On-chain analysis indicates wallets linked to the TRUMP memecoin deployer moved about $94 million in USDC to Coinbase during December 2025, including roughly $33 million on December 31, 2025. The flows were generated through single-sided liquidity operations on Meteora and then routed to a major regulated exchange, raising immediate questions about treasury management and off-ramp intent.
The withdrawals matter because they show how memecoin teams can convert token exposure into stablecoins with limited immediate price disruption, while late retail buyers absorb the risk. The transfers coincided with a steep token drawdown, reinforcing concerns about asymmetric outcomes between early operators and late entrants.
Mechanics: Single-Sided Liquidity as a Gradual Off-Ramp
Blockchain traces described the USDC as originating from single-sided liquidity provision and automated range orders on Meteora, a Solana-based AMM. This approach allows TRUMP tokens to be converted into USDC over predefined price bands, functioning as a staged unwind rather than a single large spot sale. The conversion reportedly unfolded over about three weeks in December 2025 and culminated in a concentrated $33 million transfer to Coinbase on December 31, 2025. The operational footprint suggests a deliberate execution plan built around incremental, market-absorbed selling.
Liquidity-extraction techniques for the related token MELANIA, implying repeatability across connected projects. Routing proceeds to Coinbase adds an institutional-grade bridge for custody, conversion, or fiat off-ramping, making the destination consistent with sizeable exits or treasury rebalancing. From a market-structure perspective, this pairing of on-chain conversion and centralized settlement reduces slippage visibility while improving final execution certainty. It is a workflow designed to maximize flexibility once stablecoin balances are consolidated.
Competing Interpretations and Risk Posture
Market observers have framed the activity in two primary ways: gradual value extraction or structured treasury and liquidity management. The same on-chain facts have been characterized as either a calculated “soft rug” or a sophisticated liquidity-management strategy, creating materially different implications for investor protection and compliance review. The divergence is not about what happened on-chain, but about the economic intent and governance context behind the flows. In regulated settings, intent and disclosure quality often determine whether similar mechanics are viewed as acceptable treasury practice or problematic conduct.
Evidence cited alongside the transfers includes a reported token price decline of more than 90% from peak levels during 2025 and claims that fees and token design generated roughly $320 million for insiders and related entities that year. If accurate within the reported dataset, these outcomes would intensify concerns that token economics concentrated upside with early parties while leaving retail holders exposed to prolonged sell pressure. That combination tends to amplify reputational and counterparty risk for intermediaries considering exposure. It also increases the probability that compliance teams escalate monitoring around repeat patterns and disclosure gaps.
The episode intersects with legal and institutional threads cited in the text, including a referenced cease-and-desist letter and public denials from Trump family members regarding formal involvement. In parallel, the filing of an S-1 by Canary Capital for a TRUMP memecoin ETF illustrates the tension between speculative token mechanics and attempts to package such assets into regulated wrappers. This juxtaposition is operationally consequential because regulated vehicles typically require clearer risk disclosures and a defensible market integrity narrative. The December on-chain unwind becomes a stress test for that narrative rather than a footnote.
From a control and oversight lens, the implications map cleanly across core risk categories. Single-sided liquidity can obscure the optics of large off-ramps while still exerting continuous selling pressure, and large stablecoin deposits into a regulated exchange can trigger AML/KYC scrutiny and potential reporting obligations. Fee and design structures that route proceeds to insiders can deter institutional counterparties, while retail outcomes reflect the practical impact of multi-week selling pressure during a drawdown. Taken together, the episode concentrates product, market, and compliance risk into a single observable execution pattern.
Looking ahead, teams will likely monitor exchange movements, on-chain activity, and any related disclosures for signals of whether the behavior repeats. Canary Capital’s S-1 filing and any subsequent reporting, alongside further wallet activity, will function as a real-world test of whether these assets can be operationalized in regulated vehicles without reintroducing the same mechanics that drove the December transfers.