Solana meme coin launches: how false trust ends in a rug pull

I read Waldo Gutiérrez's Solana meme coin tutorial as a warning about manufactured trust. A new token can look credible because it displays a wealthy wallet's address, even when someone else controls the launch. In this example, buyers enter the market before the launcher withdraws its liquidity, completing what the creator calls a rug pull.

What this Solana meme coin launch depends on

The launch uses a token-creation service called LUNA. Its visible creator information contains the address of another wallet with a substantial SOL balance, while a separate recipient wallet receives the tokens. SOL is Solana's native asset.

In the creator's account, LUNA changes the developer information in the token's metadata but leaves the actual owner unchanged. They claim this creates no rug-pull risk for the owner and attracts attention without paid promotion because traders and automated buying programs monitor new listings and creator-wallet information. Those claims concern the launcher's control and ability to attract buyers, not protection for people buying the token.

I would not treat an address in metadata, the descriptive information attached to a token, as proof of ownership or endorsement. The address owner's involvement and any commitment to provide funds need their own evidence. Here, the choice of someone else's funded wallet is intended to encourage buyers to expect support that the launcher has not secured.

A familiar name is easy to copy

The creation form makes it easy to give a new asset a recognizable appearance. Its name, ticker and image identify it on a trading screen, but anyone reading the listing still needs to distinguish presentation from affiliation.

The mismatch between FROG and BTC catches my attention. A familiar ticker is weak evidence of identity; the token address is the more useful identifier when names or symbols overlap. The appearance used for this launch was copied from a token already trading on DEX Screener. A recognizable image does not establish a connection to that asset.

The description calls the token a fast, decentralized, community-driven cryptocurrency built for trading and growth. These are promotional assertions entered into a text field, not properties that the description proves. A polished listing can conceal unanswered questions about control and demand beyond speculation.

Decimals determine how finely a balance can be divided, not its economic value. Supply measures units rather than valuation. In the creator's explanation, total supply matters less to this method than appearance, initial liquidity and incoming buyers.

The funded-wallet story encourages speculation

The intended buying signal combines a small liquidity pool with a displayed creator wallet holding substantial SOL. The creator expects traders to interpret this as an early buying opportunity before the supposed developer adds more money.

A Telegram channel called Solana New Token Bot displays listings with Creator Info, a SOL balance and a flag such as Dev Wallet Has Enough Money. That flag reduces an ownership question to a quick visual cue. The optional Creator's Info section carries a +0.1 SOL fee and accepts a selected address and creator name; paying for the field does not verify its contents.

I would read the flag as information about the displayed wallet, not a promise that its owner will support the token. Even an accurate balance says nothing about the owner's intentions. In this launch, the address belongs to another wallet altogether.

The creator cites an earlier token that allegedly traded at a low price for about 20 minutes before rising sharply. Their explanation uses that example to encourage speculation that a wealthy developer will later fund the pool and drive the price higher. That expectation assumes both a genuine relationship with the wallet and a future decision to commit its funds. Neither follows from the displayed address.

Liquidity makes trading possible, and removable

The pool pairs the new token with SOL. Buyers exchange SOL for tokens, while sellers generally need assets on the other side of the pool to exchange their tokens back. That is why control of the pool matters to anyone considering the market, not just the person creating it.

The initial contribution is 3 SOL. The creator says 1 SOL can also work and claims that around 3 SOL has produced their best results. They recommend allocating around 90% of the supply to liquidity, giving 900 million tokens from a 1 billion supply as the example. The selected fee is 2%. These are the creator's launch choices and assessments, not evidence of a safe market or a reliable launch size.

I put more weight on withdrawal rights than on the percentage of supply assigned to a pool. Here, the stated plan is to withdraw liquidity after traders begin buying. The pool can support trading during the launch and still leave buyers exposed when its controller removes the assets.

The creator explains DEX Screener's liquidity figure as roughly double the SOL contribution because it includes the token side at its assigned price. The quoted value of both sides is not the same as the amount of an outside asset available to sellers. Tokens valued within that market are not an extra reserve of SOL outside it.

Small pools also expose traders to price movement from individual trades. The execution price can differ from the expected quote, a risk called slippage. A rising chart does not establish that a holder could sell their whole balance near the displayed price.

Liquidity providers can withdraw positions for legitimate reasons. What distinguishes this case is the misleading creator information used to attract buyers before the planned withdrawal. The creator describes the completed removal as a rug pull, rather than routine pool management.

Revoked permissions do not settle pool control

The form's Revoke Authorities (Investor's Booster) section presents three checked options as a confidence measure: Revoke Freeze, Revoke Mint and Revoke Update. Each carries a +0.1 SOL charge.

