Cryptocurrency traders using the FOMO app suffered an estimated $395 million in combined losses on Solana over nearly nine months, while the trading platform collected approximately $40 million in fees, according to a new blockchain investigation published on October 17, 2026.
Blockchain analytics firm Bitquery examined 829,539 wallets that purchased cryptocurrencies through FOMO between January 13 and October 7. Its findings suggest that approximately 90% of those wallets lost money after trading fees, with the median wallet recording a $25 loss.
The October 17 on-chain investigation also identified an extraordinary concentration of profits. The most profitable 1% of wallets captured 94% of all positive trading results, while investors entering popular tokens later generally experienced negative returns.
The findings raise questions about the economics of social-driven memecoin trading, particularly when platforms generate revenue from transactions regardless of whether their customers make money.
Nearly 90% of FOMO Trading Wallets Lost Money
FOMO, developed by FOMO Labs, is a cryptocurrency trading application that allows users to follow other traders, monitor popular tokens and execute purchases directly from a social-style interface.
Its appeal centers on making speculative cryptocurrency trading faster and more accessible, particularly for Solana memecoins that can experience dramatic price movements shortly after launching.
Bitquery reconstructed trading activity associated with FOMO wallets, including purchases and sales executed outside the app involving tokens originally purchased through it.
Researchers calculated each wallet’s financial outcome by combining proceeds from token sales with the estimated value of unsold holdings, then subtracting acquisition costs and FOMO trading fees.
Approximately nine out of ten wallets finished with negative results. The median wallet spent around $130 on token purchases and lost $25, while a smaller group suffered losses exceeding $1,000.
Those larger losses accounted for a disproportionate share of the estimated $395 million total.
Importantly, the figures represent wallet-level trading outcomes rather than confirmed losses suffered by 829,539 separate individuals. A single trader may control multiple wallets, and the research cannot independently establish the identity of every participant.
Early Memecoin Buyers Earned 71% as Later Traders Lost Money
One of the investigation’s most significant findings concerns the timing of purchases.
Bitquery examined approximately 2,200 tokens that attracted at least 1,000 buyers through FOMO. Across those tokens, the first ten buyers collectively generated returns equivalent to 71% of their spending.
However, investors entering after the first 1,000 FOMO buyers collectively lost approximately 11% of their investment. Only around one-quarter of those later buyers finished profitably.
The pattern highlights how quickly attractive entry prices can disappear once a token becomes popular.
For example, Bitquery examined a Solana token called RAX, launched through Pump.fun on August 27. Its price increased approximately 76-fold during its first 40 minutes before collapsing 93% from its peak within roughly an hour.
Some early participants successfully sold into rising demand, while later buyers experienced substantial losses.
However, early entry was not a universally profitable strategy. Across all tokens purchased by FOMO users, including those that never gained popularity, even the first ten buyers collectively lost approximately 6%.
That distinction matters because identifying successful tokens after they have attracted large audiences can make early trading appear more profitable than it was across the wider market.
The findings complement earlier research into Solana trading bots and disappearing liquidity, which documented how automated activity and fragile liquidity conditions can disadvantage speculative cryptocurrency buyers.
FOMO Collected $40 Million in Fees Despite Widespread Losses
While most trading wallets recorded losses, FOMO generated substantial transaction-based income.
Bitquery estimated that the application collected approximately $40 million in USDC-denominated fees on Solana during the study period, equivalent to about 0.5% of the value its users traded.
September alone generated approximately $12.8 million in Solana fees as activity accelerated.
Trading costs particularly affected smaller transactions. Before August, the most common minimum fee was approximately $0.95. That subsequently declined to $0.10.
For purchases smaller than $10, the earlier fee structure could consume a considerable share of the investment. Bitquery found that such purchases paid a median fee equivalent to 22% of their size before August.
