Robinhood Chain has grown at a very fast pace since its launch, with total value locked, or TVL, now above $1.5 billion. But this rapid rise has also brought a serious problem to the network. Security researchers have found suspected groups that create large numbers of memecoins and use connected wallets to sell tokens and move the proceeds.
The latest case came from blockchain security firm GoPlus. On September 28, the company said it had found a high-risk operation linked to hundreds of memecoins on Robinhood Chain. The related wallets moved more than $9 million in gross flows over the past 30 days through a shared fund-consolidation network.
The word “gross” is important here. The $9 million figure does not mean the group earned $9 million in profit. It also does not mean investors lost $9 million. GoPlus said the number represents the total flow through the wallets. The data does, however, show a repeated pattern that security researchers consider suspicious.
The case has raised fresh questions about how fast-growing blockchain networks can protect users while still keeping an open system where anyone can create tokens.
A Network That Grew to $1.5 Billion
Robinhood Chain is an Ethereum layer-2 network linked to the financial services company Robinhood. The network went live on July 1, 2026.
In less than 90 days, its total value locked passed $1.5 billion, according to data cited by CryptoSlate. That is a very large amount for a new network in such a short period.
TVL refers to the value of assets held in applications on a blockchain. It is often used as one measure of activity and user demand within a network.
The rapid rise has made Robinhood Chain an attractive place for developers, traders and token creators. It has also made the network a target for groups that want to take advantage of new users and high levels of interest.
This is a common problem in crypto. When a new chain gets attention, legitimate projects may arrive at the same time as bad actors. The open nature of blockchain networks makes it possible for many different groups to create tokens and applications without asking the network operator for approval first.
That openness can help a network grow quickly. It can also make it harder for users to tell which projects are genuine and which ones may carry a high level of risk.
GoPlus Finds Hundreds of Suspicious Tokens
GoPlus said the latest operation was linked to hundreds of memecoins.
The group used batches of newly created wallets. These wallets first acquired tokens and later sold them. The proceeds then moved into related wallets, which eventually sent the funds toward a common consolidation network.
The main consolidation wallet had about 3,589 ETH in two-way flows across its latest 400 transactions as of September 28. At the time, that amount was worth about $9.49 million.
Again, this does not mean the wallet held $9.49 million as profit.
The figure refers to money that moved into and out of the wallet. Some of the same funds could have moved more than once. That is why gross flow and net profit are very different measures.
GoPlus said the wallet structure showed a repeatable system. Money from one token launch appeared to help fund another launch. That creates a cycle where funds from one project can support the next project.
How the Wallet System Worked
The suspected operation used many fresh wallets instead of one obvious address.
The operators would create a new token around a popular theme or story. They would then distribute the token supply among wallets with little or no previous transaction history.
Those wallets could later sell their tokens in smaller portions.
This can make the activity look less obvious than a single wallet that owns a huge share of a token and suddenly sells everything.
GoPlus said the group used contracts such as PonsV2Helper and UniversalRouter for token sales. The ETH from those sales then moved through smaller wallets before it reached the wider consolidation group.
The use of many wallets can hide the true level of control behind a token.
A buyer may see dozens of different wallets and assume that many independent people own the token. On-chain links can show a different picture if those wallets all receive funds from the same source or later send their proceeds to the same place.
That is why wallet analysis has become an important tool for crypto security firms.
This Is Not a Classic Rug Pull
GoPlus also made an important distinction.
The activity it found does not exactly match the classic form of a rug pull. In a traditional rug pull, a developer may remove liquidity from a market or use a contract feature that stops buyers from selling their tokens.
The GoPlus case is different.
The concern is more about coordinated ownership and sales. A group can control a large amount of a token through many wallets and then sell those holdings after other buyers enter the market.
This can create a difficult problem for security tools.
A token’s smart contract may work as expected. Buyers may be able to sell. Liquidity may remain available. There may be no obvious malicious code.
The risk may instead sit in the ownership structure.
If one group controls a large share of the supply through connected wallets, it can have a strong ability to affect the token price.
An Earlier Operation Took $18.4 Million
The latest GoPlus report is not the first major warning about memecoin activity on Robinhood Chain.
On September 27, pseudonymous on-chain analyst Wazz reported that one suspected operation had extracted at least $18.43 million from 53 memecoin launches on Robinhood Chain over roughly two months. The period covered July 10 through September 21.
The Block reviewed blockchain data from the launches and confirmed parts of the pattern reported by Wazz.
According to the investigation, many of the launches used Pons V2, a major token launchpad on Robinhood Chain.
Wazz said groups of 70 to 200 wallets bought large amounts of tokens soon after launch. In many cases, the wallet group obtained 70% or more of the token supply.
The structure allowed the wallets to buy tokens before ordinary buyers had much time to react.
The funds from one launch also appeared to help finance another launch.
The Block traced 179.88 ETH from wallets linked to one launch called DRAFT to the wallet that funded another launch called DEED. The transfer took place about 40 minutes before DEED went live.
These links do not prove that every person behind the wallets was the same person. But they show how blockchain records can reveal links between projects that may appear separate on the surface.
A Second Group Raises More Questions
GoPlus said the newer operation shares some features with the earlier case.
Both cases involve many wallets, Pons V2 infrastructure and the movement of money from one token launch toward another. But GoPlus also said there is no evidence that the two groups are operated by the same people.
That detail matters.
The problem may not be limited to one group. Instead, different groups may have found similar ways to use a fast-growing chain and its token launch tools.
The newer operation uses a stronger focus on fresh wallets and later fund consolidation. The earlier group used larger wallet clusters that could control a major share of a token shortly after launch.
Different methods can produce a similar result.