These permissions govern different powers. Mint authority allows additional token units to be created, while freeze authority allows token accounts to be frozen. Update authority concerns changes to metadata. Revoking them can limit the issuer's control over the token, but none of those settings establishes that the liquidity position is locked.

I would examine those permissions separately from pool ownership. A launch can restrict token issuance and metadata changes while leaving its pool owner free to withdraw the assets traders need.

The launch confirmation shows 3.4 SOL, comprising 0.4 SOL in fees and 3 SOL of initial liquidity. Payment is made through Phantom. The fee is a service cost; the liquidity contribution enters a position with its own ownership and withdrawal conditions. Combining them into one payment does not make them the same kind of expense.

The creator says a smart contract handles the eventual removal without a manual transaction signature at that stage. A smart contract executes actions under its coded rules; automation alone says nothing about whether those rules protect traders or permit withdrawal. The video does not establish custody arrangements or full withdrawal conditions.

For wallet safety, check the site address before connecting and read the permissions requested by a transaction. Keep recovery phrases and private keys private. A familiar wallet interface does not validate the service asking for access or payment.

Trading activity is not proof of committed demand

The token appears on DEX Screener and buying begins. The creator claims LUNA launches appear almost instantly on major tracking platforms, including DEX Screener and Axiom. Tracking-site inclusion makes a market easier to find, but does not endorse its token or developer.

The creator attributes much of the buying to sniper bots, automated programs seeking opportunities around new launches, and describes purchases reaching up to 5 SOL in a single transaction. A trade feed records activity; it cannot establish every buyer's identity, motive or intention to remain involved.

I would not mistake a busy feed for a lasting community. Automated programs can generate transactions by responding to launch signals, and other buyers may read those purchases as confidence in the asset. A price chart answers questions about trades and quoted prices, not whether the apparent developer identity is genuine.

The creator also warns that these approaches can perform strongly in bullish phases but usually lose effectiveness as participants recognize the pattern. They explicitly reject treating the method as a reliable or repeatable source of profit. A strategy that depends on buyers misunderstanding a signal can stop working when they learn to recognize it; a profitable withdrawal for the launcher also says nothing about the outcome for holders left behind.

The withdrawal figures need careful reading

The full liquidity position is selected for removal, and the creator describes the token afterward as fully rugged. Trading activity has preceded the withdrawal of the assets supporting the market, as planned at launch.

I would keep the spoken estimate separate from the withdrawal screen. They report different SOL amounts, and the larger spoken figure is not a verified result.

BTC in the modal refers to the newly created token's ticker, not Bitcoin. This is where relying on a familiar symbol can produce a concrete accounting error.

The later wallet display rises from $520.21 to $2,966.26 and lists 19.56536 SOL valued at $2,066.39. These are screen values, not audited launch profit. A whole-wallet balance includes more than the proceeds of a particular liquidity position.

I would not subtract the displayed wallet totals and call the difference profit. That calculation needs the position's contributions and withdrawals, fees, and any other assets or transfers separated from the launch. The balance increase supports only an observation about the displayed wallet.

The platform history lists earlier launches with positive Total Profit figures, and the creator says all their displayed tokens are profitable. The service's presentation supports that claim, but is not independent verification of a repeatable trading strategy.

For buyers, the relevant outcome is the loss of assets they expected to trade against. Their tokens can remain in a wallet after the pool that supplied a quoted price loses its liquidity.

Inspect the evidence in launch order

I would use this launch as a read-only checklist, not a recipe for reproducing its deception. The order matters: inspect identity and ownership before allowing an active chart to shape your view of everything else.

1. Inspect the Token Name and Token Symbol fields in Create Token. Treat the image and description as presentation, not proof of affiliation.
2. Examine Creator's Info (Optional). Verify the relationship between the displayed address and the launch instead of assuming its balance belongs to the developer.
3. Review the liquidity pool section. Distinguish the SOL contribution from the token contribution and establish who controls the position.
4. Read the Revoke Authorities (Investor's Booster) selections. Assess each permission separately from the right to withdraw liquidity.
5. Inspect the Launch Token confirmation. Separate the quoted service charges from the initial liquidity contribution without approving an unfamiliar payment.
6. Verify the token address on Solscan. Use the address to identify the asset rather than relying on its ticker.
7. Inspect the matching token on DEX Screener. Read activity as evidence of trades, not evidence of developer identity or future support.
8. Examine the position's withdrawal rights in the liquidity pool section. Establish whether the controller can remove the assets that make selling possible.

The checklist follows the information available through the launch, from editable identity fields to the resulting market. It keeps each check tied to a specific question rather than treating a reassuring field as approval of the whole token.

The question I would leave open is whether anyone has verifiably committed the displayed wallet's money to the pool. If the launch depends on funding supposedly arriving later, its current controller may still be able to withdraw the liquidity before that happens.