Before accounting for FOMO fees, approximately 15% of wallets were profitable. After fees, that proportion dropped to roughly 10%, meaning transaction costs pushed nearly one-third of previously profitable wallets into negative territory.
The $40 million figure represents observed Solana fee collections, not audited company profit or total revenue across all supported networks.
How Reliable Is the $395 Million Loss Estimate?
Bitquery’s aggregate loss figure depends partly on how cryptocurrencies still held by traders were valued on October 7.
Under alternative valuation assumptions, estimated losses ranged from approximately $204 million to $490 million. Nevertheless, the share of profitable wallets remained relatively stable, ranging from 9% to 12% across the researchers’ principal wallet-level calculations.
The dataset also excludes certain transactions that could not be reconstructed reliably, and it does not cover FOMO trading activity on other blockchains.
Crucially, the investigation does not establish that FOMO committed fraud, manipulated markets or participated in insider trading. The results describe observed trading outcomes and platform fees, not proof of criminal conduct.
Social Trading May Be Amplifying an Existing Memecoin Problem
The most revealing aspect of the investigation is not simply that most traders lost money. Speculative markets regularly produce large numbers of unsuccessful participants.
What makes FOMO interesting is the relationship between social visibility, trading behavior and platform incentives.
When an application allows users to replicate another trader’s purchase almost instantly, buying activity can spread quickly. A successful-looking token attracts attention, that attention creates additional demand, and rising prices encourage more people to participate.
But the people discovering the opportunity through a social feed are rarely guaranteed the same entry price as those who originally identified it.
By the time a token appears widely popular, earlier holders may already be positioned to sell.
This resembles concerns raised by investigations into trading activity ahead of Pump.fun promoter recommendations, although the FOMO research does not establish comparable misconduct by the app or its users.
There is another important complication: the most successful FOMO wallets were not necessarily those buying every token immediately after launch.
Bitquery found that 69% of the top-performing wallets’ net profits came from tokens purchased at least two hours after the first FOMO buyer. Successful trading therefore cannot be reduced to entering first.
Token selection, position sizing, execution quality and knowing when to exit may matter just as much.
Consider the earlier case of a Solana token that collapsed approximately 99% after a concentrated selloff. Such episodes demonstrate how quickly apparent market value can disappear when large holders exit and available liquidity cannot absorb the selling pressure.
Why Trading Platforms Can Prosper While Customers Lose
FOMO’s business model exposes a familiar conflict between platform activity and customer profitability.
Transaction-based fees generally increase when customers trade more frequently, regardless of whether those trades produce gains or losses.
A platform can therefore experience rapidly growing fee collections during periods when its customers are collectively losing money.
That does not make the business model inherently abusive. Exchanges and brokerages routinely charge for execution, technology and access to liquidity.
However, the distinction between revenue growth and customer financial outcomes deserves greater attention, especially when a platform’s interface encourages frequent speculative activity.
As discussed in Dave Finances’ examination of how cryptocurrency exchanges generate revenue beyond trading fees, the economics of trading platforms can differ significantly from those of the customers using them.
For FOMO, the next meaningful indicators would include whether users become profitable over longer periods, how much customer activity comes from repeat traders, and whether lower transaction fees improve net outcomes.
Bitquery found that wallets remaining active for several months experienced smaller percentage losses than during their initial trading period. However, those wallets remained unprofitable on average, while successful newcomers were more likely to continue trading than unsuccessful ones.
The commercial opportunity for social trading platforms may ultimately depend on demonstrating more than increasing transaction volume. Better execution, clearer fee disclosures, transparent trader-performance statistics and stronger warnings around concentrated token ownership could help customers assess risks before placing orders.
For retail investors, the central lesson is straightforward: seeing thousands of people buy a token is not evidence that those buyers are making money.
FOMO’s trading data suggests that popularity, speed and transaction volume can coexist with widespread losses. Until platforms provide stronger evidence of sustainable customer outcomes, social momentum should not be mistaken for a reliable investment advantage.
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