InspectorLab
$RUNES
Closed1m 08s
6flags3confirmed0refuted5untested0unverifiable

Case file № C0AD4D · opened Oct 5, 2026 · Solana

$RUNES

“Bitcoin Runes”

4HH11MVVquHXrZjKV9q9otg2R4AqS1CLiiWoaHPhRUNE

  • Memecoin
  • Launchpad
  • Bridge
Price
$0.0000226
Market cap
$22.6K
Liquidity
$0
Vol 24h
$73.9K
Age
today

The short version

RUNES is a Solana token linked to a launchpad and proposed burn-to-Bitcoin-Rune service, but no required product role for this particular token was establishedAL. Mint and freeze authorities are absent, and metadata is immutableCA. Testing confirmed client-side burn restrictions, while direct API inspection showed an inactive devnet/signet configuration, blank Rune and reserve fields, and zero reported deliveriesLI. Burn delivery and reserve accounting could not be tested because the supplied mint was rejected; launch testing also remained inconclusive after transaction-effect verification was blockedL. Reported liquidity is zero, and the website does not reference the supplied mint, limiting confidence in tradability and its connection to the serviceBH.

Red flags

6red flags

  1. Rule

    Its pools hold almost no liquidity.

    Liquidity $0

    market/no-liquidityB

  2. Rule

    The project's X account changed its @handle.

    @TryBitcoinRunes changed its handle 1 time(s), last on 2026-09-22

    social/x-renamedG

  3. Rule

    The X account changed its @handle around the token's launch.

    Last renamed 13 day(s) before the token was created

    social/x-renamed-near-launchGE

  4. Rule

    The website does not show this token's address.

    The address does not appear on https://btcrunes.fun/

    site/mint-unreferencedHI

  5. Call

    The team is anonymous.

    No team members are named in the reviewed material.

    claims/team-anonymousJ

  6. Call

    Pages contradict each other.

    Operational delivery and current Bitcoin tradability language conflicts with inactive testnet configuration, blank Rune identifiers, and pending mainnet proof.

    site/inconsistent-claimsC1C6C8JK

Part two

The claims

8 claims lifted from their own site. 3 confirmed, 5 untested.

C101/08product

They say

Destroy any Solana token and receive the same amount as a native Rune on Bitcoin, delivered to the address you choose. No bridge, no wrapped coin, nothing to claim later.

btcrunes.fun

We checked

Testing was inconclusive: the supplied mint was rejected, preventing a burn and corresponding Bitcoin delivery verification.

Rests on

To settle it Attempt a supported-token burn and verify the resulting Bitcoin Rune delivery and amounts against the Solana burn and specified Taproot recipient.

Skeptic: doubtful A burn followed by release from a pre-funded reserve is technically possible, but the site’s own configuration says the service is not live and points to Solana devnet and Bitcoin signet, not a live mainnet service. The homepage also marks mainnet burn and Rune delivery evidence as pending. Thus the promised user delivery is not demonstrated as available now. [E1][E5]

We used it: inconclusive The mint is RUNES with no mint/freeze authority, but the service config reports burn not live and blank mint/Rune/reserve values. The blocker is absence of a supported burnable token and disabled service, not evidence that delivery fails.

C202/08product

They say

Real, finalised, and never claimed before. Anything else is refused.

btcrunes.fun

We checked

No eligible burn or delivery record was available to test finality, duplicate prevention, or supply equality.

Rests on

To settle it Compare the Solana burn transaction, its finality, and its uniqueness with the corresponding public reserve outflow and Bitcoin Rune delivery.

Skeptic: doubtful Finality checks and preventing duplicate claims are implementable, but the site provides no live configuration or delivery records with which to verify that these checks operate. Its mainnet and forgery-refusal evidence is marked pending. The claimed supply equality also depends on complete accounting across both chains and a funded reserve, neither of which is established by the current state. [E1][E2][E5]

We used it: inconclusive Finality and uniqueness are stated in the UI but were not demonstrable without an eligible burn. Proof examples say pending.

