A study by Bitquery reveals a significant gap between the gains displayed on Pump.fun and the profits actually made from trading. Out of 752.5 million dollars analyzed, only 193.9 million came from purchases followed by sales. The rest is explained in particular by token transfers and suspicious transactions.
In brief
- Of the $752.5 million in earnings posted, only $193.9 million corresponded to trading profits, or 26%.
- 51% of earnings come from the sale of tokens received from other wallets. In 1,104 cases, the transfers go back to the creator of the token.
- Fifteen of the 25 biggest gains show characteristics of wash trading, including the case of Arena, with $4,223 invested and $4.92 million in sales.
Pump.fun, displayed earnings that do not reflect actual profits
The platform continues to generate revenue, with $18.6 million despite the fall of memecoins. But the numbers displayed by traders don’t always tell the whole story. In his survey published on October 22Bitquery analyzed 3,170 positions above $100,000, closed between October 30, 2025 and August 30, 2026.
The finding is striking: only $193.9 million, or 26% of the total, comes from wallets that bought tokens before reselling them. On the other hand, 51% of the profits displayed come from the sale of tokens received from other addresses.
Furthermore, around 13% correspond to wash trading loops, in which linked wallets exchange tokens with each other. The remaining 10% do not fit into any of these categories.
Token transfers that distort the displayed gains
This difference is explained in particular by the method of calculating profits. Tracking tools typically subtract recorded purchases from sales. Thus, when a wallet receives tokens for free and then resells them, its history can show a gain without acquisition cost. However, someone was able to pay for these tokens in advance.
Bitquery has identified 1,579 such positions. In 1,104 cases, transfers go back to the creator of the token, directly or through other wallets.
The example of UOTF illustrates this mechanism: four temporary addresses received nearly eight million tokens each, before transferring them to seller wallets as part of a coordinated operation. One of these addresses then sold $1.59 million worth of tokens.
This operation complicates copy-trading. A tool supposed to reproduce a trader’s purchases cannot follow a position for which it only sees sales, without knowing the initial entry price.
Copy-trading, fees and data that complicate replication
Some platforms attempt to report these situations. There GMGN documentation mentions in particular the “Didn’t buy” and “Sold > Bought” alerts, which indicate that a wallet received tokens without buying them or that it sold more than it had acquired.
However, these alerts do not guarantee that another user can reproduce the displayed performance. GMGN’s transaction fees, set at 1% excluding network and priority costs, as well as price slippage and execution times, further reduce potential gains.
Finally, the study has two limitations: Bitquery did not calculate actual copy-trader returns and excluded 2,943 six-figure positions closed after August 30. The share of gains actually accessible to followers therefore remains to be determined.
Maximize your Tremplin.io experience with our ‘Read to Earn’ program! For every article you read, earn points and access exclusive rewards. Sign up now and start earning benefits.
