Wownero

$WOWSolana

Checkedin 1m 45s · Oct 5, 17:28 UTC

WOW is a Solana memecoin using the Wownero name and ticker, with no established connection to the original Wownero cryptocurrency or demonstrated required product role. On-chain data shows no mint or freeze authority, a current 1% transfer fee with an active fee authority, and approximately $13,136 in Raydium liquidity. The largest account holds 26.9%, metadata remains mutable, and the funding neighborhood contains 24 other dead or unlisted launches. Although the initial site review reported a different mint and DOGE pairing, the independent usage inspection found the supplied mint displayed with an XMR pairing; rewards, buybacks, liquidity locks, and launch mechanics remain unverified after inconclusive tests.

stonkfun.xyz/token/6gozR6tHUYf2pMMZ4fKgnqM4q7gEkGXXXfVJMYy71kekproductC1

“Wownero” “$WOW” “Paired with DOGE”

The reviewed page presents a Wownero ($WOW) market listed against DOGE, with swap routes through Titan and a Raydium pool.

RefutedContradicted by Wallet test, Market

Independent usage inspection found XMR, not DOGE, alongside Titan and Raydium links. Market data likewise lists wXMR.

Wallet test, refuted: The page is Wownero ($WOW) and displays XMR as its quote pair, not DOGE. It offers a Titan route against XMR and identifies a Raydium pool, but the pair in the claim is wrong.

Skeptic: plausible

The page does present “Wownero” ($WOW) paired with DOGE and offers a Titan swap route, but this is the page’s listed market, not a confirmed page for the supplied mint. [E3]

stonkfun.xyz/token/6gozR6tHUYf2pMMZ4fKgnqM4q7gEkGXXXfVJMYy71kekotherC2

“Token mint 6gozR6…y71kek”

The token page displays the mint as 6gozR6…y71kek, not the user-supplied address BKFdCR4ktFSpvT16nTJoJvG5oYrq7QeEPyYpdo9fpQTN.

RefutedContradicted by Wallet test, Token facts, Site/mint-unreferenced

The tester observed the supplied BKFdCR…9fpQTN mint on the page and checked its on-chain identity. This conflicts with the earlier capture and mint-unreferenced finding, which remains in the record but does not describe the later observed display.

Wallet test, refuted: Page displays BKFdCR…9fpQTN and the full supplied address is the WOW Token-2022 mint. It did not display the alleged 6gozR6…y71kek mint.

Skeptic: plausible

The page displays a mint beginning 6gozR6 and ending y71kek, which differs from the address in the request. Its market data should not be attributed to the requested address. [E3]

stonkfun.xyz/rewardstokenomicsC3

“Newer (v3) launches are funded by a transfer tax on every transfer (1% or 3%, set at launch), earlier ones by approx. 85% of their 4% pool's trading fees.”

StonkFun says newer v3 reward launches have a transfer tax of 1% or 3%, while earlier reward launches were funded by approximately 85% of 4% pool trading fees, and holder payments are pro-rata in the quote token or the token itself in some cases.

UntestedNot tested this run. Checked against Token facts, Wallet test

Facts establish a current 1% transfer fee, supporting that component only. Testing was inconclusive for historical funding, pro-rata calculations, and actual holder distributions.

To settle it: Inspect the relevant token mint's transfer-fee extension and on-chain pool/fee transactions, then verify reward transfers to holders.

Wallet test, inconclusive: UI confirms available tax options, but I could not verify the relevant mint's transfer-fee extension, historical pool fee funding, pro-rata calculations, or holder reward transfers. The existing on-chain query identified the supplied WOW mint as Token-2022 but did not report a transfer-fee extension.

Skeptic: plausible

StonkFun describes 1% or 3% transfer-tax funding for newer reward launches and a fee-funded model for earlier ones. That is a platform-level description; it does not establish that either mechanism applies to the requested token. [E4]

stonkfun.xyz/flywheeltokenomicsC4

“A share of trading fees from every v3 pool and every LaunchLab launch — from the bonding-curve vault before migration and the Raydium CPMM pool after — flows to the flywheel, which buys back and burns the platform's top 10 tokens by market cap, weighted by market cap.”

StonkFun says trading fees from v3 pools and LaunchLab launches feed a flywheel that buys and burns the platform's top ten tokens by market cap, weighted by market cap; it reports live aggregate historical buyback and burn figures.

UntestedNot tested this run. Checked against Wallet test, Site capture

Navigation and chain-history attempts were inconclusive. Endpoint presence does not verify ranking, weighting, transactions, or totals.

To settle it: Follow the linked buyback and burn transactions on Solscan and compare the token eligibility/rankings with the displayed data.

Wallet test, inconclusive: Unable to independently verify the top-ten eligibility/ranking, weighting, linked buyback/burn transactions, or reported aggregate figures.

Skeptic: plausible

The flywheel page describes fee-funded purchases and burns for a market-cap-weighted top-ten selection, and displays historical totals. These are platform-reported figures, not independent verification or a commitment to buy any particular token. [E9]

stonkfun.xyz/revenuetokenomicsC5

“Approximately 60% of the platform revenue is used to buy $STONK on the open market and burn it. The rest is retained.”

StonkFun says approximately 60% of platform revenue buys and burns $STONK, while the remainder is retained; it notes that custom-quote pricing may affect exact splits and $STONK-quoted pools burn directly without a buyback.

UntestedNot tested this run. Checked against Wallet test

The attempted revenue and transaction-history investigations were inconclusive; no independent evidence established the 60% split or exceptions.

To settle it: Inspect platform revenue claims, swaps, and burn transfers on-chain and compare transaction values with the reported split.

Wallet test, inconclusive: No on-chain transaction evidence was obtained for the asserted 60% buy/burn split, retained remainder, custom-quote variation, or direct burn for STONK-quoted pools.

Skeptic: plausible

The revenue page states that approximately 60% of platform revenue goes to buying and burning $STONK, with the rest retained. This is a stated allocation, not a guaranteed return to holders of the token under review. [E7]

stonkfun.xyz/launchproductC6

“Your token launches on a bonding curve with no upfront liquidity. It trades against the curve until 85 SOL is raised, then graduates automatically into a Raydium pool.”

StonkFun describes token launches as fixed-supply Raydium markets, with no upfront liquidity, graduating from a bonding curve after 85 SOL is raised; its launch page displays a 1.25% trading fee, about 0.5% of each trade accruing to the creator, and a roughly 0.012 SOL network-rent launch cost.

UntestedNot tested this run. Checked against Wallet test

The wallet-connected launch failed during simulation and created no token. Limited simulation observations do not settle graduation, actual fees, creator revenue, or successful launch behavior.

To settle it: Use the launch interface or inspect LaunchLab curve state, migration, fee settings, and creator-fee transactions on-chain.

Wallet test, inconclusive: The UI advertised fixed supply, no initial liquidity, graduation after 85 SOL, 1.25% trade fee, ~0.5% creator share, and ~0.012 SOL launch cost. The real launch action did not complete, preventing inspection of curve state, migration, actual fee settings, or creator-fee transactions. The failed launch is inconclusive, not a refutation.

Skeptic: plausible

The launch page describes a bonding-curve launch graduating at 85 SOL, a 1.25% trading fee, an approximate creator share, and network-rent cost. These product terms are technically and economically possible, though creator proceeds depend on trading. [E10]

stonkfun.xyz/launchsecurityC7

“Liquidity is permanently locked with Burn & Earn. Image and metadata are stored permanently on Arweave.”

StonkFun states that liquidity is permanently locked with Burn & Earn, and that token image and metadata are stored permanently on Arweave.

UntestedNot tested this run. Checked against Wallet test, Metadata

The failed launch left no sample pool or metadata URI to inspect. Mutable metadata authority does not itself refute permanent storage of a file on Arweave.

To settle it: Inspect the launched pool's liquidity/position ownership and lock or burn state, and open the metadata URI to verify Arweave storage.

Wallet test, inconclusive: The page says liquidity is permanently locked and image/metadata live on Arweave, but I could not verify the position owner, lock/burn state, or Arweave metadata for a created launch.

Skeptic: doubtful

Permanent liquidity locking and permanent Arweave storage are technically possible, but the page’s assertion alone does not verify the lock’s implementation or permanence. [E10]

stonkfun.xyz/developersproductC8

“There is no API key and nothing to sign up for: a launch is authorised by your own wallet's signature on the fee payment”

StonkFun describes a public developer API with no API key and says launch authorization is via the user's local wallet signature; it says it does not request or store private keys or sign on users' behalf.

UntestedNot tested this run. Checked against Wallet test, Site capture

The available usage record shows a local Phantom signature request but is truncated before a C8 result. API authentication and comprehensive private-key handling remain unchecked.

To settle it: Review the public API documentation and inspect a launch transaction and wallet signing flow; do not provide private keys.

Wallet test, confirmed: Docs state that API access needs no key or signup and that launch authorization uses the user's local signature; they also say the service does not ask for, accept, store keys, or sign for users. The observed Phantom transaction request is consistent with local signing. The launch did not complete due to the simulation error, so successful end-to-end launch execution was not verified.

Skeptic: plausible

Wallet-signature authorization without the service holding private keys is a feasible design, but this review did not independently verify the API’s behavior.

stonkfun.xyzotherC9

“As of the date of these Terms, StonkFun is not registered, designated, or licensed by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the ‘CFTC’) or any other regulatory authority.”

StonkFun's terms say it is not registered, designated, or licensed by the CFTC or any other regulatory authority, and that rewards and buybacks are discretionary and may be changed, paused, or ended without notice.

UnverifiableCan't be checked. Read against Claim review

The supplied evidence does not independently establish regulatory status or the legal discretion described in the terms; project statements alone cannot confirm these assertions.

Skeptic: plausible

The terms state that StonkFun is not registered or licensed by a regulator and that its platform mechanisms may be changed, paused, or ended. This means rewards and buybacks should not be treated as promised income. [E3]