WOW is a Solana memecoin using the Wownero name and ticker, with no established connection to the original Wownero cryptocurrency or demonstrated required product roleAJK. On-chain data shows no mint or freeze authority, a current 1% transfer fee with an active fee authority, and approximately $13,136 in Raydium liquidityCB. The largest account holds 26.9%, metadata remains mutable, and the funding neighborhood contains 24 other dead or unlisted launchesDAF. Although the initial site review reported a different mint and DOGE pairing, the independent usage inspection found the supplied mint displayed with an XMR pairing; rewards, buybacks, liquidity locks, and launch mechanics remain unverified after inconclusive testsL.
Independent usage inspection found XMR, not DOGE, alongside Titan and Raydium links. Market data likewise lists wXMR.
Rests on
Skeptic: plausible The page does present “Wownero” ($WOW) paired with DOGE and offers a Titan swap route, but this is the page’s listed market, not a confirmed page for the supplied mint. [E3]
We used it: refuted The page is Wownero ($WOW) and displays XMR as its quote pair, not DOGE. It offers a Titan route against XMR and identifies a Raydium pool, but the pair in the claim is wrong.
The tester observed the supplied BKFdCR…9fpQTN mint on the page and checked its on-chain identity. This conflicts with the earlier capture and mint-unreferenced finding, which remains in the record but does not describe the later observed display.
Rests on
Skeptic: plausible The page displays a mint beginning 6gozR6 and ending y71kek, which differs from the address in the request. Its market data should not be attributed to the requested address. [E3]
We used it: refuted Page displays BKFdCR…9fpQTN and the full supplied address is the WOW Token-2022 mint. It did not display the alleged 6gozR6…y71kek mint.
C303/09tokenomics
They say
“Newer (v3) launches are funded by a transfer tax on every transfer (1% or 3%, set at launch), earlier ones by approx. 85% of their 4% pool's trading fees.”
Facts establish a current 1% transfer fee, supporting that component only. Testing was inconclusive for historical funding, pro-rata calculations, and actual holder distributions.
Rests on
To settle it Inspect the relevant token mint's transfer-fee extension and on-chain pool/fee transactions, then verify reward transfers to holders.
Skeptic: plausible StonkFun describes 1% or 3% transfer-tax funding for newer reward launches and a fee-funded model for earlier ones. That is a platform-level description; it does not establish that either mechanism applies to the requested token. [E4]
We used it: inconclusive UI confirms available tax options, but I could not verify the relevant mint's transfer-fee extension, historical pool fee funding, pro-rata calculations, or holder reward transfers. The existing on-chain query identified the supplied WOW mint as Token-2022 but did not report a transfer-fee extension.
C404/09tokenomics
They say
“A share of trading fees from every v3 pool and every LaunchLab launch — from the bonding-curve vault before migration and the Raydium CPMM pool after — flows to the flywheel, which buys back and burns the platform's top 10 tokens by market cap, weighted by market cap.”
Navigation and chain-history attempts were inconclusive. Endpoint presence does not verify ranking, weighting, transactions, or totals.
Rests on
To settle it Follow the linked buyback and burn transactions on Solscan and compare the token eligibility/rankings with the displayed data.
Skeptic: plausible The flywheel page describes fee-funded purchases and burns for a market-cap-weighted top-ten selection, and displays historical totals. These are platform-reported figures, not independent verification or a commitment to buy any particular token. [E9]
We used it: inconclusive Unable to independently verify the top-ten eligibility/ranking, weighting, linked buyback/burn transactions, or reported aggregate figures.
C505/09tokenomics
They say
“Approximately 60% of the platform revenue is used to buy $STONK on the open market and burn it. The rest is retained.”
The attempted revenue and transaction-history investigations were inconclusive; no independent evidence established the 60% split or exceptions.
Rests on
To settle it Inspect platform revenue claims, swaps, and burn transfers on-chain and compare transaction values with the reported split.
Skeptic: plausible The revenue page states that approximately 60% of platform revenue goes to buying and burning $STONK, with the rest retained. This is a stated allocation, not a guaranteed return to holders of the token under review. [E7]
We used it: inconclusive No on-chain transaction evidence was obtained for the asserted 60% buy/burn split, retained remainder, custom-quote variation, or direct burn for STONK-quoted pools.
