Stitch(@stitchdegen):And next up is solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE, a name that has been getting quite a lot of attention after running from below $1M to nearly $10M market cap Instead of just looking at the chart, I dug deeper into the product, flywheel, and especially the creator/dev wallet to see what is actually behind this move Let’s break it down 1. What is Hooked actually building? What caught my attention is that Hooked isn’t simply another launchpad on Solana Hooked is built around Token-2022 Transfer Hooks, allowing creators to embed certain rules directly into the token’s transfer process For example : > Anti-bundle > Anti-dump > Max wallet > Holder vesting > Allowlist > DEX-only > Market hours > FOMO-only buys > Sniper fee cap Whenever a token is transferred or swapped, the hook program checks the transaction. If it violates the configured rule, the transaction can be rejected directly on-chain Simply put, instead of relying entirely on a frontend, bots, or separate infrastructure for protection, Hooked moves part of that logic to the on-chain level That’s what I find interesting about the product 2. A few things you need to understand Transfer Hooks don’t necessarily stay forever If a creator chooses a Graduating Curve, once the token reaches graduation, the transfer hook can be removed during migration. After that, the token trades more like a normal token and the previous restrictions may no longer be enforced With a Permanent Curve, the hook remains active So features like anti-dump, max wallet, or anti-bundle are not automatically permanent for every token launched through Hooked Another thing worth noting is that the hook program can still be upgraded by Hooked’s deploy authority to fix bugs or update the program The rules are enforced on-chain and don’t simply depend on the frontend, but there is still a certain level of trust involved with the team and program authority There is also one important distinction around fees When Hooked says “fees do not go to the creator,” that refers to protocol fees generated by tokens launched through the platform. It doesn’t necessarily mean the team cannot receive other types of fees related to the solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE pool itself So it’s important to separate protocol flywheel fees from solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE pool fees before looking at creator wallet activity 3. The flywheel is where solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE gets interesting The technology creates the narrative, but the flywheel is what connects platform activity directly back to solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE According to the mechanism, every trade on a Hooked bonding curve pays a 1% protocol fee Of that : 85% is used to market buy solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE and burn it 15% goes toward development The flywheel is pretty straightforward : More launches => More volume => More fees => More solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE buybacks => More burn If the platform actually scales, activity on Hooked creates direct demand for solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE instead of the token relying purely on speculation More importantly, this mechanism is already operating on-chain, not just sitting on a roadmap At the time I checked, the dashboard had recorded roughly 25.7M solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE burned, with around 865 SOL used for buybacks So at the very least, the flywheel has already started working in practice But I still think it’s too early to extrapolate a few days of activity into a long-term trend What matters more is whether volume, fee revenue, and the pace of buybacks can remain sustainable once the initial hype cools down 4. Hooked still needs a real runner The number of tokens launching on the platform is growing quickly, but quantity isn’t the metric I care about most A launchpad can create hundreds of tokens, but if most of them stall at a few thousand dollars in market cap, the ecosystem still won’t generate sustainable volume What I want to see is : Token graduates => maintains liquidity => retains holders => continues generating volume Right now, most of the launches I’ve seen are still relatively small, and there hasn’t been a major runner yet that truly proves the model If Hooked starts producing a few real runners, the thesis becomes much stronger At that point, the flywheel would no longer be fueled purely by speculative volume from newly launched tokens It would start being supported by real ecosystem activity That’s the catalyst I care about most 5. Creator/dev wallet This is where things get more interesting when looking deeper on-chain The wallet associated with the creator/dev side : Dpmutmc4ZLqvJwHbwabvKYeFJ9zkQ86nutUAUviRrXG2 This wallet has been claiming fees from the solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE pool, with part of the SOL later being swapped into USDC At the time I checked, the wallet was still holding around 110K USDC, while fee claims continued to appear A public compilation of on-chain transactions covering September 28 to October 1 recorded roughly 2,080 SOL in pool fees claimed, with around 1,970 SOL swapped into USDC and approximately 160.8K USDC later flowing into Privacy Cash Some of the larger transactions cited include roughly 652 SOL claimed, 955 SOL swapped, and 103.2K USDC deposited I still treat the aggregate figures above as reference data from a public on-chain compilation, since I haven’t reconciled every individual transaction myself What can be seen directly on-chain, however, is that the wallet has been