reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker gained some notoriety for questioning whether the cryptocurrency space, at a half-trillion-dollar valuation, deserved it based on its actual accomplishments versus its promises. The speaker implies the answer was "not yet," a sentiment seemingly validated soon after. The speaker influenced the Ethereum foundation to sell approximately 70,000 ETH near the peak, which doubled their financial runway. This was characterized as a single beneficial decision with significant impact.

This launch has been disastrous, generating over $1 million in fees while fans were left disappointed. Allegations of insider trading linked to the creator account have surfaced, but the creators deny any wrongdoing. They claim the fees support the project's ongoing operations and cover expenses, including legal fees for establishing a foundation. The project is managed by Hailey Welch, who supposedly owns none of it. The creators argue that their tokenomics are legitimate, despite criticism about the allocation and the potential for insiders to profit at the expense of fans. They insist they are committed to the project's long-term success and reject claims of a rug pull as defamatory.

That this is not a rug pull, that I have 100% control over this supply, that I'm not gonna lock it, that I'm not gonna stake it, that I'm gonna keep my control. And that's why here we are with people panicking, by the way, at a legitimate floor of 50 to $60,000,000 on a meme coin that was launched with a 100% fair stealth launch that nobody knew about until three days later. Do you know what kind of an achievement that is?

I worked as an ICO advisor and legal director for a company, but I've seen others take advantage of the ICO boom for personal gain. It's hard to trust anyone in this environment where making money is as simple as convincing someone that a certain number will increase in the future. Instead of investing in code development, the money went into buying luxury cars. The Lambowocracy didn't contribute anything back to the ecosystem. Personally, I didn't cash out my Ethereum because I didn't think we had done enough work. When the legal status of the token became uncertain, I decided to leave. I remain objective about the technology's prospects because my wealth is tied to the success of my own company, not just the value of cryptocurrencies.

A developer states they promised never to sell and have kept that promise. They claim there are costs to running a website, and they personally pay for boosts on Dexscreener, which cost between $1,200 and $5,000. The speaker claims to have paid for these boosts at least a dozen times. They state these activities, along with paying influencers, have real costs.

I do not work for the government. In 2016, I mentioned that there are people in the government who knew about corruption in Biden's camp. Ballots were watermarked to track them, proving the election was not stolen. Trump and his team strategically allowed mistakes to be made before revealing the truth. This is a planned operation following the principles of Sun Tzu's "The Art of War."

Have you ruled out a pardon for yourself or family members? Yes, I have. What would I pardon myself for? I have no intention of pardoning myself because I didn't do anything wrong. Could you comment on Meta's decision to...

"And from a dev who promised never to sell, which I haven't." "There's a cost to putting a website together." "Who do you think pays for boosts on the Dex screener? That's me." "Those cost anywhere between 1,200 and $5,000." "I did it at least a dozen times." "You know, these things have actual real cost to them." "Along with influencers and from a dev who promised never to sell, which I have."

That this is not a rug pull, that I have 100% control over this supply, that I'm not gonna lock it, that I'm not gonna stake it, that I'm gonna keep my control. And that's why here we are with people panicking, by the way, at a legitimate floor of 50 to $60,000,000 on a meme coin that was launched with a 100% fair stealth launch that nobody knew about until three days later. Do you know what kind of an achievement that is?

On February 13th, Senator Richard Burr sold off $1,650,000 in stocks and then called his brother-in-law, who, after a brief conversation, sold $265,000 of his own portfolio. This timing raised suspicions, but I know the brother-in-law and find it hard to believe he would do that, but I also understand how everyone in Washington knows everyone. Around that time, headlines might have prompted anyone to sell. The real issue is the initial call from Burr. Afterward, Burr allegedly had private conversations with donors who then also sold off their assets before the market crashed in early March, saving themselves millions. Unusual Whales exposed this, leading to SEC and DOJ investigations, but despite finding information, no charges were filed. Burr retired, fitting the familiar pattern of politicians benefiting from their positions without facing consequences.

And from a dev who promised never to sell, which I haven't. There's a cost to putting a website together. Who do you think pays for boosts on the Dex screener? That's me. Those cost anywhere between 1,200 and $5,000. I did it at least a dozen times. You know, these things have actual real cost to them. Along with influencers and from a dev who promised never to sell, which I have.

$5,400,000 are currently in the dev wallet. The speaker will transfer $50,000, which is less than 1%, to another wallet. The speaker is forecasting this transfer in advance.

Nobody had advanced knowledge of the launch. I mean, that's what insider trading is. Nobody, absolutely nobody besides myself and Andrew, knew that J Proof was even a thing until after the launch, thereby negating any claims of insider wallets. Anybody can buy these things immediately when they hit the blockchain.

Discussion centers on a claim that "these are the wallets that bought J Approved before Stu announced it on Telegram on April 0 04/12/2025 at 04:48 UTC." The speaker adds "Andrew buys, and the market may have maker buys twenty minutes after that." Stu says he announced after launch; others discuss timing. "Any purchases that were made on April 11 would have been people that saw this thing on the deck screener or other people that I had called and told." "I launched it and then people started buying." "No. Negative. Nope. Not at all." "They didn't buy the day before." "I launched it and then people that were I have no idea who they are. Immediately, people started buying." AK: "the wallets that we're referring to are those that interact with other wallets with the team." "If they interacted with the team wallet, not the burn, but with the team wallet, then yeah. Then that's a problem." "I don't do shitcoins."

