Resemblance of structure, not destiny.
Every episode names its benign twin.
Mechanisms are documented; nobody is accused.
Failure modes, as documented mechanisms
Each entry here is a failure mechanism traced to a checkable public incident — on-chain evidence anyone can re-verify — and admitted one at a time under a written sourcing standard, with its counter-signals beside it. Give Evidesa a mint and it maps the token's recorded shape against each entry's markers: matched, unmatched, and not establishable, separately.
The library 2 entries, admitted one by one
A token launches into a concentrated holder structure; within hours, team-associated addresses withdraw value directly from the liquidity pool while the price collapses. Authority revocation does not prevent it: the mechanism operates through liquidity, not through mint or freeze capability — the source incident had both revoked.
Source incident: LIBRA (2025-02-14): created 21:37–21:38 UTC, 1B supply; ~USD 7.8M in SOL withdrawn from the launch pool by linked addresses within hours, ~96% price fall from peak in three hours (TRM Labs). Flow-level evidence is aggregate cluster analysis in the cited source; no individual transaction signatures are recorded here. analysis
Markers: liquidity outcome: removed episode · recorded transition: liquidity thinning · top-10 holders in the 70-100% band · mint authority revoked · freeze authority revoked.
Counter-signals: An accidental LP burn produces the same removal signature with no extraction — SLERF (2024-03) is the documented case. A team migrating liquidity to a new pool or venue thins the old pool identically. Dynamic or single-sided liquidity mechanics can read as withdrawal in snapshot data. The market-data provider switching its selected pair makes liquidity appear to vanish without any on-chain removal.
Admitted under the sourcing standard, signed Atakan Keser, 2026-08-23.
A token launches with the overwhelming majority of supply already held by a small, interconnected set of wallets; the public float is a few percent. Within hours, early holders sell into the launch demand and the market collapses. Authority revocation and a locked pool do not prevent it: the mechanism operates through distribution, not through mint capability or the liquidity contract.
Source incident: HAWK (2024-12-04): ~96% of supply held by ten interconnected wallets before launch, ~3–4% public float (Bubblemaps); one wallet acquired 17.5% of supply seconds after launch for ~4,195 WSOL and sold rapidly (TRM Labs); ~91% market-cap decline within three hours. Flow-level evidence is aggregate cluster analysis in the cited sources; no individual transaction signatures are recorded here. analysis
Markers: top-10 holders in the 70-100% band · mint authority revoked · freeze authority revoked.
Counter-signals: Exchange custody consolidation reads as few-wallet concentration without any coordination. Launchpad escrow and vesting contracts hold large shares at launch by design. Market-maker inventory allocations concentrate supply with no insider intent. A fair launch bought early by a few large buyers shows the same top-10 shape.
Admitted under the sourcing standard, signed Atakan Keser, 2026-08-23.
Where the next entries come from: candidates from this product's own corpus — recorded series that classify a removed-liquidity episode, pending the admission ceremony.
Episodes document mechanisms, never operators: no entry names or accuses a person. The registry grows one signed entry at a time — there is no bulk import, by design — and a mapping is a count against stated predicates, never a probability of anything.