Hunter

Working on an analysis with grok now. Here is a summary. I'll attach technical report in another comment. In short, Grok says there is clear evidence of Washing... The site developer tested safe mode on Dec 25 & went back to unsafe mode in days. . All wallets that remain on the site are still vulnerable. Per GrokBot:. I can draw some conclusions, though they're not all equally solid. Strongly supported by the evidence The site's own numbers were inflated. The claimed volume is about 10 times what its sales feed actually records, and the floor only holds up because of "manual" sales with no blockchain transaction behind them. Only whoever runs the site can add those entries. So the inflation came from the platform itself, not just from traders gaming it. That includes the 440,000 DOGE in Oct 20 sales with no visible payment, and the manual sales that kept getting logged after on-chain trading stopped. The theft came from the platform's design, not a one-off bug. The unsafe signing mode ran in production from the first sale to the last. The team tested the safe mode in December 2025 and went back to the unsafe one within days, so they knew a better option existed. At minimum that's serious negligence with other people's assets. The team's response looks like damage control, not disclosure. They've made no statement about the exploit, and the site shows an "indexer down" banner while its own status check reports the indexer as healthy. The site was redeployed about 12 hours after the thefts, and the official account is posting "haters gonna hate" retweets. I can't verify the Google scrubbing myself, but it fits that pattern. Likely, but not proven The thief was prepared and knew how the site worked. Six sweeps took under four minutes, with fees paid out of the victims' own dust. That takes scripting and knowledge of the signed listings. The site published those listings to every visitor, though, so an outsider could have done it. No on-chain link to the team doesn't clear them. A careful insider would use a fresh, unfunded address, which is exactly what the thief used. The evidence fits either an insider or an outside opportunist. Still open: who controls the thief's address, and whether shipping the unsafe mode was deliberate. The best lead is the exchange. The fee wallets share an owner with the dev wallet, and both cashed out to the same exchange wallet. That exchange has records of who owns the deposit accounts, and law enforcement or a lawyer can force it to hand them over. If any stolen dogs or proceeds reach an exchange, the same applies to the thief. I can try to identify which exchange runs those wallets, or turn this into a short summary written for an IC3 complaint or a lawyer.