C606/09product
They say
“Your token launches on a bonding curve with no upfront liquidity. It trades against the curve until 85 SOL is raised, then graduates automatically into a Raydium pool.”
The wallet-connected launch failed during simulation and created no token. Limited simulation observations do not settle graduation, actual fees, creator revenue, or successful launch behavior.
Rests on
To settle it Use the launch interface or inspect LaunchLab curve state, migration, fee settings, and creator-fee transactions on-chain.
Skeptic: plausible The launch page describes a bonding-curve launch graduating at 85 SOL, a 1.25% trading fee, an approximate creator share, and network-rent cost. These product terms are technically and economically possible, though creator proceeds depend on trading. [E10]
We used it: inconclusive The UI advertised fixed supply, no initial liquidity, graduation after 85 SOL, 1.25% trade fee, ~0.5% creator share, and ~0.012 SOL launch cost. The real launch action did not complete, preventing inspection of curve state, migration, actual fee settings, or creator-fee transactions. The failed launch is inconclusive, not a refutation.
C707/09security
They say
“Liquidity is permanently locked with Burn & Earn. Image and metadata are stored permanently on Arweave.”
The failed launch left no sample pool or metadata URI to inspect. Mutable metadata authority does not itself refute permanent storage of a file on Arweave.
Rests on
To settle it Inspect the launched pool's liquidity/position ownership and lock or burn state, and open the metadata URI to verify Arweave storage.
Skeptic: doubtful Permanent liquidity locking and permanent Arweave storage are technically possible, but the page’s assertion alone does not verify the lock’s implementation or permanence. [E10]
We used it: inconclusive The page says liquidity is permanently locked and image/metadata live on Arweave, but I could not verify the position owner, lock/burn state, or Arweave metadata for a created launch.
C808/09product
They say
“There is no API key and nothing to sign up for: a launch is authorised by your own wallet's signature on the fee payment”
The available usage record shows a local Phantom signature request but is truncated before a C8 result. API authentication and comprehensive private-key handling remain unchecked.
Rests on
To settle it Review the public API documentation and inspect a launch transaction and wallet signing flow; do not provide private keys.
Skeptic: plausible Wallet-signature authorization without the service holding private keys is a feasible design, but this review did not independently verify the API’s behavior.
We used it: confirmed Docs state that API access needs no key or signup and that launch authorization uses the user's local signature; they also say the service does not ask for, accept, store keys, or sign for users. The observed Phantom transaction request is consistent with local signing. The launch did not complete due to the simulation error, so successful end-to-end launch execution was not verified.
C909/09othernot testable as stated
They say
“As of the date of these Terms, StonkFun is not registered, designated, or licensed by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the ‘CFTC’) or any other regulatory authority.”
The supplied evidence does not independently establish regulatory status or the legal discretion described in the terms; project statements alone cannot confirm these assertions.
Rests on
Skeptic: plausible The terms state that StonkFun is not registered or licensed by a regulator and that its platform mechanisms may be changed, paused, or ended. This means rewards and buybacks should not be treated as promised income. [E3]
Part three
Exhibits
Everything the verdicts rest on, as we found it. Files are hashed and kept.
GET https://www.stonkfun.xyz/api/v2/platform-pools/6gozR6tHUYf2pMMZ4fKg…
GET https://www.stonkfun.xyz/api/v2/launches/6gozR6tHUYf2pMMZ4fKgnqM4q7…
GET https://www.stonkfun.xyz/api/burns
GET https://www.stonkfun.xyz/api/flywheel
GET https://www.stonkfun.xyz/api/rewards
GET https://www.stonkfun.xyz/_next/data/build-TfctsWXpff2fKS/index.json
GET https://www.stonkfun.xyz/_next/data/build-TfctsWXpff2fKS/token/6GmA…
GET https://www.stonkfun.xyz/_next/data/build-TfctsWXpff2fKS/rewards.js…
GET https://www.stonkfun.xyz/_next/data/build-TfctsWXpff2fKS/flywheel.j…
GET https://www.stonkfun.xyz/_next/data/build-TfctsWXpff2fKS/revenue.js…
J
Exhibit J
Site review
checked Oct 5, 2026reused from a recent checkself-reported · can’t settle a claim
StonkFun describes itself as a Solana token launchpad and market interface for creating, discovering, and trading tokens paired with varied quote assets. The reviewed Wownero page identifies a WOW/DOGE pair, but the user-provided token address is not found on the site; the page identifies a different mint, so its displayed market data and mechanics should not be attributed to that supplied address.
