Pump.fun's pseudonymous co-founder Sapijiju pushed back against reports that the platform transferred $436.5 million in USDC to Kraken exchange since mid-October, with an additional $537.6 million allegedly moving from Kraken to Circle for redemption.
Blockchain analytics platform Lookonchain flagged the transactions, calculating that Pump.fun sold approximately 4.19 million SOL tokens worth around $757 million between May 2024 and August 2025 at an average price of $181.
Sapijiju called the assertions "complete misinformation" and insisted the project had no involvement in transactions between Kraken and Circle. "What's happening is part of Pump's treasury management, where USDC from the ICO of PUMP was moved to different wallets so the company's funds could be reinvested," he wrote on social media.
The platform clarified that funds stemmed from institutional private placements conducted in June, when institutions purchased PUMP tokens at $0.004 per token. Despite the controversy, on-chain data from DefiLlama shows Pump.fun-tagged wallets still hold over $855 million in stablecoins and $211 million in SOL.
Revenue Decline Fuels Speculation
The timing of the transfers coincided with a sharp decline in Pump.fun's monthly revenue. The platform generated $27.3 million in November, marking a 53% drop from September's $58.9 million and representing its first monthly revenue below $40 million since July.
Community reaction to Sapijiju's explanation proved mixed. Critics pointed to apparent contradictions in his statement, with one user noting: "First you deny involvement in transactions between Kraken and Circle, and then you explain it as 'treasury management' via moving ICO funds — that is a clear contradiction."
Others accused the team of "price manipulation via airdrops" and mismanagement that drove PUMP below its offering price. At press time, PUMP trades at $0.0027, representing a 32% decline from its $0.004 ICO price and more than 70% below September peaks.
However, some community members defended the platform's right to manage ICO proceeds discretely, with user Matty.Sol arguing that treasury movements represent standard practice following token sales.
Read also: Cardano Network Splits Into Two Chains for 14 Hours in First Major Incident Since 2017 Launch
Gnosis DAO Terminates KPK Partnership
In a separate development, Gnosis DAO voted with 88% support to end its partnership with treasury manager KPK, formerly known as Karpatkey. The organization behind Safe, CoW Swap, Gnosis Chain and Gnosis Pay cited "extensive community discussions" about KPK's performance, costs, and alignment with DAO objectives.
The GnosisDAO treasury holds over $175 million in assets, according to DeFiLlama data. Community members raised concerns about KPK's fee structure—1% of assets under management plus 20% of generated yield—established in 2022's GIP-58 proposal.
Users also pointed to $700,000 in losses due to a misconfigured Balancer liquidity pool and complained about communication gaps and unsatisfactory returns.
KPK acknowledged communication failures but highlighted efforts to reduce operating expenses from $6.3 million in 2024 to $2.2 million in 2025, along with implementing a $2 million fee cap. The firm noted that poorly defined initial engagement scope led to ballooning responsibilities beyond its core mandate.
Broader Industry Scrutiny
Questions about KPK's effectiveness extended beyond Gnosis. Discussions on Ethereum Name Service forums revealed that total returns failed to outpace inflation, with users identifying factual errors in the company's yield calculations.
The controversies reflect growing pains in the DAO treasury management sector, where organizations increasingly question whether service providers deliver value proportionate to their fees. Some community members pushed back against KPK's focus on communication issues, stating bluntly: "it's not a communication issue, it's a performance issue."
The developments come as Layer-2 solution Scroll's DAO paused operations in September following its leader's resignation, underscoring broader governance challenges facing decentralized organizations.