False.
These wallets are not ours.

Our answer

Team statement: this accusation is false. We are the $SCHIFFY team. We don’t own, fund or control these wallets, and we have no connection to whoever does.

What the records show: our address checks found zero direct transfers between the addresses tested. Tengri has not established any direct or indirect link showing that we own, fund or control this fleet. Coordinated trading is not proof of team ownership. The results below cover records checked through November 2, 2026.

Several of Tengri’s trade figures check out, as the other claims on this page explain. His accusation is a different matter. It rests on the word “they”, and the thread never shows a transaction from the fleet, or from the money behind it, to us.

This is a sniping operation

These wallets do this constantly, on tokens that have nothing to do with us.

• It was running before we launched. Ten of the 16 wallets were buying launches together on Jul 27. $SCHIFFY launched Aug 29.
• It hit at least 1,400 other launches the same way, from 1,150 different deployers. Every one is listed. 431 came before $SCHIFFY existed.
• None of those tokens were launched by the five team wallets tested.
• $SCHIFFY was about 0.27% of received token-transfer events since Aug 29, across 2,542 tokens. This is a share of transfer count, not trading value or profit.
• Activity continued through the snapshot. These wallets were receiving other tokens on Nov 2.

The launch was open to everyone

It wasn’t a zero-block buy. Nothing was swapped in the mint block. The first trade came 95 blocks and 10 seconds after mint. The fleet’s first buy came 2,619 blocks and 263 seconds after mint.

It wasn’t early for this fleet. Its median entry on other launches is 65 seconds, and it bought faster than this on 1,184 of those 1,400.

It wasn’t first in line. Before the fleet’s first buy, 192 other wallets had made 513 swap transactions, and 121 of those wallets used the same public router the fleet used.

There was no whitelist and no team allocation.

• The mint sent the entire 1B supply into the pool in one transaction.
• The fleet got its $SCHIFFY from public pool and router contracts. None came from us.
• Some scanners flag this token as “can whitelist”. That refers to an exemption list for a maximum-wallet limit in the standard Doppler token contract. On the live contract, that limit was never turned on: maxBalanceLimit is 0 and isBalanceLimitActive is false.
• The token’s owner is the Doppler Airlock contract, not a team wallet.

Our own dev buy waited in line too. It came 233 seconds after mint, after 185 other wallets had already traded.

What we tested

Some counterparties do overlap on Ethereum. The ones we could identify are routers, marketplaces, bridges and spam airdrop senders. A few remain unlabeled.

The team-side address list is not published here. These are findings from our review; the public materials alone cannot independently reproduce those private address comparisons.

The accusation still needs a connection

Tengri did not show a transaction connecting any of our wallets to this fleet or its funding treasury. His post describes what the fleet traded; it does not connect those trades to us.

The fleet’s approximately 13.6-day sell-free gap was unusual. We cannot explain the decisions of wallets we do not control. See the hold comparison. That gap is evidence of a trading decision, not proof of team ownership.

What the record shows

$SCHIFFY was minted on Aug 29, 2026 at 18:24:23 UTC. The thread’s own funding evidence is dated Aug 13, 16 days earlier.

The 16 launch buyers received their first tokens well before launch:

On Jul 27, ten of them bought DAHOOD together, 70 seconds after its mint.

Why it matters

The order of events carries the accusation. Funding that follows a launch suggests a fleet built for that launch. Funding that comes before it, for wallets already trading other tokens, suggests a fleet that was already running.

Limits of this ruling

We rated the sequence as the thread states it. We did not test whether these wallets received further top-ups after launch, so we are not saying they never did.

Our response: we are building for the long term

Team statement: this accusation is false. SCHIFFY does not exist to extract money from its community. We are backing all our NFTs with Robinhood stock tokens. That backing comes at a cost to our margins, and we are choosing to bear that cost as part of a long-term approach.

Calling that an “extraction experiment” ignores the commitment we are making. We are committing resources to NFT backing and accepting lower margins. Judge us on what we build and deliver. A separate trading fleet is not proof of our motives.

The NFT backing and margin statements above are supplied by the team. This trading review has not audited the backing or measured its cost.

“Robinhood stock tokens” means the tokenized instruments, not direct ownership of company shares. Robinhood explains the distinction here. That source describes Robinhood’s product; it does not verify our NFT backing.

His accusation is not established by the trades

He is wrong to treat the fleet’s trades as proof of an extraction scheme run by our team. A claim about motives cannot be settled by pointing to wallets he has not linked to us.

Evidence against the framing

• $SCHIFFY is a small share of received transfer events. It is about 0.27% of the token transfers these wallets have received since Aug 29, across 2,542 tokens. This measures event count, not trading value or profit.
• The same entry appears on at least 1,400 other launches, from 1,150 different deployers. 431 of those came before $SCHIFFY existed.
• On 1,076 of them the fleet also took at least 1% of supply, sold at least 90% of what it bought, and had a lockstep sell.
• The entry wasn’t unusually early. The fleet’s median entry on those launches is 65 seconds after mint. On $SCHIFFY it was 263 seconds, slower than on 1,184 of the 1,400. That doesn’t look like a head start.

The unusual hold still needs an explanation

• The hold was rare. On 840 of those 1,076 launches, the fleet had fully sold within about an hour. On $SCHIFFY it held 8.76% of supply through a sell-free gap of about 13.6 days.
• Few others match at that scale. Only BOP and COMPUTER had gaps of 14 days or more at 5%+ of supply. Nine launches reach 14 days at 1%+ of supply.
• The timing lines up with the alleged promotion dates. The gap covers the Sept 3–12 push the thread describes, and selling resumed Sept 13. Those promotion dates have not been independently verified.

These numbers can’t tell us why the fleet held. A trader might hold a token that keeps rising, or might know something. We haven’t tested which.

Limits of this ruling

Durations are estimated from block numbers at about 9.9 blocks per second. Our launch count is probably low, because it only includes blocks where at least 6 of these 16 wallets bought together.

What’s true

The thread’s figures match the cumulative amount these wallets bought:

What’s wrong

A position is what you hold. These wallets were selling too, so adding up purchases overstates the position by about 9.7M at the launch hour and 12.2M at the peak.

86.69M is still about 8.76% of supply, so this is a real correction but not a small position.

Limits of this ruling

We measured the 20 wallets we could identify. The match on total bought (98.88M vs. 98.9M) suggests the thread uses the same set.