claiming fees, converting part of them into USDC, and holding a significant amount of stablecoins The fact that the team is claiming pool fees doesn’t automatically mean they are dumping or that something is wrong with the project As mentioned earlier, solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE pool fees and the 1% protocol fee feeding the flywheel need to be treated separately, because they are not necessarily the same flow of funds What interests me more is where the money goes after being claimed If the USDC flow into Privacy Cash is fully confirmed, tracking the final destination of those funds becomes much more difficult That doesn’t prove the team is doing anything malicious, but it clearly reduces transparency from a holder’s perspective So I’d like to see the team provide more clarity around where these pool fees come from, how they are allocated, and the purpose of funds moving through Privacy Cash Until then, this remains one of the main risks I’ll continue monitoring with solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE 6. Don’t just look at dev holdings This is also why I’m not only checking how much of the supply the dev currently holds For a token directly tied to a platform, cash flow can be just as important as token holdings If the ecosystem generates revenue through fees, the team doesn’t necessarily need to sell large amounts of solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE to monetize platform activity So what I want to track is : Fees generated => wallet receiving the fees => what those assets are converted into => where the funds eventually go That gives me much more context than simply looking at holder distribution 7. What about the chart? solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE’s price action is obviously strong The token ran from below $1M to nearly $10M market cap, and despite the volatility afterward, it has managed to hold a significant part of that expansion, trading around the $7–8M range on the chart I’m watching That shows the narrative has attracted attention very quickly But the risk/reward is also completely different from when the token was below $1M At the current valuation, the market is already pricing in quite a few expectations : Hooked continues attracting users More tokens continue launching Volume continues growing The flywheel keeps buying back solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE And eventually, the platform produces runners large enough to keep the ecosystem active So I no longer consider solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE an early discovery at these levels From here, execution starts to matter more than narrative 8. The thesis from here is pretty simple The bull case for solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE is easy to understand Hooked has real technical differentiation through Token-2022 Transfer Hooks Platform activity generates fees Those fees create market buys for solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE The purchased tokens are burned If Hooked starts producing successful launches, the loop could become : Better launches => More users => More volume => More fees => More solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE buybacks => More attention => More launches But the other side is just as clear If most tokens launched on Hooked die quickly, the initial hype fades, and no real runners emerge, fee generation will decline Buybacks decline Burns decline And one of the most important parts of the solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE thesis becomes weaker On top of that, there are still questions around the creator wallet and transparency of the pool fee flows 9. What am I watching next? I don’t need Hooked to announce another twenty new rules to become more bullish I want to see real usage A few tokens graduating and surviving afterward Volume remaining active after the initial hype Fee revenue continuing to come in Buybacks and burns continuing even as attention cools down And most importantly, I’d like to see a clearer explanation around the creator/dev wallet and the pool fee flows If these things start happening together, the solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE thesis becomes significantly stronger At that point, the story is no longer simply a new token with a Transfer Hook narrative It becomes a launchpad with real activity, where ecosystem volume directly creates buy pressure and reduces the supply of its native token For now, I’m keeping a neutral view The technology is real. The flywheel is already running. The price action is strong But Hooked is still too new to prove sustainable demand, and wallet flows are still something I want more transparency on before having stronger conviction Instead of FOMOing the chart or FUDing the project just because the team is claiming fees, I’d rather keep watching product adoption, fee generation, and on-chain flows and let the data speak for itself C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE

2026.10.01 23:57

And next up is solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE, a name that has been getting quite a lot of attention after running from below $1M to nearly $10M market cap Instead of just looking at the chart, I dug deeper into the product, flywheel, and especially the creator/dev wallet to see what is actually behind this move Let’s break it down 1. What is Hooked actually building? What caught my attention is that Hooked isn’t simply another launchpad on Solana Hooked is built around Token-2022 Transfer Hooks, allowing creators to embed certain rules directly into the token’s transfer process For example : > Anti-bundle > Anti-dump > Max wallet > Holder vesting > Allowlist > DEX-only > Market hours > FOMO-only buys > Sniper fee cap Whenever a token is transferred or swapped, the hook program checks the transaction. If it violates the configured rule, the transaction can be rejected directly on-chain Simply put, instead of relying entirely on a frontend, bots, or separate infrastructure for protection, Hooked moves part of that logic to the on-chain level That’s what I find interesting about the product 2. A few things you need to understand Transfer Hooks don’t necessarily stay forever If a creator chooses a Graduating Curve, once the token reaches graduation, the transfer hook can be removed during migration. After that, the token trades more like a normal token and the previous restrictions may no longer be enforced With a Permanent Curve, the hook remains active So features like anti-dump, max wallet, or anti-bundle are not automatically permanent for every token launched through Hooked Another thing worth noting is that the hook program can still be upgraded by Hooked’s deploy authority to fix bugs or update the program The rules are enforced on-chain and don’t simply depend on the frontend, but there is still a certain level of trust involved with the team and program authority There is also one important distinction around fees When Hooked says “fees do not go to the creator,” that refers to protocol fees generated by tokens launched through the platform. It doesn’t necessarily mean the team cannot receive other types of fees related to the solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE pool itself So it’s important to separate protocol flywheel fees from solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE pool fees before looking at creator wallet activity 3. The flywheel is where solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE gets interesting The technology creates the narrative, but the flywheel is what connects platform activity directly back to solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE According to the mechanism, every trade on a Hooked bonding curve pays a 1% protocol fee Of that : 85% is used to market buy solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE and burn it 15% goes toward development The flywheel is pretty straightforward : More launches => More volume => More fees => More solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE buybacks => More burn If the platform actually scales, activity on Hooked creates direct demand for solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE instead of the token relying purely on speculation More importantly, this mechanism is already operating on-chain, not just sitting on a roadmap At the time I checked, the dashboard had recorded roughly 25.7M solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE burned, with around 865 SOL used for buybacks So at the very least, the flywheel has already started working in practice But I still think it’s too early to extrapolate a few days of activity into a long-term trend What matters more is whether volume, fee revenue, and the pace of buybacks can remain sustainable once the initial hype cools down 4. Hooked still needs a real runner The number of tokens launching on the platform is growing quickly, but quantity isn’t the metric I care about most A launchpad can create hundreds of tokens, but if most of them stall at a few thousand dollars in market cap, the ecosystem still won’t generate sustainable volume What I want to see is : Token graduates => maintains liquidity => retains holders => continues generating volume Right now, most of the launches I’ve seen are still relatively small, and there hasn’t been a major runner yet that truly proves the model If Hooked starts producing a few real runners, the thesis becomes much stronger At that point, the flywheel would no longer be fueled purely by speculative volume from newly launched tokens It would start being supported by real ecosystem activity That’s the catalyst I care about most 5. Creator/dev wallet This is where things get more interesting when looking deeper on-chain The wallet associated with the creator/dev side : Dpmutmc4ZLqvJwHbwabvKYeFJ9zkQ86nutUAUviRrXG2 This wallet has been claiming fees from the solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE pool, with part of the SOL later being swapped into USDC At the time I checked, the wallet was still holding around 110K USDC, while fee claims continued to appear A public compilation of on-chain transactions covering September 28 to October 1 recorded roughly 2,080 SOL in pool fees claimed, with around 1,970 SOL swapped into USDC and approximately 160.8K USDC later flowing into Privacy Cash Some of the larger transactions cited include roughly 652 SOL claimed, 955 SOL swapped, and 103.2K USDC deposited I still treat the aggregate figures above as reference data from a public on-chain compilation, since I haven’t reconciled every individual transaction myself What can be seen directly on-chain, however, is that the wallet has been claiming fees, converting part of them into USDC, and holding a significant amount of stablecoins The fact that the team is claiming pool fees doesn’t automatically mean they are dumping or that something is wrong with the project As mentioned earlier, solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE pool fees and the 1% protocol fee feeding the flywheel need to be treated separately, because they are not necessarily the same flow of funds What interests me more is where the money goes after being claimed If the USDC flow into Privacy Cash is fully confirmed, tracking the final destination of those funds becomes much more difficult That doesn’t prove the team is