Andrew Tate’s Token Surpasses MOTHER, Faces Insider Trading Allegations

by

As an analyst with a background in financial markets and cryptocurrencies, I find the recent developments surrounding Daddy Tate’s (DADDY) meme coin and Iggy Azalea’s Mother Iggy (MOTHER) token quite intriguing. While DADDY has experienced remarkable growth, surpassing MOTHER in market capitalization despite allegations of insider trading, it is essential to examine the underlying facts objectively.

Andrew Tate’s promoted cryptocurrency token, Daddy (DADDY), on the Solana blockchain, has outpaced Iggy Azalea’s coin launch in market value, reaching $300 million, despite trading accusations of insider dealing. Currently priced at $0.30, Daddy has experienced a remarkable surge of 218% within the past day.

As an analyst, I’ve noticed a significant downturn in the performance of Iggy Azalea’s Mother Iggy (MOTHER) token. The market capitalization, which peaked at $267.58 million on June 6, has now dropped to approximately $153 million. Similarly, the token’s price, which reached a high of $0.27 on that same date, has fallen to around $0.15.

At first, Andrew Tate expressed hesitance over creating his own cryptocurrency. Yet, as meme coins gained massive popularity, he saw an opportunity to capitalize on this trend. The key to his achievement lies in an aggressive marketing strategy, even without significant support behind it.

However, DADDY’s rise has not been without controversy.

Tate’s Token Insider Activity Claims

As a crypto investor, I’ve come across an intriguing discovery made by Bubblemaps in their analysis of the DADDY token. Based on their findings, I was alarmed to learn that a small group of wallets acquired approximately 30% of the DADDY supply prior to Andrew Tate publicly promoting it online. This revelation has raised red flags for potential insider trading activities.

On June 9th, two wallets, each funded via Binance with similar contributions around the same time, acquired approximately 20% of the DADDY token prior to the initial promotional tweet from Daddy Tate’s CTO. Currently, these wallets possess roughly 19% of the entire supply, equivalent to a value of approximately $61 million based on present market prices.

A tweet from Bubblemaps highlighted these insider activities.

1/ We found huge insider activity on $DADDY 🚨

Approximately 30% of the supply was purchased by insiders prior to Andrew Tate’s promotion on X. Their current holdings amount to over $45 million.

A thread 🧵 ↓

— Bubblemaps (@bubblemaps) June 12, 2024

As a crypto investor, I’ve come across some intriguing information regarding Andrew Tate and the DADDY token. It was disclosed that on June 9, I personally received a substantial allocation of 40% of the total DADDY token supply from DaddyTateCTO. Although I had purchased and incinerated $10,000 worth of tokens, I have yet to burn the 40% share I own. This implies that at any given moment, I could decide to sell a considerable portion, which would potentially cause a significant shift in the token’s value. Currently, this unrealized 40% holding is valued at approximately $122 million.

As a researcher examining the Daddy Tate (DADDY) memecoin market, I’ve discovered that two distinct groups of wallets, interconnected via the wallet address 4SfQWh, collectively control approximately 10% of the total supply. The value of this portion currently stands at around $30 million based on current market prices. These clusters had made their purchases prior to Tate’s initial promotional tweet about the token. Despite these allegations of insider trading activity, Daddy Tate continues to garner significant attention due to its aggressive marketing campaign and the influence wielded by Tate within the memecoin community.

Last month, Bublemaps disclosed that approximately 20% of the MOTHER token’s supply was bought by insiders prior to Iggy Azalea’s first promotional post. Previously, Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin voiced concern over celebrities launching their own cryptocurrencies, as these initiatives have a tendency to lack transparency and potentially deceive investors.

Read More

2024-06-13 11:45