A wallet allegedly linked to James Wynn has offloaded over 10 million Moonpig tokens — a strategic de-risking or a desperate move to recover from recent liquidations? According to blockchain analyst @DataC5821, the wallet in question dumped approximately 10.9 million Moonpig…A wallet allegedly linked to James Wynn has offloaded over 10 million Moonpig tokens — a strategic de-risking or a desperate move to recover from recent liquidations? According to blockchain analyst @DataC5821, the wallet in question dumped approximately 10.9 million Moonpig…

James Wynn’s side wallet reportedly dumps massive MOONPIG supply

2025/06/18 19:30

A wallet allegedly linked to James Wynn has offloaded over 10 million Moonpig tokens — a strategic de-risking or a desperate move to recover from recent liquidations?

According to blockchain analyst @DataC5821, the wallet in question dumped approximately 10.9 million Moonpig (MOONPIG) tokens worth $120.2K. On-chain data shows a rapid sequence of sell transactions clustered around the $14 million to $10 million market cap range, culminating in a crash to approximately $9.5 million at the time of reporting. Since then, the market cap has rebounded slightly, currently standing at $9.9 million.

One user suggested the sell-off may have been part of Wynn’s broader portfolio strategy, noting that he had recently told his followers on X — in a post that has since been deleted — that he was de-risking in response to escalating geopolitical tensions.

The analyst sarcastically responded that Wynn tends to “de-risk” only after getting liquidated on Hyperliquid, implying that the MOONPING dump may have had less to do with global events and more to do with covering personal trading losses.

Whether driven by geopolitical risks or not, the recent sell-off follows Wynn’s reported $100 million liquidation on Hyperliquid in late May, triggered when Bitcoin (BTC) price dipped below $105,000. However, it’s still unclear whether Wynn actually incurred those losses. On June 13, crypto analyst Dethective challenged this narrative, suggesting that Wynn’s losses were not actual cash outs but rather reflected trading against his own positions.

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.
Share Insights

You May Also Like

Preliminary analysis of the Balancer V2 attack, which resulted in a loss of $120 million.

Preliminary analysis of the Balancer V2 attack, which resulted in a loss of $120 million.

On November 3, the Balancer V2 protocol and its fork projects were attacked on multiple chains, resulting in a serious loss of more than $120 million. BlockSec issued an early warning at the first opportunity [1] and gave a preliminary analysis conclusion [2]. This was a highly complex attack. Our preliminary analysis showed that the root cause was that the attacker manipulated the invariant, thereby distorting the calculation of the price of BPT (Balancer Pool Token) -- that is, the LP token of Balancer Pool -- so that it could profit in a stable pool through a batchSwap operation. Background Information 1. Scaling and Rounding To standardize the decimal places of different tokens, the Balancer contract will: upscale: Upscales the balance and amount to a uniform internal precision before performing the calculation; downscale: Reduces the result to its original precision and performs directional rounding (e.g., inputs are usually rounded up to ensure the pool is not under-filled; output paths are often truncated downwards). Conclusion: Within the same transaction, the asymmetrical rounding direction used in different stages can lead to a systematic slight deviation when executed repeatedly in very small steps. 2. Prices of D and BPT The Balancer V2 protocol’s Composable Stable Pool[3] and the fork protocol were affected by this attack. Stable Pool is used for assets that are expected to maintain a close 1:1 exchange ratio (or be exchanged at a known exchange rate), allowing large exchanges without causing significant price shocks, thereby greatly improving the efficiency of capital utilization between similar or related assets. The pool uses the Stable Math (a Curve-based StableSwap model), where the invariant D represents the pool's "virtual total value". The approximate price of BPT (Pool's LP Token) is: The formula above shows that if D is made smaller on paper (even if no funds are actually withdrawn), the price of BPT will be cheaper. BTP represents the pool share and is used to calculate how many pool reserves can be obtained when withdrawing liquidity. Therefore, if an attacker can obtain more BPT, they can profit when withdrawing liquidity. Attack Analysis Taking an attack transaction on Arbitrum as an example, the batchSwap operation can be divided into three stages: Phase 1: The attacker redeems BPT for the underlying asset to precisely adjust the balance of one of the tokens (cbETH) to a critical point (amount = 9) for rounding. This step sets the stage for the precision loss in the next phase. Phase Two: The attacker uses a carefully crafted quantity (= 8) to swap between another underlying asset (wstETH) and cbETH. Due to rounding down when scaling the token quantity, the calculated Δx is slightly smaller (from 8.918 to 8), causing Δy to be underestimated and the invariant D (derived from Curve's StableSwap model) to be smaller. Since BPT price = D / totalSupply, the BPT price is artificially suppressed. Phase 3: The attackers reverse-swap the underlying assets back to BPT, restoring the balance within the pool while profiting from the depressed price of BPT—acquiring more BPT tokens. Finally, the attacker used another profitable transaction to withdraw liquidity, thereby using the extra BPT to acquire other underlying assets (cbETH and wstETH) in the Pool and thus profit. Attacking the transaction: https://app.blocksec.com/explorer/tx/arbitrum/0x7da32ebc615d0f29a24cacf9d18254bea3a2c730084c690ee40238b1d8b55773 Profitable trades: https://app.blocksec.com/explorer/tx/arbitrum/0x4e5be713d986bcf4afb2ba7362525622acf9c95310bd77cd5911e7ef12d871a9 Reference: [1]https://x.com/Phalcon_xyz/status/1985262010347696312 [2]https://x.com/Phalcon_xyz/status/1985302779263643915 [3]https://docs-v2.balancer.fi/concepts/pools/composable-stable.html
Share
PANews2025/11/04 14:00