doing anything malicious, but it clearly reduces transparency from a holder’s perspective So I’d like to see the team provide more clarity around where these pool fees come from, how they are allocated, and the purpose of funds moving through Privacy Cash Until then, this remains one of the main risks I’ll continue monitoring with solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE 6. Don’t just look at dev holdings This is also why I’m not only checking how much of the supply the dev currently holds For a token directly tied to a platform, cash flow can be just as important as token holdings If the ecosystem generates revenue through fees, the team doesn’t necessarily need to sell large amounts of solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE to monetize platform activity So what I want to track is : Fees generated => wallet receiving the fees => what those assets are converted into => where the funds eventually go That gives me much more context than simply looking at holder distribution 7. What about the chart? solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE’s price action is obviously strong The token ran from below $1M to nearly $10M market cap, and despite the volatility afterward, it has managed to hold a significant part of that expansion, trading around the $7–8M range on the chart I’m watching That shows the narrative has attracted attention very quickly But the risk/reward is also completely different from when the token was below $1M At the current valuation, the market is already pricing in quite a few expectations : Hooked continues attracting users More tokens continue launching Volume continues growing The flywheel keeps buying back solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE And eventually, the platform produces runners large enough to keep the ecosystem active So I no longer consider solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE an early discovery at these levels From here, execution starts to matter more than narrative 8. The thesis from here is pretty simple The bull case for solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE is easy to understand Hooked has real technical differentiation through Token-2022 Transfer Hooks Platform activity generates fees Those fees create market buys for solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE The purchased tokens are burned If Hooked starts producing successful launches, the loop could become : Better launches => More users => More volume => More fees => More solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE buybacks => More attention => More launches But the other side is just as clear If most tokens launched on Hooked die quickly, the initial hype fades, and no real runners emerge, fee generation will decline Buybacks decline Burns decline And one of the most important parts of the solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE thesis becomes weaker On top of that, there are still questions around the creator wallet and transparency of the pool fee flows 9. What am I watching next? I don’t need Hooked to announce another twenty new rules to become more bullish I want to see real usage A few tokens graduating and surviving afterward Volume remaining active after the initial hype Fee revenue continuing to come in Buybacks and burns continuing even as attention cools down And most importantly, I’d like to see a clearer explanation around the creator/dev wallet and the pool fee flows If these things start happening together, the solana:C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE thesis becomes significantly stronger At that point, the story is no longer simply a new token with a Transfer Hook narrative It becomes a launchpad with real activity, where ecosystem volume directly creates buy pressure and reduces the supply of its native token For now, I’m keeping a neutral view The technology is real. The flywheel is already running. The price action is strong But Hooked is still too new to prove sustainable demand, and wallet flows are still something I want more transparency on before having stronger conviction Instead of FOMOing the chart or FUDing the project just because the team is claiming fees, I’d rather keep watching product adoption, fee generation, and on-chain flows and let the data speak for itself C1mBfBoDkwWfd6uTFZp62ARHLjeVp3bDpCDMfMZtPngE

Stitch@stitchdegen

2026.10.01 15:00

Continuing today’s memecoin recap series The first one I want to talk about is $JANE This is obviously a pretty sensitive narrative, so I want to make one thing clear from the start: the celebrities, large accounts, and media outlets talking about “I Am Jane Doe” are discussing the actual case behind it, not endorsing the $JANE memecoin But from a memecoin perspective, the thesis here is actually pretty simple : $JANE is trading attention 1. The narrative behind $JANE $JANE is riding the “I Am Jane Doe” story surrounding the Cornell case, which has been getting a lot of attention across social media The more information that comes out, the more people discuss the case, and the further the “I Am Jane Doe” narrative spreads, the larger the attention pool becomes And for memecoins, sometimes that’s all you need The flow I’m watching is pretty straightforward : Real-world story => Social attention => More people talking about Jane Doe => Memecoin speculation $JANE doesn’t have some complicated product or utility that I’m trying to value here This is simply a pure attention play 2. What makes $JANE a little different Normally, I’m pretty cautious with memecoins that build their narrative around sensitive real-world stories But there’s one thing about $JANE that makes it stand out from the usual copycats The