back
No finding either wayWe watched this launch. It matches none of the patterns we record, and it does not meet every criterion for a record with no markers. Neither endorsed nor accused.
A record of what this launch was at birth, read from the Solana chain. The transaction it was decoded from is cited below: every figure here can be checked against the chain without trusting us. Not a prediction and not advice.
noteThe creator sold while we were watching.
noteOnly 1.1 SOL of liquidity was in the pool just now.
At launch
| Created | 2026-10-02 15:54 UTC |
| Creator | 95dPu9ivdHKZykJKHW1zFGesJG6yoA19VKHNU5Tznsik |
| Creator took | 2.4% of supply in the first block |
| Outside buyers | 291 distinct wallets, not counting the creator, bought on the bonding curve: 147 within the first 30s, 21 bundled into the creation block. |
| Graduated | 1 min after launch |
| Curve, read on chain | Complete. We read the bonding curve account 4.1 h ago and it was finished. Checked 2026-10-02 16:01 UTC. |
| Creator sold | yes |
| Recorded from | 3Pq2qDW9KMdsw1PkWtLoi8… slot 452,656,613
The transaction this record was decoded from. Every figure above is in it. Fetch it and check us. |
Order of events
| Created | 2026-10-02 15:54:50 UTC Slot 452,656,613, which is the chain's own clock for this moment. |
| Creation block | 21 wallets bought in the block the token was created in, before anyone outside could have seen it exist. |
| Thirty seconds in | 147 distinct buyers, within the first thirty seconds. A snapshot taken off a tick at the thirty-second mark, so
it carries no moment of its own; it is placed here because that is where it happened. |
| Curve completed | 2026-10-02 15:55:55 UTC +1m 05s Confirmed against the venue's own completion state. |
| Highest price seen | 2026-10-02 15:55:55 UTC +1m 05s
4.109e-7 SOL per token.
Decoded from an on-chain transaction that executed at that price.
A peak only ratchets, so read it as a floor: it is what we saw, and a spike between observations is not
here. |
Times are receipt times: the moment we decoded the event, not the block's own timestamp. Events that arrived in one batch carry one timestamp, so ordering within a batch is not established, and a second or two here is our latency rather than the chain's.
Seen before
| This picture | On 6 launches from 6 creator wallets, including this one. Identical bytes, matched by sha256: not a similar image, the same one. See them → |
| This ticker | On 46 launches from 22 creator wallets, including this one. See them → |
| This document | Byte-identical to 3 other launches' metadata document. See them → |
| Birth artifacts | Launches by this creator share byte-identical artifacts with launches from 5 other creator wallets, across 3 shared artifacts, each matched by hash. The linkage sits in a component too large for this record to state as one group; the record states that exclusion. See the linked wallets → |
Pool
| Liquidity | 1.1 SOL |
| Read from chain | 2026-10-02 20:07 UTC, just now |
What this launch claimed to be
| Name | we're so back |
| Description | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-CRlTN55K4 |
| Metadata held | sha256 c9261c54570889ec9282c3930e78f0f749a34f7db9b3d4caaffecf466987978c · 436 bytes Read the document, the bytes themselves rather than our reading of them. The hash above is what the record commits to, so anyone can check the two agree. |
| Picture held | sha256 74c5c7873a57af5d5b7859c661e1ec860b488f3cda21e674212dd185b73952af · 17,288 bytes |
Off-chain and mutable. This is what the launch served when we read it at 2026-10-02 15:54 UTC; the creator can change or unpin any of it at any time, and a launch record is the only place it survives.