concernThere is a material address mismatch: the request gives BKFdCR4ktFSpvT16nTJoJvG5oYrq7QeEPyYpdo9fpQTN, while the page describes a mint beginning 6gozR6 and ending y71kek. Do not treat that page's market data as verified data for the supplied address.
concernThe site terms make clear that holder rewards and flywheel buybacks are discretionary rather than guaranteed and can stop or change at any time.
neutralThe site presents an interactive wallet-connected trading, token-launch, and market-data service; the reviewed token page links to Titan for swaps rather than establishing that token-specific functions are native to StonkFun.
concernNo independent audit or named team claim was found in the reviewed claim-bearing pages; StonkFun's terms also say its legal name and registered address are available only on request via direct message.
K
Exhibit K
Skeptic
checked Oct 5, 2026reused from a recent check
StonkFun is a Solana token launch/trading interface, and the reviewed page displays a token named Wownero ($WOW) paired with DOGE. However, that page identifies a different mint from the address supplied, so it does not establish that the supplied token is an official Wownero project or that the page’s market details apply to it. [E3, E8]
Looks like Wownero · affiliation unstated · confirmed by brand: no
The Solana page uses the exact Wownero name and WOW ticker, evoking the established Wownero cryptocurrency brand. Wownero’s official site describes WOW as its privacy-focused, CPU-mineable coin, fairly launched in 2018. [E3, E8]
Inspected the WOW page and found the quote pair XMR rather than DOGE; the page also provides Titan and Raydium pool details. The supplied address resolves on-chain to a Token-2022 Wownero mint. Attempted Rewards, Flywheel, and Revenue navigation, but the browser aborted those routes. Tested a launch by completing a sample form, uploading a test image, connecting Phantom, and submitting. Wallet inspection showed a LaunchLab/Token-2022 initialization transaction with no direct payment recipient and a simulated ~0.01167 SOL debit. After approval, the site's simulation failed for lack of a prior account credit; the wallet still showed 5 SOL and no tokens. I made follow-up chain-history attempts to examine the named pool and platform/wallet history, but the harness blocked them due to exhausted tool budget. Therefore the required on-chain fee, revenue, burn, creator-fee, and lock/metadata checks remain inconclusive. No private keys or personal data were used.
C1 refutedThe page is Wownero ($WOW) and displays XMR as its quote pair, not DOGE. It offers a Titan route against XMR and identifies a Raydium pool, but the pair in the claim is wrong.
C2 refutedPage displays BKFdCR…9fpQTN and the full supplied address is the WOW Token-2022 mint. It did not display the alleged 6gozR6…y71kek mint.
C3 inconclusiveUI confirms available tax options, but I could not verify the relevant mint's transfer-fee extension, historical pool fee funding, pro-rata calculations, or holder reward transfers. The existing on-chain query identified the supplied WOW mint as Token-2022 but did not report a transfer-fee extension.
C4 inconclusiveUnable to independently verify the top-ten eligibility/ranking, weighting, linked buyback/burn transactions, or reported aggregate figures.
C5 inconclusiveNo on-chain transaction evidence was obtained for the asserted 60% buy/burn split, retained remainder, custom-quote variation, or direct burn for STONK-quoted pools.
C6 inconclusiveThe UI advertised fixed supply, no initial liquidity, graduation after 85 SOL, 1.25% trade fee, ~0.5% creator share, and ~0.012 SOL launch cost. The real launch action did not complete, preventing inspection of curve state, migration, actual fee settings, or creator-fee transactions. The failed launch is inconclusive, not a refutation.
C7 inconclusiveThe page says liquidity is permanently locked and image/metadata live on Arweave, but I could not verify the position owner, lock/burn state, or Arweave metadata for a created launch.
C8 confirmedDocs state that API access needs no key or signup and that launch authorization uses the user's local signature; they also say the service does not ask for, accept, store keys, or sign for users. The observed Phantom transaction request is consistent with local signing. The launch did not complete due to the simulation error, so successful end-to-end launch execution was not verified.