creator rewards are being directed to the Rape Recovery Center According to the information displayed on the coin’s page, around 266 SOL, roughly $31K, has already been donated to the organization That matters to my thesis If attention keeps growing and brings more trading activity, creator rewards could continue increasing, which could also mean more funds being directed toward the charity Of course, I’m not saying buying $JANE = directly donating to charity. This is still a memecoin and it’s still extremely speculative But at least part of the attention and trading activity surrounding the token is being converted into real donations rather than the entire story simply being used to farm liquidity 3. The early numbers are pretty strong $JANE only recently launched, but the initial expansion has been pretty aggressive When I checked : MC : around $1.7M-$1.9M ATH : close to $2M Volume : $4M+ Holders : 6K+ The chart from the bonding curve also looks relatively clean so far Instead of one straight pump followed by an immediate dump, we’ve seen periods of consolidation after the expansions, buyers stepping back in, and the overall structure continuing to hold That’s what I want to see from a newly launched attention play But there’s one thing you definitely shouldn’t ignore : Liquidity is only around $66K-$68K That’s still very thin compared with a market cap approaching $2M A few large wallets exiting could change the chart very quickly, so don’t look at the market cap and assume $JANE is already some relatively safe mid-cap play This is still high-risk memecoin territory 4. The biggest catalyst is still attention This is probably the most interesting part for me The story behind the narrative is still getting attention, and I think there’s a real possibility that more public figures, celebrities, or large accounts could speak about the issue itself, bringing another wave of attention to the broader narrative If that happens, the flow is simple : More big names talking about the case => More mainstream/social attention => More searches around Jane Doe => More speculative attention potentially flowing into $JANE But again : A celebrity talking about Jane Doe does NOT mean they endorse $JANE Those are two completely different things The token is simply trying to capture the downstream attention coming from a real-world story What matters to me is whether this specific $JANE contract continues to be where that liquidity and mindshare concentrate Because if the narrative gets hot but 20 different copycats appear and split the liquidity, all that external attention might not translate into a stronger chart for $JANE 5. What I’m watching next With $JANE, I’m not really waiting for some roadmap or major team announcement I’m mainly watching three things : Attention, volume, and holders If the story continues spreading, bigger accounts start discussing it, $JANE keeps its volume, and the holder count continues growing, then the thesis remains alive for me The creator rewards mechanism also becomes more interesting if trading activity keeps increasing, because that could potentially mean more rewards being directed toward charity On the other hand, if social media is still talking about Jane Doe but token volume starts drying up, holder growth stalls, and liquidity starts moving into copycats, I’ll become much more cautious For this type of play, attention needs to convert into actual on-chain activity 6. My chart and trading plan After the run from low cap to nearly $2M, I don’t really want to chase $JANE around the current area If it keeps running without me, that’s fine. I don’t need to catch every move The dip zone I’m watching is around $1M-$1.2M MC That’s where the risk/reward starts becoming more interesting to me If $JANE comes back into the $1M-$1.2M area while the narrative is still hot, volume remains healthy, and buyers start defending the structure, I may consider taking a small position I also have a pretty clear invalidation : If it drops below $600K MC, I’m probably moving on For a pure attention play, if the market cap retraces that deeply and the initial momentum basically disappears, I don’t want to keep trying to catch the bottom just because the real-world story is still trending Attention on X doesn’t automatically mean liquidity will return On the other hand, if we don’t get the dip and $JANE cleanly breaks its $2M ATH with strong volume, continued holder growth, and mindshare still concentrated around this contract, I’ll watch the price discovery rather than FOMO into the candle My plan is pretty simple : Dip zone : $1M-$1.2M MC Invalidation : below $600K MC Break $2M + strong volume/holder growth: watch the price discovery 7. Final thesis I’m not looking at $JANE as some fundamentally strong project that I want to hold for months This is an attention trade But right now, the attention is real, the token has managed to capture part of that flow, and the early numbers are strong enough for me to keep watching it The part I like most is that creator rewards are being directed toward the Rape Recovery Center, with around 266 SOL (~$31K) already donated according to the coin page If the narrative keeps spreading and more big names speak about the broader issue, attention could continue growing. If that attention converts into $JANE volume, the creator rewards could potentially generate even more funds for the charity But ultimately, I’ll let the market tell me what to do Attention stays, volume stays, holders keep growing => thesis stays alive Attention is there but the money leaves => I move on I’m not marrying a coin like this Waiting for $1M-$1.2M for a better setup Below $600K and I’m out 9pJWJdpPebyANys45eetpemLJo8yTz4n5B9zbpYw9ZMr