C303/08product

They say

Each Rune's supply sits in one public reserve address and is released only against a verified burn.

btcrunes.fun

We checked

No populated reserve address or delivery history was available; reserve backing, conditional releases, and batching could not be tested.

Rests on

To settle it Inspect the published reserve address, if provided, and compare its outflows with verified burn records and Bitcoin transactions.

Skeptic: doubtful A public reserve with batched releases is a feasible design, but the published configuration has blank reserve-address and Rune-ID fields and the registry records no deliveries. The claimed reserve and release process therefore is not substantiated as currently operating. [E1][E2][E5]

We used it: inconclusive No reserve address is published/populated in config; the public-reserve and batching claims cannot be tested absent one.

C404/08product

They say

Only coins listed on this site can be burned. Minimum burn: 10,000 tokens.

btcrunes.fun

We checked

Wallet testing confirmed client-side rejection of unlisted mints, amounts below 10,000, and unsuitable Bitcoin addresses, not successful on-chain burn enforcement.

Rests on

Skeptic: plausible Listing eligible tokens, setting a minimum amount, and requiring a Taproot address are ordinary implementable service rules; the homepage states these restrictions. This supports that the rules are presented, not that the inactive burn service enforces them live. [E5]

We used it: confirmed UI rejected the mint as not launched/listed here, flagged invalid Taproot/network string and explicitly said the legacy address is not Taproot, and warned that 9,999 is below minimum. This confirms the requirements and client-side enforcement, not a successful burn.

C505/08product

They say

LAUNCH

btcrunes.fun

We checked

Testing produced and approved a pump.fun transaction request, but budget exhaustion prevented verification of transaction effects and cluster; full launch functionality remains inconclusive.

Rests on

To settle it Use the launch interface and inspect whether a launch transaction is created and which Solana cluster it targets.

Skeptic: plausible The homepage exposes launch controls and a launches feed, and the configuration sets launchLive to true. This supports the existence of a launch feature, but does not independently verify the feed’s market-cap figures or actual trading. [E1][E5]

We used it: inconclusive Request inspection showed pump.fun program invocation and token/account initialization, no external payments, simulated -0.00881912 SOL. The later balance read was 5 SOL/no tokens while history showed a successful transaction signature, but I could not inspect that transaction's effects or verify cluster. The launch action was attempted; post-transaction verification was blocked.

C606/08product

They say

{"live":false,"solanaCluster":"devnet","mint":"","decimals":6,"minBurnRaw":"10000000000","ticker":"ETCH","runeName":"","btcNet":"signet","runeId":"","reserveAddress":"","launchLive":true}

btcrunes.fun

We checked

Direct API inspection confirmed the reported configuration, including inactive burn service, devnet/signet settings, blank mint/Rune/reserve fields, and launchLive=true; operational launch success is not established.

Rests on

Skeptic: plausible The configuration API directly reports live=false, Solana devnet, Bitcoin signet, and blank mint, Rune name, Rune ID, and reserve address fields. [E1]

We used it: confirmed Config reports live=false, solanaCluster=devnet, btcNet=signet, and blank mint/runeName/runeId/reserveAddress. Form said supplied mint was not launched here. The on-chain mint lookup identifies RUNES, but that does not populate this service config.

C707/08product

They say

{"delivered":"0","deliveries":0,"recent":[]}

btcrunes.fun

We checked

Direct registry inspection returned zero delivered amounts, zero deliveries, and no recent records; this confirms the API response rather than independently audited Bitcoin totals.

Rests on

Skeptic: plausible The registry API directly reports zero delivered amount and zero deliveries. [E2]

We used it: confirmed Response was delivered 0, deliveries 0, recent empty. With no delivered amount/records there was nothing to compare to Bitcoin transaction records.

