Here’s how $WOLF rug happened, and how to avoid the next one

Before we dive in, I’d love it if you could hit follow, like and repost!I’ve put a lot of effort into the research, and it would mean so much to have your support in spreading this free knowledge!

The recent saga of the $WOLF token, which quickly rose to prominence only to experience an equally swift downfall, has been a subject of much discussion and analysis.

At the heart of this tale is Hayden Davis, a figure already infamous for his role in the $LIBRA and #MELANIA tokens, both of which ended badly for retail investors.

Despite being on Interpol's Red Notice and Argentina pursuing him for the $LIBRA fraud, Davis managed to launch another token. This time it was $WOLF, a meme coin that quickly gained attention due to rumors of Jordan Belfort launching his own crypto and the subsequent meme coin frenzy that saw opportunists making tokens and linking them to Belfort.

Several $WOLF tokens emerged, with one linked to Davis and another linked to a crypto influencer. The tokens were widely discussed in crypto circles, and they were also promoted by the traders and community on the popular investing platform,wallstreetbets, further boosting the token's profile and leading to a March 8 debut that saw the token's market cap reach $40 million.

However, the excitement was short-lived as $WOLF's price soon began to plummet due to a suspected rug-pull.

On-chain data from Tokenview revealed that the $WOLF operation had enriched insiders, with 82% of the tokens held by 10 wallets out of a total supply of 1 quadrillion, highlighting the level of control that Davis and his associates had over the token.

This pattern aligns closely with Davis's past ventures, such as his involvement in the $HOOD token. In that instance, several wallets related to Davis began accumulating supply of the token shortly after it began trading.

These wallets, which appear to belong to Davis and his associates, were actively buying up the token and placing limit orders to keep the price rising. Once they had amassed a significant amount of supply, they began selling the token and draining liquidity, causing the price to collapse and leaving retail investors holding worthless tokens.

In essence, Davis's tactics of "developer sniping" and "liquidity rug-pulling" appear to have been applied to the $WOLF token, which had no whitepaper or credible team information other than rumors linking it to Belfort and a lack of transparency throughout the entire operation.

The fact that the token was being hyped by Wall Street Bets and Belfort further indicates that it was a quick-profit scheme for its creators rather than a legitimate project with long-term potential.

This lack of transparency and the presence of manipulative activity, such as the insider accumulation and liquidity draining, provide strong evidence that the $WOLF token was a scam designed to defraud retail investors.

It is a stark reminder of the risks involved in investing in meme coins and the importance of conducting due diligence before investing in any token.

The Supreme Court of New York is set to review the case of the $LIBRA scandal following a new class-action lawsuit that accuses the creators of the token of defrauding investors and draining over $100 million from one-sided liquidity pools.

The lawsuit alleges that the creators of $LIBRA, which crashed in April, lied to investors about the token's purpose and technology in order to induce them to invest.

It claims that the creators used hype and misinformation to manipulate the price of the token and that they drained liquidity from the token at the peak of the hype, leaving investors with worthless tokens.

According to the lawsuit, the creators of $LIBRA were aware that the token had no value and that it was not capable of achieving the claims that they made to investors.

They are said to have used this knowledge to deceive investors and defraud them out of their money.

The lawsuit also alleges that the creators of $LIBRA were aided and abetted by several individuals and entities who helped them to carry out their scam.

These individuals and entities are said to have known about the fraudulent nature of the token but chose to assist the creators in defrauding investors.

The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for the investors who were defrauded by the creators of $LIBRA. It also seeks to hold accountable the individuals and entities who helped the creators to carry out their scam.

The case is still in its early stages, but it could have far-reaching implications for the cryptocurrency industry.

If the investors are successful in their lawsuit, it could set a precedent for holding creators of fraudulent tokens liable for their actions.

The case is being watched closely by members of the crypto community, who are interested to see how the court will rule on the claims of fraud and misrepresentation.

The outcome of the case could have a bearing on how similar cases are handled in the future.

Here's a breakdown of the claims made in the lawsuit:

* The creators of $LIBRA made false and misleading statements to investors about the token's purpose, technology, and value.

* The creators of $