Edel Finance is accused of hiding a 30% supply rush during the token issuance at the beginning of the month.

[Chain News] Recently, the Edel Finance project has caught the attention of the on-chain data analysis platform Bubblemaps, and the situation has escalated quite significantly.

What is this about? At the beginning of the month, when the token was launched, Bubblemaps discovered that someone directly purchased 30% of the token supply—worth 11 million dollars—through about 160 associated wallets. The operations of these wallets were very professional: they first coordinated funding from two platforms, a leading exchange and MEXC, and then completed the purchases through a multi-tiered new wallet structure. Even more outrageous, these operations were completed before trading started, and afterwards, half of the tokens were transferred to 100 secondary accounts related to MEXC.

The technical details are also very solid - the obfuscation strategy used in this batch of wallets is completely consistent, and even the secondary wallet addresses are hardcoded directly in the contract code. It's clear that this was planned in advance to hide. The key point is that Edel has not mentioned this at all in Telegram, Twitter, or any official documents.

The project's co-founder James Sherborne responded, stating that the team originally planned to buy 60% of the tokens, which will later be locked in a vesting contract. However, Bubblemaps is not buying it and directly counters with the tokenomics document: According to the rules, the team can only secure 12.7% of the share by locking ( for the first 6 months of the 36-month vesting plan ).

Bubblemaps' attitude is very clear - if this is really normal operation, why not indicate it in the tokenomics in advance, instead of using such complicated hidden means?

By the way, the Edel Finance project aims to bring traditional stocks on-chain for lending, and the team members are said to come from traditional financial institutions like State Street and JPMorgan. Now that this controversy has arisen, it indeed raises a question mark about the project's transparency.