C808/08other

They say

ETCH Bitcoin A native Rune Yes, on Bitcoin Rune markets

btcrunes.fun

We checked

No independent Bitcoin Rune market listing or identifiable Rune was verified. Blank identifiers and zero reported deliveries do not alone disprove tradability.

Rests on

To settle it Check whether the identified Rune exists and has active markets on Bitcoin Rune marketplaces.

Skeptic: doubtful The homepage claims the Rune is tradeable on Bitcoin Rune markets, but the configuration supplies no Rune ID and the registry reports no deliveries. Those facts do not establish that this project’s Rune exists on mainnet or is currently tradeable. [E1][E2][E5]

We used it: inconclusive The UI assertion alone does not establish market existence or trading. No identified Rune and no delivery records were available for on-chain/market comparison.

Part three

Exhibits

Everything the verdicts rest on, as we found it. Files are hashed and kept.

A

Exhibit A

Token metadata

checked Oct 5, 2026reused from a recent check

Name
Bitcoin Runes
Symbol
RUNES
Source
token-2022
Update authority
none
Mutable
no
Description
Burn it on Solana. Etch it on Bitcoin.
Links
twitter x.comwebsite btcrunes.fun
B

Exhibit B

Market

checked Oct 5, 2026reused from a recent check

Price
$0.0000226
Market cap
$22.6K
Liquidity
$0
Vol 24h
$73.9K
PairQuoteLiquidityAge
pumpfunWBTC—today
C

Exhibit C

Mint account

checked Oct 5, 2026reused from a recent check

Mint authority
revoked
Freeze authority
revoked
Permanent delegate
revoked
Close authority
revoked
Program
spl-token-2022
Supply
999,257,425
Decimals
6
Transfer fee
none
Transfer hook
none
Extensions
  • metadataPointer
  • tokenMetadata
Capabilities
nothing extra
E

Exhibit E

Deployer

checked Oct 5, 2026reused from a recent check

Launched
Oct 5, 2026 · today ago
Programs
  • system
  • pump.fun
  • associated-token-account
  • spl-token-2022
  • spl-token
  • pfeeUxB6jkeY1Hxd7CsFCAjcbHA9rWtchMGdZ6VojVZ
F

Exhibit F

Funding neighborhood

checked Oct 5, 2026reused from a recent check

Other tokens
1
Dead or unlisted
1
Wallets
3
Over $1M
0
  1. $PENNIED Pennied$3.7K
G

Exhibit G

X account

checked Oct 5, 2026reused from a recent check

Name
Bitcoin Runes
Created
Sep 21, 2026 · 15d ago
Based in
Australia
Renames
1
Last rename
Sep 22, 2026
H

Exhibit H

Website

checked Oct 5, 2026reused from a recent check

Found via
metadata
Shows this mint
no
I

Exhibit I

Site capture

checked Oct 5, 2026reused from a recent check

Screenshot of btcrunes.fun
btcrunes.fun · as our browser saw it
Stack
unknown
Trackers
none
Third parties
  • fonts.googleapis.com
  • fonts.gstatic.com
Calls
  • GET https://btcrunes.fun/api/launches
  • GET https://btcrunes.fun/api/config
  • GET https://btcrunes.fun/api/registry
  • GET https://btcrunes.fun/api/buybacks
J

Exhibit J

Site review

checked Oct 5, 2026reused from a recent checkself-reported · can’t settle a claim

Bitcoin Runes presents itself as a Solana-to-Bitcoin Rune burn-and-release service: users burn listed Solana tokens and specify a Bitcoin Taproot address, with the site claiming an equal amount of native Rune is released from a reserve. The same site also displays token launches, but its exposed configuration reports the system is not live and uses Solana devnet and Bitcoin signet.

