A pseudonymous crypto trader claimed on X that he had spent $1.8 million to buy a controlling stake in a Nasdaq-listed penny stock, then planned to use a memecoin-linked structure to squeeze short-sellers. Protos reported that the post drew more than 800,000 views yesterday before its numbers came under heavy scrutiny.
In the original claim, the trader said he would tokenize his equity, pair it with a memecoin, and run a short-squeeze campaign against what he described as a stock with 92.3% of its float already sold short. The central problem, Protos wrote, was simple: no company matching that description appears to exist.
Community Note challenge surfaced within hours
A proposed Community Note on X pushed back on the story and said it was not possible that he had bought shares in a company fitting the metrics he gave. Three hours later, the trader admitted that some of those figures had been made up, while recasting the original post as intentionally vague despite describing the effort itself as sincere.
Protos linked the episode to a wider misinformation pattern
Protos said the reversal stood out because it fit a recurring pattern of crypto influencers spreading misleading claims around real stocks. The outlet pointed to a failed effort the previous night, when memecoin traders tried to squeeze shorts in Nasdaq-listed Hims & Hers. That campaign went nowhere. As Protos put it, memecoin trades do not force Nasdaq-listed shares to move.
The report also looked back to the summer, when crypto influencers tried to revive a short-squeeze narrative around New York Stock Exchange-listed GameStop by talking up tokenization through memecoins or Robinhood Chain smart contracts. A researcher cited by Protos found that 354 of 361 Robinhood Chain contracts using the GME ticker had no connection to GameStop’s actual GME stock.
The original post was packed with precise metrics
One trader in the reply section dismissed the plan as nonsense and noted that a position of that size would ordinarily require a disclosure filing. The figures in the post were unusually exact: a $4.8 million market capitalization, a $0.12 share price, 92.3% short interest, $6.2 million in debt, and $380,000 in revenue.
The trader also said he had accumulated a 37.4% stake over three weeks through two brokers, writing that he did it that way so he would not push the price higher. He praised his own strategy and described the pairing of tokenized equity and memecoins as potentially becoming “the biggest crossover story in financial history.” Protos disputed that framing and said even if the account had been true, it would not rank above historic financial crossover developments such as agricultural futures listings or exchange-traded funds.
He later walked back the memecoin pitch itself
Within hours, the self-congratulation faded along with the specificity. First, the trader said he had intentionally altered the numbers to avoid front-running. Later, in his own thread, he backed away from the memecoin promise entirely.
He wrote: “There’s no memecoin, I won’t post a memecoin, I won’t do a memecoin and this is not a memecoin ad. Some of the details are not finalized.”
That left the post without the exact novelty that had made it notable in the first place. By late evening yesterday, Protos said no stock had emerged in the comment section or quote-post threads that matched the metrics he had originally presented.
Timing and disclosure issues added to the doubts
Protos summarized the timeline this way: one hour after the original post, the trader was still defending it and even comparing himself to Michael Saylor. Within two hours, a proposed Community Note was already live for moderators. Within three hours, he conceded that “the numbers are clearly off to avoid certain people thinking im trynna pump a certain stock.”
The report added that 92.3% short interest on a 12-cent stock is close to unheard of and next to impossible. Stocks trading below $1 are difficult to borrow at scale, and Protos said that would apply even to a single share, let alone 92.3% of the float.
It also noted that a 37.4% stake, followed by a later claim of obtaining a controlling stake, would ordinarily trigger a Schedule 13D disclosure requirement with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC.