Pump.fun found itself at the center of controversy after Lookonchain reported a possible outflow of hundreds of millions of dollars. But the project’s co-founder, under the pseudonym Sapijiju, stated that there were no sales and that the large figures are ‘complete misinformation.’
Pump.fun co-founder rejects accusations
In a published comment, Sapijiju explained that the USDC transactions were internal operations related to treasury management after the PUMP token ICO. He emphasized that the funds were redistributed among working wallets, not sent for sale.
According to him, the USDC from the initial offering became part of a financial reserve that the company uses to develop the ecosystem. He also added that Pump.fun ‘never worked directly with Circle,’ noting that the authorized transactions only took place between controlled addresses.
Treasury management often includes redistributing funds, holding reserves, planning expenses, and preparing budgets. Such operations are not always related to asset sales and often look like large sums being moved between wallets.
Why Pump.fun needed to redistribute USDC
Public outcry arose after Lookonchain reported that addresses linked to the project withdrew $436 million USDC to the Kraken exchange since mid-October. This coincided with a decrease in the platform’s monthly revenue. According to DefiLlama, in November Pump.fun’s revenue fell to $27.3 million — dropping below $40 million for the first time since July.
Against this backdrop, many saw the movement of funds as a potential ‘off-ramp.’ However, data from analytics resources show a different picture. Pump.fun-controlled wallets still hold more than $855 million in stablecoins and about $211 million in SOL.
Despite this, analysts are divided. Some believe such transactions could signal further sales, especially in a declining market. Others explain them as redistribution of funds received from private PUMP sale rounds, not token sales on the open market.
Community reaction: criticism, defense, and demand for transparency
The community is divided. Some called Sapijiju’s explanations contradictory and too vague. Others pointed out that the statement simultaneously claims the team was not involved in the transfers and, at the same time, calls them part of treasury policy.
Some traders sharply criticized Pump.fun for ‘weak transparency’ and for PUMP’s price dropping below the ICO level. According to CoinGecko, the token is priced at $0.002714 — that’s 32% below the offering price and 70% below the September peak.
But there were also supporters of the project. They noted that moving USDC after the ICO is standard practice. The real question, they say, is different: how fully do the USDC reserves back the current PUMP circulation.
Price under pressure, but the project retains large reserves
The drop in token value and revenue coincided with widespread discussions about fund movements. But Pump.fun continues to hold some of the largest reserves among Solana projects.
This does not remove questions about transparency, but it highlights that the project remains highly liquid. Many market participants believe that USDC transfers should be accompanied by public reports — and it is precisely the lack of such reports that creates room for speculation.
What’s next?
Pump.fun has entered a period where reputation and community trust will be key. The appearance of large transactions without official disclosure increases pressure, especially amid falling revenue and token price.
If the team provides detailed reporting on its reserves and the purposes of fund redistribution, it could stabilize the situation. If there is no transparency, questions around ‘treasury movements’ will continue to shape the narrative, regardless of technical explanations.
Read more: Solana posts record inflows and surpasses Bitcoin and Ether in November