  • concernThe central burn-to-Rune proposition is not demonstrated by the site's own live state: config reports live=false, devnet and signet, and blank mint/Rune/reserve fields; the registry also reports zero deliveries.
  • concernThe homepage labels mainnet burn, Rune delivery, and forgery-refusal evidence as pending, despite describing the mechanism in operational terms.
  • concernThere is no team, audit, or security claim visible on the reviewed homepage; the API configuration also provides no reserve address or Rune ID.
  • neutralLaunch-feed entries show names and market-cap figures, but these are API-provided figures, not independently verified market data; the timestamps are also future-dated relative to this review.
K

Exhibit K

Skeptic

checked Oct 5, 2026reused from a recent check

Bitcoin Runes (RUNES) presents a Solana token-launch site and a proposed service that burns listed Solana tokens and releases the same nominal amount of a Bitcoin Rune from a reserve. The mechanism could be built, but the site’s current configuration is testnet-only and inactive, with no reserve or Rune identifier and no recorded deliveries, so the advertised exchange is not shown to be operating.

Looks like Bitcoin · affiliation unstated · confirmed by brand: no

The project name and copy use “Bitcoin” and describe delivering a native Rune on Bitcoin, invoking the Bitcoin ecosystem. The reviewed material does not show a Bitcoin.org logo or a claimed formal partnership.

bitcoin.org
L

Exhibit L

Product test

checked Oct 5, 2026reused from a recent check

What our wallet sawWhat our wallet sawWhat our wallet sawWhat our wallet sawWhat our wallet sawWhat our wallet saw

Field notes

Reviewed the burn, launch, and project-comparison pages; queried config and registry endpoints; checked the provided mint on-chain; and connected Phantom. Wallet initially held 5 SOL and no tokens. The burn form rejected the supplied mint and the unlisted test mint, enforced a 10,000 minimum, and rejected invalid/non-Taproot recipient examples, so no burn request or transaction existed for C1-C3. Config showed live:false, devnet/signet, and empty mint, Rune, and reserve values; registry returned zero deliveries. For the launch, filled a plausible test form, uploaded the test image, used zero initial buy, clicked launch, inspected the wallet request, and approved: request called pump.fun, showed token/account setup, no payments, simulated SOL decrease 0.00881912. A subsequent wallet balance still showed 5 SOL and no tokens; history returned a successful signature, but chain_transaction inspection was blocked by tool-budget exhaustion. Thus launch effect and target cluster remain unverified. No Bitcoin Rune identity/market could be checked because the config provides no Rune name or ID.

  • C1 inconclusiveThe mint is RUNES with no mint/freeze authority, but the service config reports burn not live and blank mint/Rune/reserve values. The blocker is absence of a supported burnable token and disabled service, not evidence that delivery fails.
  • C2 inconclusiveFinality and uniqueness are stated in the UI but were not demonstrable without an eligible burn. Proof examples say pending.
  • C3 inconclusiveNo reserve address is published/populated in config; the public-reserve and batching claims cannot be tested absent one.
  • C4 confirmedUI rejected the mint as not launched/listed here, flagged invalid Taproot/network string and explicitly said the legacy address is not Taproot, and warned that 9,999 is below minimum. This confirms the requirements and client-side enforcement, not a successful burn.
  • C5 inconclusiveRequest inspection showed pump.fun program invocation and token/account initialization, no external payments, simulated -0.00881912 SOL. The later balance read was 5 SOL/no tokens while history showed a successful transaction signature, but I could not inspect that transaction's effects or verify cluster. The launch action was attempted; post-transaction verification was blocked.
  • C6 confirmedConfig reports live=false, solanaCluster=devnet, btcNet=signet, and blank mint/runeName/runeId/reserveAddress. Form said supplied mint was not launched here. The on-chain mint lookup identifies RUNES, but that does not populate this service config.
  • C7 confirmedResponse was delivered 0, deliveries 0, recent empty. With no delivered amount/records there was nothing to compare to Bitcoin transaction records.
  • C8 inconclusiveThe UI assertion alone does not establish market existence or trading. No identified Rune and no delivery records were available for on-chain/market comparison.
End of file.01a10d1a-2f0b-7f2e-a2fd-6da030c0ad4d