Jeffersonwbds
--
Possible Manipulation in BNB's Memecoin Liquidity Program? The Broccoli (F3B) Case
The recent Binance (BNB) Memecoin Liquidity Program has sparked controversy and suspicions of manipulation, particularly due to the sudden rise of Broccoli F3B to the top of the ranking. The program was launched to reward top memecoins on the BNB blockchain, using a controversial formula to rank tokens:
Score = (Market Cap Rank × 30%) + (Price Increase Rank × 20%) + (Trading Volume Rank × 50%)
The lower the score, the higher the project’s ranking. Scores were calculated daily and weekly based on these metrics. However, this structure favored lower-cap tokens, as they are easier to manipulate, which seems to have happened with Broccoli F3B.
The Start of Competition and F3B’s Suspicious Rise
At the start of the program, the competition was mainly between Broccoli 714 and Broccoli F2B:
Broccoli 714 had 38,900 holders, was highly hyped, and was already in an uptrend before the competition. Its initial price was $0.11.Broccoli F2B had around 12,000 holders, a market cap of $16 million, and an initial price of $0.09.
However, as soon as the competition started, Broccoli F3B suddenly emerged as the first-ranked token. This unexpected rise raised several suspicions, considering its initial numbers:
Market cap of approximately $20 million.Initial volume of only $60,000.Price increase of around 10%.On February 17, the F3B token had only 8,467 holders, while on February 18, this number increased to 10,101 holders.
Meanwhile, Broccoli 714 had been leading the volume ranking since the competition started, with $1.24 million in daily volume and over $1 billion in weekly volume. Additionally, it ranked first in market cap, reaching $105 million.
Mass Manipulation and Broccoli 714’s Sharp Drop
When Binance ranked Broccoli F3B as the top token, a speculative frenzy ensued:
Buying pressure on F3B, pushing its price up +336% in just 4 hours.Selling pressure on Broccoli 714, which dropped 50% in 5 hours, making recovery nearly impossible.Since the price increase metric was counted from the ranking’s opening, 714 lost its position despite having higher volume and market cap.
Analyzing Broccoli F3B’s history, a suspicious pattern emerges: 8 hours before the competition, its price dropped 41%, allowing for an "artificial" recovery once the contest began. Additionally, on-chain data shows that the top 100 holders collectively own 50.81% of the supply, enabling targeted price manipulation.
The Role of Influencers
Another suspicious factor is the involvement of the influencer ELJA, a well-known Twitter figure with over 500,000 followers. He uses a selfie with CZ (Binance CEO) to suggest a direct connection with the exchange—something CZ himself has publicly criticized:
"You should be alarmed if someone uses a selfie for promotion. [...] I take a lot of selfies with people, but that doesn’t mean I support their projects." (CZ Binance, 12/18/2024 - Twitter)
Elja and other influencers heavily promoted Broccoli F3B, further fueling the manipulation.
Suspicious Metrics and Comparisons
Analyzing asset distribution reveals a glaring discrepancy:
Broccoli F3B: Market cap divided by the number of holders results in $3,840 per wallet - an unrealistic value.Broccoli 714: $1,074 per wallet.
Additionally, while Broccoli 714 maintained $36 million in volume, F3B operated with only $17 million, reinforcing that its valuation was not driven by natural market movement.
Conclusion
The final weekly competition results have not yet been announced by Binance, as they are still reviewing the data. However, the possibility of Broccoli F3B winning raises serious questions about the program’s legitimacy. This event highlights how poorly structured rules and influencer-driven hype can completely distort a market, harming solid projects while favoring speculative and manipulated price movements.
If Binance does not revise its criteria and take action against such practices, future competitions may continue to be a breeding ground for price manipulation, jeopardizing trust in its blockchain.
Score = (Market Cap Rank × 30%) + (Price Increase Rank × 20%) + (Trading Volume Rank × 50%)
The lower the score, the higher the project’s ranking. Scores were calculated daily and weekly based on these metrics. However, this structure favored lower-cap tokens, as they are easier to manipulate, which seems to have happened with Broccoli F3B.
The Start of Competition and F3B’s Suspicious Rise
At the start of the program, the competition was mainly between Broccoli 714 and Broccoli F2B:
Broccoli 714 had 38,900 holders, was highly hyped, and was already in an uptrend before the competition. Its initial price was $0.11.Broccoli F2B had around 12,000 holders, a market cap of $16 million, and an initial price of $0.09.
However, as soon as the competition started, Broccoli F3B suddenly emerged as the first-ranked token. This unexpected rise raised several suspicions, considering its initial numbers:
Market cap of approximately $20 million.Initial volume of only $60,000.Price increase of around 10%.On February 17, the F3B token had only 8,467 holders, while on February 18, this number increased to 10,101 holders.
Meanwhile, Broccoli 714 had been leading the volume ranking since the competition started, with $1.24 million in daily volume and over $1 billion in weekly volume. Additionally, it ranked first in market cap, reaching $105 million.
Mass Manipulation and Broccoli 714’s Sharp Drop
When Binance ranked Broccoli F3B as the top token, a speculative frenzy ensued:
Buying pressure on F3B, pushing its price up +336% in just 4 hours.Selling pressure on Broccoli 714, which dropped 50% in 5 hours, making recovery nearly impossible.Since the price increase metric was counted from the ranking’s opening, 714 lost its position despite having higher volume and market cap.
Analyzing Broccoli F3B’s history, a suspicious pattern emerges: 8 hours before the competition, its price dropped 41%, allowing for an "artificial" recovery once the contest began. Additionally, on-chain data shows that the top 100 holders collectively own 50.81% of the supply, enabling targeted price manipulation.
The Role of Influencers
Another suspicious factor is the involvement of the influencer ELJA, a well-known Twitter figure with over 500,000 followers. He uses a selfie with CZ (Binance CEO) to suggest a direct connection with the exchange—something CZ himself has publicly criticized:
"You should be alarmed if someone uses a selfie for promotion. [...] I take a lot of selfies with people, but that doesn’t mean I support their projects." (CZ Binance, 12/18/2024 - Twitter)
Elja and other influencers heavily promoted Broccoli F3B, further fueling the manipulation.
Suspicious Metrics and Comparisons
Analyzing asset distribution reveals a glaring discrepancy:
Broccoli F3B: Market cap divided by the number of holders results in $3,840 per wallet - an unrealistic value.Broccoli 714: $1,074 per wallet.
Additionally, while Broccoli 714 maintained $36 million in volume, F3B operated with only $17 million, reinforcing that its valuation was not driven by natural market movement.
Conclusion
The final weekly competition results have not yet been announced by Binance, as they are still reviewing the data. However, the possibility of Broccoli F3B winning raises serious questions about the program’s legitimacy. This event highlights how poorly structured rules and influencer-driven hype can completely distort a market, harming solid projects while favoring speculative and manipulated price movements.
If Binance does not revise its criteria and take action against such practices, future competitions may continue to be a breeding ground for price manipulation, jeopardizing trust in its blockchain.
Disclaimer: Includes third-party opinions. No financial advice. May include sponsored content. See T&Cs.
39
0