The pattern shows why security researchers look beyond the code of a token contract. Wallet links, funding sources and transaction history can reveal information that a basic contract check may miss.
Robinhood Chain Has Strong User Potential
The scale of Robinhood’s wider business adds another reason why this issue matters.
Robinhood has about 28.6 million funded customers and around $384 billion in assets, according to figures cited by CryptoSlate.
The company can potentially use its existing customer base as a major source of users for products built on Robinhood Chain.
That can help the network grow.
It can also create a larger target for bad actors.
If more retail users enter the chain through a familiar brand, some may assume that every token on the network has passed a safety check. But an open blockchain does not work that way.
A chain can provide the technology without approving every token created on top of it.
This difference is very important for users.
The presence of a well-known company behind a network does not automatically mean that every token, trading pool or application on that network has the same level of oversight.
The Chain Earned About $50 Million
Robinhood Chain has also generated substantial revenue since its launch.
Token Terminal estimates that the network has produced about $50 million in revenue in roughly three months. About $40 million of that revenue came in September, according to the data cited by CryptoSlate.
The figures show that activity on the chain has been strong.
A fast rise in usage can create a positive cycle. More users can bring more developers. More applications can bring more transactions. More transactions can create more fees and attract more users.
But the same cycle can also attract people who want to exploit the market.
Memecoins are especially vulnerable because they can rise or fall very quickly. They often have limited trading history, small early markets and a strong focus on community attention.
That can make it hard for a new buyer to understand the true value of a token.
Why Memecoins Attract Bad Actors
Memecoins can be created with relatively little technical work.
A developer can create a token, choose a name and symbol, add liquidity and promote the project online.
That low barrier can help creative projects appear quickly.
It also makes it easy for dishonest groups to create many tokens.
The problem becomes worse when a group can repeat the same process again and again. A token can attract buyers, the early wallets can sell, and the money can then help fund another token.
This is why GoPlus described the latest activity as a repeatable structure.
The same basic process can work across many launches.
For ordinary buyers, this creates a major challenge. A new token may look different from the previous one even when the same group sits behind both projects.
The $9 Million Figure Needs Careful Reading
The most important number from the latest GoPlus report is more than $9 million in gross flows over 30 days.
That number should not be presented as a $9 million theft.
GoPlus itself said the figure is a measure of gross flows. It does not show net profit or actual investor losses.
The main consolidation wallet had about 3,589 ETH, worth around $9.49 million, across two-way flows in its latest 400 transactions.
This means money moved through the wallet in both directions.
Some funds may have entered and later left. Some may have passed through more than once.
The real profit from the suspected operation could therefore be much lower than the gross flow.
This distinction is important when reports about crypto scams use large numbers. Transaction volume and investor losses are not always the same thing.
Other Signs of Trouble on Robinhood Chain
The suspected memecoin operations are not the only concern.
A separate Bitquery investigation found evidence of wash trading across eight Robinhood Chain memecoins. Between August 24 and September 22, about 26,000 wallets traded the eight tokens in one direction only.
Bitquery said almost nine out of ten of those wallets made a single trade.
The research also found that 98.5% of one-trade buyers had a matching one-trade seller of the same amount after a median gap of 41 seconds.
The recorded activity added up to $322.5 million.
Bitquery estimated that almost all trading in those tokens was fake. It also identified nearly $947 million in round-trip trades that cost almost nothing.
These findings come from a separate investigation and should not be combined with the GoPlus $9 million figure. They describe a different type of suspected market abuse.
What This Means for Robinhood
Robinhood now faces a difficult balance.
An open blockchain can grow faster when developers have freedom to create new products. Strict controls on every token could reduce that freedom.
But too little protection can create problems for users.
The emergence of suspected scam groups means Robinhood may face pressure to add stronger warnings, wallet checks and token risk information.
Security firms can help by identifying wallet links and supply concentration.
Wallet interfaces can also warn users when a small group of addresses controls a large share of a token.
These tools cannot remove all risk, but they can give users more information before they buy.
What Users Should Understand
The biggest lesson is simple.
A token on Robinhood Chain is not automatically safe because it exists on a network linked to Robinhood.
Users need to look at the token itself.
They should pay attention to how much of the supply sits in a small group of wallets, how old those wallets are, where their funds came from and whether they have links to earlier token launches.
A very new token with a large share held by connected wallets can carry a high level of risk.
The presence of a popular story or large social media audience does not change that basic fact.
The Bigger Picture
Robinhood Chain has achieved impressive growth in a very short time. Its TVL has crossed $1.5 billion, and the network has generated about $50 million in revenue, according to the figures cited by CryptoSlate.
But that growth has also attracted suspected memecoin scam operations.
GoPlus found a network tied to hundreds of tokens and more than $9 million in gross flows over 30 days. Its main consolidation wallet had about 3,589 ETH, worth roughly $9.49 million, across its latest 400 transactions as of September 28.
Earlier, Wazz identified a separate suspected operation tied to at least 53 launches and about $18.43 million in extracted value. The Block confirmed parts of the wallet and launch pattern through its own review.
The data does not prove that every suspicious token on Robinhood Chain belongs to one group. It also does not show that Robinhood itself took part in any of these activities.
What it does show is that rapid growth can attract both legitimate users and organized abuse.
Robinhood Chain is still a young network. Its next stage will depend not only on TVL, fees and user numbers, but also on whether it can provide better tools that help users spot risky tokens before they lose money.
For now, the $1.5 billion milestone shows the power of the network’s growth. The memecoin cases show the other side of that success: where there is fresh capital and strong user interest, groups that seek to exploit that attention can arrive just as fast.
Also Read – September Earnings Revisions May Beat Headline EPS