A developer states they promised never to sell and have kept that promise. They claim there are costs to running a website, and they personally pay for boosts on Dexscreener, which cost between $1,200 and $5,000. The speaker states they have paid for these boosts at least a dozen times. They also mention the real costs associated with influencers.

I woke up yesterday and saw that Bruce Reinhart signed off on the warrant to search Trump's Mar-a-Lago. I host two podcasts on Jeffrey Epstein and remembered Reinhart was one of Epstein's lawyers. He previously worked for the Southern District of Florida, which prosecuted Epstein for the sex crime case in 2008. The victims felt like a huge injustice occurred with Epstein's sweetheart deal. They named Reinhart in their suit because they felt it was unfair that Epstein hired civil servants to represent him. There's no proof that Reinhart used inside Justice Department information, but he did switch to the other team. I am not saying there is a connection between Epstein and the raid, but Reinhart does have a history with Epstein.

It's not just one thing that indicates if the volume is good at a certain point; it's intuition. It's a combination of socials, volume, holders, how many people have left, who's selling, and who's showing it. Wait, is this for real? Let me double-check... President of Europe... but this is old, from last week. Oh, no way! He just launched his stuff? How is this even possible? No, no, no, no, no!

The speaker is asked about the question of whether Vitalik was wrong in allocating millions of ether to early contributors. The speaker explains that they cannot answer the question due to ongoing administrative matters that they are currently addressing. They mention that they believe the list should have been made public and transparent, but they were overruled. They clarify that none of the ether has been taken out from the Ethereum presale and it's more about transparent governance. The speaker acknowledges the importance of transparency and believes in complete openness.

It's not insider trading unless trading on personal information. Market manipulation is the concern, like promoting a stock. The distinction is unclear. Discuss the tweet's impact on markets and investing. Join the program to explain your actions.

Speaker explains that "the space ... wasn't held correctly" and admits, "I screwed up because I should have agreed to get our teams up immediately," opting to "let him have his day in court" and remain neutral. He says, "They know all these coins are Ponzi schemes" and notes that "Stu always had an answer immediately." He calls it "the kill shot" and presents a "cash out wallet, AGBZ. 8GBZB" where "three people on the team [are] cashing out to this wallet." He claims "Here's Stu Peters from the main wallet that he would never sell a penny goes to the side wallet here, AGZB," and identifies "the donation wallet" as "JCJE" while saying "donation wallet" again. He reports "$77,249.76 withdrawn" and says "drain liquidity from J Proof." He asserts "three different team members are using that wallet" and calls it "irrefutable proof" and ends with "Spread the word."

Do my family and friends know I'm in this business? Yes, they do. You think I'm stealing? How? It's not stealing, it's legal. The tokens are real, people buy them. You say the tokens are worth nothing? No, they're worth something. You can still sell. People investing don't know their money will disappear? It's a gamble and they lost. It's a legal way of making money, a legal way of stealing. We wear masks because I'm recognizable. I'm connected with celebrities. It would put a stop to my lifestyle. Do I feel bad about people losing money, like their retirement? I'm just trying to get it. So, no, I don't care.

How do I know if the volume is good enough to route? Honestly, it's intuition. It's a combination of socials, volume, holders, how many people have left, who's selling, and who's showing it. Am I missing anything? This can't be real, let me double check... President of Europe? Wait, this is from an old week though. Oh shit, no way. You just launched this? Wait, wait, wait... Profit! Alright, well, it's right in the stream. We're out! Peace out.

The exchange centers on how the dev wallet supply was acquired. "The dev wallet. The dev wallet's initial acquisition of the supply." There were "combined purchases" that were "over 6,000" and ended up "close to 30,000. 25, 28, 30,000." The purchases required "multiple transfers into the dev wallet" because "my bank account only allows me to like send $5,000 at a time" and "Jewish restrictions are on that." The first three days show "only $6,000 in transactions." "He only put 14,000 initially from his from his Coinbase, and he claimed a 150,000 he's in." "I did it immediately. I did it immediately. I locked up the supply immediately." On evidence, "Have you got evidence that you put in $3,540,000 either via source scan or something else?" and "Where's the evidence that you..."

"that's not enough supply to lock it, so I had to go back and buy more." "There should be your Coinbase going into your dev wallet." "Where's that evidence?" "I'd like to see the evidence that you're in a $150,000, my friend." "I'm into this project for a collective 100 and some odd thousand dollars." "Between buying out of my own pocket, all of the boosts, all of the Dex ads, all of the website stuff." "But I made the dev buy immediately before and after it insta bonded." "So the first buy bonded it, and the second buy was right after it bonded." "I needed another buy to get the 85% that I needed, and that we wanted for the control structure to set all of this up."

When we snipe a coin we launched, it's usually to prevent other snipers from getting in. I don't personally conduct snipes, but the money used is the project's, aimed at deterring others and maintaining the project's viability. For example, Trump coin had enough volume that the snipes didn't matter, but when projects don't have enough volume to deter snipers the project can die quickly. So sniping becomes necessary to protect the project. This is a common conversation in Solana. I think this happens in all meme coins. The public isn't really aware of these behind-the-scenes activities, where projects manipulate their own prices to keep them stable. This is just me being super transparent, maybe it's oversharing.