During the overall market downturn, PEPE whales amassed a large portion of the token’s total supply, profiting from a 73% drop. This accumulation, amounting to approximately 23 billion tokens held by the 100 largest wallets, has reignited the debate about whether this action indicates a genuine recovery or is simply a liquidity trap for retail investors.
On-chain analyses cited in various reports indicate that the top 100 PEPE wallets accumulated approximately 23.02 billion tokens between October and February. This buying spree coincided with a period of sharp depreciation, during which the asset’s market capitalization reportedly fell by about 73%, suggesting that the acquisitions were made during a period of weakness.
PEPE continues to be pressured around the $0.0000036 support level, while the overall sentiment of the crypto market remained in the “Extreme Fear” zone. In this context, the high concentration of tokens in a few wallets reduced the effective liquidity in circulation, a dynamic that tends to amplify price movements, both upward and downward.
This situation opens a debate about the nature of the accumulation. On the one hand, some observers interpret the purchases as a patient strategy by large holders that could support a rebound if demand returns. On the other hand, there is a more skeptical interpretation: accumulation can also be used to construct a narrative of scarcity, stimulate retail interest, and eventually facilitate exits under more favorable conditions.
Interpretations, market tactics, and the immediate future of PEPE
Analysts warn that accumulation, by itself, does not guarantee a trend reversal. To validate a sustainable shift, a more robust price structure and buyers willing to intervene at progressively higher levels would be necessary. Without this confirmation, the risk that the movement is driven by speculative tactics remains.
Furthermore, reports mention practices that often accompany episodes of high concentration in low-cap tokens: the circulation of manipulated charts, fabricated narratives on social media, sensationalist content that fuels retail FOMO, and even behaviors such as wash trading or spoofing to simulate demand. In more coordinated scenarios, these dynamics can lead to pump-and-dump schemes that create rapid entry and exit windows for large holders.
For exchanges, custodians, and compliance teams, the reported concentration represents a significant operational signal. It is prudent to monitor substantial transfers, order book anomalies, and unusual flows between platforms.
In the coming weeks, the key will be to observe whether buyers maintain higher levels and whether genuine demand returns—factors that will determine whether the accumulation consolidates supply or simply paves the way for further concentrated outflows.
