A market data roundup on the morning of October 29 showed that PEPE had risen 10.68% over the previous 24 hours. On the same day, claims that linked wallets held about 11.85 trillion PEPE, or roughly 2.82% of the supply, resurfaced repeatedly. The price was strengthening as a large amount of tokens was concentrated, but the available information cannot yet confirm whether these tokens were newly purchased or transferred between different addresses.
This is also the starting point for examining this rally. The gain has a clearly defined measurement time, but wallet ownership, sources of funds, and holding intentions have not been confirmed to the same degree. Directly linking the two and concluding that “whales accumulated tokens, driving the rally” would skip the most important step.
The rally has already begun; whether it can be sustained remains to be seen.
A market data roundup from the morning of October 29 listed PEPE as up 10.68% over 24 hours. Other public discussions cited an intraday gain of about 10%, a brief rise of nearly 12% the previous day, and even higher short-term gains. These figures cover different sampling times and measurement windows, so they cannot be stitched together into a continuous upward trend, much less treated as real-time market data at the time of publication.
Market debate is focused on the area around $0.000005. Some say PEPE briefly touched about $0.00000523 in the early morning before pulling back; others observed several hourly candles closing above $0.000005. These are market observations bounded by specific time periods, not proof that the price has remained above that level since.
More important is whether trading volume can be sustained. Public discussions say volume surged during the rally and then fell back; others argue that the price remained resilient despite potential selling pressure. The two descriptions are not necessarily at odds: buyers can step in over a short period even as follow-through later proves insufficient. Without trading volume, spot market depth, and closing data that can be continuously checked, a single spike or a few hourly candles cannot show whether new demand is sufficient to keep absorbing sell orders.
11.85 trillion tokens: holdings claims do not equal new capital
The most closely watched clue about capital flows is this: according to public discussions, around October 17 and 26, several addresses labeled as linked to a prominent market figure received PEPE from addresses associated with a trading venue. Those discussions put the cumulative amount at about 11.85 trillion tokens, valued at roughly $51.25 million at the time, or about 2.82% of the supply. Multiple articles repeated similar figures, but repetition is not independent verification, and an address attribution does not confirm that the person personally holds the tokens.
Even if the transfer amount is accurate, what is first visible on-chain is a change in token location, not an off-exchange payment record. Moving tokens to an address outside a trading venue could reduce the amount of tokens immediately available for sale on that venue’s books, but it could also reflect custody adjustments, internal transfers, or other arrangements. The available evidence is insufficient to establish the purchase cost or actual control of the addresses, much less to claim that about $50 million in new capital entered PEPE over these past few days.
The disagreement here is not a binary choice between “a large transfer, therefore bullish” and “a large transfer, therefore bearish.” If the relevant addresses hold the tokens over the long term and market trading continues to expand, concentrated holdings could reinforce expectations of tightening supply. But if the tokens are later transferred back to trading venues, or keep moving frequently between addresses, actions previously interpreted as accumulation would need to be reassessed. The more concentrated the holdings, the more sensitive the market will be to where those tokens go next.
Some also say that on October 28, two large, long-inactive addresses transferred a combined 2.27 trillion PEPE, valued at about $10.19 million at the time. One of the addresses had previously deposited tokens to a U.S.-compliant trading platform. This clue also lacks independent verification: a history of past deposits does not prove that this transfer was intended for sale, nor that the selling pressure has been fully absorbed. Address transfers, deposits to trading venues, and actual trades should be treated as three separate steps.
Product expectations provide a narrative, not certainty
Alongside wallet movements, talk of a PEPE spot ETF is also circulating. Some say the relevant institutions have submitted applications or amendments for a product that would hold PEPE directly. But the materials provided give inconsistent accounts of when the filings were submitted and include no official documents or approval updates that can be checked here. This article can therefore describe it only as a product expectation that remains unverified—not as something already approved, about to launch, or already drawing a definite inflow of capital.
Even if an application is later confirmed, filing paperwork and obtaining approval to launch a product are separate stages. Product expectations may change how the market talks about PEPE, but they cannot substitute for current creation and redemption data or spot buying. Using a prospective channel that has yet to materialize to explain every price gain on the day obscures the more verifiable question at hand: who is buying, and can buying continue after trading volume falls back?
The real debate: tightening supply or tokens changing hands
The more optimistic interpretation is that the movement of a large volume of tokens away from addresses associated with trading venues, alongside PEPE’s double-digit 24-hour gain, shows that the market was at least willing at the time to price in the possibility that “tokens were shifting toward long-term holders.” This interpretation would gain support if the relevant address balances remain stable, balances associated with trading venues do not rise significantly, and sustained spot trading accompanies them.
The more cautious interpretation is that the most striking figures are also the easiest to misread. The roughly $51.25 million is a valuation of the holdings at a particular point in time, not a verified purchase amount; the roughly 2.82% figure is a claim about concentration whose attribution remains unconfirmed, not a public commitment by a holder to maintain those holdings. Rising prices may also prompt existing holders to move tokens, creating supply pressure alongside buying demand.
So PEPE is not short on stories right now; what is missing is evidence that connects those stories to a complete picture of capital flows. The known 24-hour gain shows that the market moved. It cannot on its own prove that large holders were net buyers, that selling pressure has been exhausted, or that product expectations will translate into actual demand.
What facts could overturn the current interpretation?
First, the control of the relevant addresses and the full transfer paths need to be verified. If the supposedly linked addresses turn out to be custody or internal management addresses, or if the 11.85 trillion token count includes double counting, the interpretation that “large holders have opened new positions” loses its foundation. Conversely, an address label without further confirmation is not enough to state a person’s identity as fact.
Next, track whether the tokens flow back to trading venues and whether any observable selling follows. If large balances quickly return, the view that supply has temporarily tightened would be weakened. If the addresses continue to hold, that still needs to be considered alongside spot trading; a static balance alone cannot be used to infer future prices.
Finally, verify the market data and product claims separately. Whether the price can stay near the $0.000005 level highlighted in public discussions should be judged using new price and trading data, not records from October 29. Claims about an ETF should be assessed against official filings and subsequent procedural updates. If trading volume cannot be sustained, the product has no verifiable progress, or the attribution of the linked wallets is disproven, the narrative centered on concentrated holdings and product expectations should be substantially downgraded.