If you have been following the crypto market recently, you may have noticed the amazing performance of $DARK: against the backdrop of the new chairman of the SEC in the US sending crypto-friendly signals, the market has fully rebounded, and as an AI Meme project in the Solana ecosystem, $DARK has become the leader of this round of rise.
The market value of this token has risen from an initial 2 million dollars to over 47 million dollars recently, setting a new historical high.
The popularity of $DARK is not accidental. As an AI project that provides multi-party computing (MCP) capabilities based on the TEE protocol, its founder @edgarpavlovsky created his own “homage version” out of love for the all-chain game Dark Forest. The project quickly gained market recognition due to its efficient product delivery capabilities, and in no time became a star token in the Solana community.
However, behind these glamorous narratives, on-chain data reveals another picture: the chip distribution of $DARK shows obvious characteristics of control. Thus, we can’t help but ask: is this a community-driven success, or a carefully designed scheme controlled by a few?
On-chain analysis: Who is in control of $DARK?
We conducted a comprehensive analysis of the top 500 holders of $DARK (excluding exchange addresses), and the results show:
22.22% of the token supply is concentrated in 3 clusters;
There are close connections between these addresses due to fund transfers and shared funding sources, forming a hidden control network.
The following are the specific analysis results:
Green Clusters: The True Masters of the Market
Number of addresses: 136
Control ratio: 19.74%
On-chain features:
Frequent fund transfers between addresses;
Some addresses share the same source and destination of funds;
27 addresses collectively hold $BC, and another 20 addresses collectively hold $RFC.
The green cluster is the core control power of $DARK, and its behavior pattern shows a high level of organization.
Yellow Cluster: The Secret Small-scale Controllers
Number of addresses: 3
Control allocation ratio: 1.25%
On-chain characteristics:
There are fund transfer activities between addresses;
The direction of funds is highly consistent, but no common token holding characteristics have been found.
Although the scale of the yellow cluster is small, it shows a high degree of synergy and may play a supporting role in market activities.
Blue Cluster: Low-profile “Shadow Players”
Number of addresses: 3
Control allocation ratio: 1.23%
On-chain features:
There is a fund transfer between addresses;
No other token holding characteristics found.
The on-chain behavior of the blue cluster is relatively secretive, possibly to disperse risks or hide the flow of funds.
The story of decentralization, the truth of centralization
The narrative of $DARK is decentralized and community-driven, but on-chain data reveals a highly centralized distribution of tokens: just 3 clusters control over 22% of the token supply. The risks behind this cannot be ignored:
Pricing power is concentrated in the hands of a few
Pump: A controlled group can create the illusion of price rise through collective buying, attracting retail investors’ FOMO.
Market crash: A concentrated sell-off occurs at high price points, resulting in a market plummet.
Liquidity Control
The control of the pool can manipulate market depth and create the illusion of price volatility by restricting the liquidity of the tokens.
The Illusion of Decentralization
Although the narrative of $DARK is “community-driven”, actual control is concentrated in a few addresses, and ordinary investors lack price influence.
Conclusion: Is DARK a miracle or a script?
From product to narrative, $DARK seems to be a successful experiment in the Solana ecosystem. But on-chain data reveals the hidden truth:
Nearly 20% of the token supply is concentrated in the green cluster, with highly consistent behavior patterns;
22.22% of the tokens are controlled by 3 clusters, with significant control characteristics;
The so-called decentralized narrative may just be a carefully packaged story.
When investing in projects like $DARK, investors need to ask themselves one question: are you paying for the success of the community, or are you adding to the wealth of a select few?
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
DARK: From AI Meme Viral Hits to the Puzzle of Controlling the Market Trend
If you have been following the crypto market recently, you may have noticed the amazing performance of $DARK: against the backdrop of the new chairman of the SEC in the US sending crypto-friendly signals, the market has fully rebounded, and as an AI Meme project in the Solana ecosystem, $DARK has become the leader of this round of rise.
The market value of this token has risen from an initial 2 million dollars to over 47 million dollars recently, setting a new historical high.
The popularity of $DARK is not accidental. As an AI project that provides multi-party computing (MCP) capabilities based on the TEE protocol, its founder @edgarpavlovsky created his own “homage version” out of love for the all-chain game Dark Forest. The project quickly gained market recognition due to its efficient product delivery capabilities, and in no time became a star token in the Solana community.
However, behind these glamorous narratives, on-chain data reveals another picture: the chip distribution of $DARK shows obvious characteristics of control. Thus, we can’t help but ask: is this a community-driven success, or a carefully designed scheme controlled by a few?
On-chain analysis: Who is in control of $DARK?
We conducted a comprehensive analysis of the top 500 holders of $DARK (excluding exchange addresses), and the results show:
22.22% of the token supply is concentrated in 3 clusters;
There are close connections between these addresses due to fund transfers and shared funding sources, forming a hidden control network.
The following are the specific analysis results:
Green Clusters: The True Masters of the Market
Number of addresses: 136
Control ratio: 19.74%
On-chain features:
The green cluster is the core control power of $DARK, and its behavior pattern shows a high level of organization.
Yellow Cluster: The Secret Small-scale Controllers
Number of addresses: 3
Control allocation ratio: 1.25%
On-chain characteristics:
Although the scale of the yellow cluster is small, it shows a high degree of synergy and may play a supporting role in market activities.
Blue Cluster: Low-profile “Shadow Players”
Number of addresses: 3
Control allocation ratio: 1.23%
On-chain features:
The on-chain behavior of the blue cluster is relatively secretive, possibly to disperse risks or hide the flow of funds.
The story of decentralization, the truth of centralization
The narrative of $DARK is decentralized and community-driven, but on-chain data reveals a highly centralized distribution of tokens: just 3 clusters control over 22% of the token supply. The risks behind this cannot be ignored:
Pricing power is concentrated in the hands of a few
Pump: A controlled group can create the illusion of price rise through collective buying, attracting retail investors’ FOMO.
Market crash: A concentrated sell-off occurs at high price points, resulting in a market plummet.
Liquidity Control
The control of the pool can manipulate market depth and create the illusion of price volatility by restricting the liquidity of the tokens.
The Illusion of Decentralization
Although the narrative of $DARK is “community-driven”, actual control is concentrated in a few addresses, and ordinary investors lack price influence.
Conclusion: Is DARK a miracle or a script?
From product to narrative, $DARK seems to be a successful experiment in the Solana ecosystem. But on-chain data reveals the hidden truth:
The so-called decentralized narrative may just be a carefully packaged story.
When investing in projects like $DARK, investors need to ask themselves one question: are you paying for the success of the community, or are you adding to the wealth of a select few?