Pump.fun: Why Displayed Gains Can Mislead Copy-Trading Enthusiasts

A study by Bitquery reveals a significant gap between the gains displayed on Pump.fun and the actual profits derived from trading. Out of $752.5 million analyzed, only $193.9 million comes from purchases followed by sales. The rest can be explained by token transfers and suspicious operations.

In Brief

• Out of $752.5 million in displayed gains, only $193.9 million corresponds to trading profits, which is 26%.
• 51% of the gains come from the sale of tokens received from other wallets. In 1,104 cases, the transfers trace back to the token creator.
• Fifteen of the 25 largest gains exhibit characteristics of wash trading, including the case of Arena, with $4,223 invested and $4.92 million in sales.

Pump.fun: Displayed Gains That Do Not Reflect Actual Profits

The platform continues to generate revenue, with $18.6 million despite the decline of memecoins. However, the figures displayed by traders do not always tell the whole story. In its survey published on October 22, Bitquery analyzed 3,170 positions over $100,000, closed between October 30, 2025, and August 30, 2026.

The findings are striking: only $193.9 million, or 26% of the total, comes from wallets that bought tokens before reselling them. In contrast, 51% of the displayed gains come from the sale of tokens received from other addresses.

Additionally, about 13% correspond to wash trading loops, where linked wallets exchange tokens among themselves. The remaining 10% do not fall into any of these categories.

Token Transfers Distorting Displayed Gains

This difference is mainly explained by the method of calculating profits. Tracking tools generally subtract recorded purchases from sales. Thus, when a wallet receives tokens for free and then sells them, its history may show a gain without acquisition cost. However, someone may have paid for those tokens upstream.

Bitquery identified 1,579 positions of this type. In 1,104 cases, the transfers trace back to the token creator, either directly or through other wallets.

The example of UOTF illustrates this mechanism: four temporary addresses received nearly eight million tokens each before transferring them to selling wallets as part of a coordinated operation. One of these addresses then sold $1.59 million worth of tokens.

This operation complicates copy-trading. A tool meant to replicate a trader's purchases cannot track a position when it only sees the sale, without knowing the initial entry price.

Copy-Trading: Fees and Data Complicating Replication

Some platforms attempt to signal these situations. GMGN's documentation notably mentions the alerts "Didn't buy" and "Sold > Bought," indicating that a wallet received tokens without purchasing them or that it sold more than it had acquired.

However, these alerts do not guarantee that another user can replicate the displayed yield. GMGN's transaction fees, set at 1% excluding network and priority costs, along with price slippage and execution delays, further reduce potential gains.

Finally, the study has two limitations: Bitquery did not calculate the actual returns of copy-traders and excluded 2,943 six-figure positions closed after August 30. The share of gains actually accessible to followers remains to be determined.