocurrencies shortly before Anglio published recommendations to his Pump.fun audience.
Researchers reviewed 534 callouts over a two-week period, identifying pre-publication purchases associated with approximately 61% of them. That proportion represents roughly 326 recommendations, although the percentage is rounded and does not establish the exact number of individual transactions.
The reported timing was unusually consistent. Purchases occurred an average of 20 seconds before publication, positioning the wallets ahead of anyone who waited for the public recommendation before buying.
After each callout, the suspected wallets reportedly began selling their positions approximately four minutes later.
This sequence is important because recommendations involving recently launched cryptocurrencies can influence short-term demand, particularly when the tokens have limited liquidity.
If followers respond by purchasing the recommended asset, earlier buyers may benefit from the resulting price movement. Those entering after the recommendation may face higher prices and reduced liquidity if early holders begin selling.
Bubblemaps characterized the trading pattern as suspicious, but the available findings do not independently establish a coordinated scheme. The identity of the wallets’ controllers, the nature of any relationship with Anglio and the reasons behind the transactions remain unresolved.
Estimated Proceeds Include $50K in Trading Gains and $80K in Rewards
Bubblemaps attributed approximately $50,000 of the estimated $130,000 to trading profits, with another $80,000 associated with Pump.fun’s Callout Rewards program.
The distinction matters because the platform allows users who publish token recommendations to receive financial rewards connected to the activity generated by those callouts.
Under the previous reward structure, trading volume was a major factor in determining payouts. That created an incentive for promoters to attract transactions, even when those trades did not ultimately produce profits for their followers.
The estimated $80,000 in rewards represents approximately 62% of the total amount identified by Bubblemaps, suggesting that promotional incentives may have contributed more to the reported proceeds than trading gains themselves.
However, the figures are estimates rather than independently audited earnings. They cover the activity Bubblemaps attributed to the five suspected wallets and related callouts, not Anglio’s complete trading history or verified personal income.
The findings also do not establish that every reported reward resulted from improper conduct.
Pump.fun Changed Its Reward System Four Days Before the Investigation
The allegations emerged shortly after Pump.fun announced significant changes to its Callout Rewards program.
On October 10, co-founder Alon said the platform was reducing rewards associated with low-market-cap tokens and moving away from trading volume as the principal determinant of promoter payouts.
The revised approach places greater emphasis on whether followers actually make money after acting on a recommendation.
The change was intended to discourage recommendations that generate substantial trading activity without producing meaningful benefits for participants.
Pump.fun’s official Callout Rewards terms already prohibit deceptive promotions, market manipulation, front-running and coordinated trading through multiple accounts or wallets.
The terms also permit the program operator to investigate suspicious behavior, withhold rewards, restrict participation and pursue recovery of payments associated with prohibited activity.
Those provisions provide a framework for addressing potentially abusive trading, but no publicly confirmed finding establishes that Anglio violated them.
Earlier Bubblemaps Investigation Identified Similar Activity Involving Ethan
The October 14 findings follow a separate Bubblemaps investigation involving Pump.fun promoter Ethan, known as @0xEthan.
Published on October 9, that investigation examined 49 token callouts and identified wallets suspected of purchasing cryptocurrencies before Ethan publicly recommended them.
Bubblemaps estimated approximately $125,000 in combined proceeds from that activity, comprising $45,000 in trading profits and $80,000 in promotional rewards.
The suspected wallets reportedly began selling an average of three minutes after the initial recommendations.
Although the transaction patterns resemble those described in the Anglio investigation, they concern different promoters, wallets and datasets. The two estimates should not be treated as evidence of a single coordinated operation.
Neither investigation independently established the ownership of every suspected wallet or proved that the identified trading constituted intentional market manipulation.
Why the Timing Matters More Than the $130K Headline
The most interesting finding is not the estimated earnings. It is the reported consistency of purchases occurring just before public recommendations.
A single wallet buying a token shortly before an influencer discusses it could be a coincidence. Repeated purchases across hundreds of recommendations warrant closer examination, particularly when selling follows shortly after the audience receives the signal.
Still, identifying a recurring pattern is not the same as proving who organized it.
Wallet attribution is especially difficult when traders use multiple addresses, automated strategies or shared funding sources. Blockchain investigators can identify transaction relationships, but establishing common control may require additional evidence beyond on-chain activity.
For investors, the practical concern is whether a recommendation represents an independent trading opinion or an opportunity for someone with an existing position to exit into new demand.
The broader risks of this market structure are evident in Bitquery’s investigation into Solana trading bots and liquidity pools, which documented extensive automated activity, rapid liquidity withdrawals and trading conditions that can disadvantage participants entering speculative tokens later.
Memecoin markets are particularly exposed because prices can move sharply when relatively small amounts of capital enter or leave thinly traded pools.
Callout Rewards Could Create Conflicting Financial Incentives
Pump.fun’s reward structure adds another dimension to the problem.
A promoter may potentially benefit from two separate activities: trading the tokens being recommended and receiving platform rewards connected to audience engagement.
Those revenue streams do not necessarily align with the interests of followers.
A recommendation that generates heavy trading can be financially valuable to its publisher even if many participants ultimately lose money. When early holders also sell into the demand created by the promotion, the conflict becomes more pronounced.
This resembles the incentive problem explored in Dave Finances’ report on a Papertrade wallet that lost $979,000 trading but became profitable through rewards. Different platforms use different mechanisms, but both cases show how financial incentives can encourage activity that would appear less attractive without additional payments.
Pump.fun’s October 10 changes acknowledge the importance of follower outcomes. However, shifting rewards toward profitability introduces its own measurement questions.
How should the platform determine whether followers made money? Should it measure realized gains, unrealized positions or returns over a specified period? And can sophisticated participants influence those measurements through coordinated trading?
Without robust safeguards, a system designed to reward better recommendations could develop new opportunities for gaming.
What Pump.fun Needs to Establish Next
For Pump.fun, the immediate issue is whether the reported wallet activity can be tied to prohibited behavior rather than simply unusual trading patterns.
The strongest evidence would establish who controlled the five wallets, whether they shared funding or operational connections with Anglio, and whether the transactions were coordinated around unpublished recommendations.
Investigators would also need to determine whether the wallets’ trading activity influenced reward calculations or whether the estimated promotional payments were earned independently.
Those questions matter commercially because users must trust that a platform’s incentive system is not systematically rewarding activity that disadvantages them.
The relationship between participant behavior and platform income is a broader issue across cryptocurrency markets, as examined in Dave Finances’ analysis of how cryptocurrency exchanges generate revenue beyond trading fees.
For retail investors, the concern is straightforward: a highly visible recommendation does not guarantee that the promoter and the audience have the same financial interests.
The Anglio investigation provides another reason to examine trading behavior around token promotions rather than relying on follower counts or headline performance figures.
Ultimately, Bubblemaps has identified a pattern that deserves scrutiny, not established a final finding of wrongdoing. Whether the allegations lead to platform enforcement or a broader reassessment of promoter incentives will depend on evidence connecting the suspected wallets to their actual operators.
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