It is definitely a valid question to ask, and I am really glad someone is finally pulling the data on this $LAPTOP situation to see what actually went down behind the scenes. The fact that eighty percent of the traders just got wiped out within minutes of the launch shows exactly why analyzing these on-chain movements is so important. Tracking the wallet connections and seeing how the liquidity pool was structured gives us a much clearer picture of the mechanics involved here, and your breakdown of the statistics is spot on.
That said, if we look closely at the on-chain data, it becomes quite clear who was unloading on the crowd. Market makers like Wintermute received massive token allocations right from the start and began securing profits almost immediately. Combine that with a liquidity pool that only had about forty-eight thousand dollars in it against an unrealistic fully diluted valuation, and the setup was bound to fail. The retail buyers who bought in simply functioned as exit liquidity for the initial airdrop claimants and the designated market makers. It is frustrating to watch this exact same playbook get used over and over to extract value from regular traders who do not check the liquidity depth before making a purchase.
That said, if we look closely at the on-chain data, it becomes quite clear who was unloading on the crowd. Market makers like Wintermute received massive token allocations right from the start and began securing profits almost immediately. Combine that with a liquidity pool that only had about forty-eight thousand dollars in it against an unrealistic fully diluted valuation, and the setup was bound to fail. The retail buyers who bought in simply functioned as exit liquidity for the initial airdrop claimants and the designated market makers. It is frustrating to watch this exact same playbook get used over and over to extract value from regular traders who do not check the liquidity depth before making a purchase.
