April has been one of the most turbulent months for the crypto markets, with over $600M lost across 12 exploits, exposing repeated failures in bridges, access controls, and governance—including the recent AAVE-linked disruption. But beyond these technical breakdowns, a different kind of risk is now coming into focus. Memecore (M), with its concentrated supply and low float, is raising structural concerns that feel familiar.
If exploits show how systems fail, what happens when the structure itself becomes the risk, and could this begin to resemble the path RAVE DAO took?
$6M+ Lost Across 12 Exploits—But Two Incidents Dominated the Damage
Crypto markets saw a wave of exploits this month, with 12 separate incidents exposing persistent weaknesses across DeFi, wallets, and infrastructure. However, the distribution of losses wasn’t even — two exploits alone accounted for nearly 95% of the total damage, highlighting how a single vulnerability at scale can outweigh multiple smaller failures combined.
The 12 Exploits This Month
- Kelp DAO — $293M (Apr 18)
- Drift Protocol — $285M (Apr 1)
- Fake Ledger App — $9.5M+
- Grinex Exchange — $13–15M (Apr 16)
- Rhea Finance — $7.6M (Apr 16)
- Hyperbridge — $2.5M (Apr 12)
- BSC TMM — $1.67M (Apr 4)
- Silo V2 — $392K (Apr 3)
- Aethir — $423K (Apr 9)
- Dango — $410K (Apr 13)
- MONA — $61K (Apr 13)
- SubQuery — $60K (Apr 12)
- Zerion Wallet — $100K (Apr 14)
What stands out isn’t just the scale — it’s the repetition. Every single exploit this month falls into well-known attack categories, not unknown vulnerabilities. This suggests the issue isn’t innovation from attackers but persistent gaps in execution and security practices.
- Access control failures: Drift, Aethir, SubQuery
- Bridge/oracle exploits: Kelp DAO, Hyperbridge, Silo V2
- Social engineering: Fake Ledger app, Zerion
- Smart contract bugs: Dango, MONA, BSC TMM
The main takeaway is clear: these were not unpredictable attacks, but they were preventable failures.
Crash Alert: Is Memecore the Next RAVE of the Crypto Market?
While exploits continue to expose technical weaknesses, another risk is quietly building on the market structure side. Memecore (M) price is now under scrutiny after on-chain investigator ZachXBT raised concerns over its high insider concentration, with reports suggesting more than 90% of the supply may be controlled by a small group.
| Factors | Memecore (M) | Rave DAO (RAVE) |
| Supply Concentration | Reportedly, more than 90% held by insiders | Reportedly, more than 98% held by a few wallets |
| Float vs FDV | Low float, FDV (~$17B to $30B) | Low float, inflated valuation before the crash |
| Liquidity Depth | Thin relative to valuation | Thin liquidity before collapse |
| Price Support Mechanism | Insider control can defend the price in the short term | Price held artificially before breakdown |
| Market Behaviour | Prone to sharp moves on either side | Saw extreme volatility before the collapse |
This creates a familiar setup. A low circulating float combined with a high fully diluted valuation ($17B–$30B) introduces structural inefficiencies, where price discovery becomes distorted. Similar conditions were seen in tokens like RAVE, which experienced a 95–99% drawdown after scrutiny increased and liquidity failed to support the valuation.
However, this isn’t a straightforward bearish case. Markets with tight supply and high insider control often behave differently. Limited float can artificially support price in the short term while also creating conditions for sharp short squeezes when liquidity is thin. At current levels, with the Memecore price at $3.3 to $3.4 and volume around $25 to $27 million, the gap between the circulating and total supply is pretty wide.
Hence, this suggests Memecore is a controlled environment where the price can move aggressively in either direction.
Key Signals to Watch Next!
After experiencing massive losses this month, here are the signals that matter next as the M price set-up is structure-driven and if a breakdown triggers, it would be a massive one.
- Exchange inflow spikes → Large transfers (especially from insider wallets) signal potential distribution and incoming sell pressure
- Price drop with rising volume → Indicates real selling, not just volatility; demand failing to absorb supply
- Failure at key psychological levels (e.g., $3) → Loss of confidence triggers stops and accelerates downside
- Thin liquidity vs high valuation → Weak order books + high market cap create unstable price conditions
- Shift in narrative/sentiment → From “strong treasury” → “sustainability concerns” signals confidence breakdown
- Insider wallet movements → Early holders reducing exposure can trigger broader market exits
Wrapping it Up: Is Memecore the next Rave Dao?
Memecore (M) price is showing structural similarities that can’t be ignored—concentrated supply, thin liquidity, and narrative-driven support. But it hasn’t reached the breakdown phase yet. For now, the setup remains stable on the surface, fragile underneath.
So the real question is: is Memecore the next RAVE DAO — or just another controlled market that hasn’t cracked yet?
Trust with CoinPedia:
CoinPedia has been delivering accurate and timely cryptocurrency and blockchain updates since 2017. All content is created by our expert panel of analysts and journalists, following strict Editorial Guidelines based on E-E-A-T (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness). Every article is fact-checked against reputable sources to ensure accuracy, transparency, and reliability. Our review policy guarantees unbiased evaluations when recommending exchanges, platforms, or tools. We strive to provide timely updates about everything crypto & blockchain, right from startups to industry majors.
Investment Disclaimer:
All opinions and insights shared represent the author’s own views on current market conditions. Please do your own research before making investment decisions. Neither the writer nor the publication assumes responsibility for your financial choices.
Sponsored and Advertisements:
Sponsored content and affiliate links may appear on our site. Advertisements are marked clearly, and our editorial content remains entirely independent from our ad partners.
