Audit log

Every state-changing event for Bonk: moderation decisions on community submissions, plus corrections and updates from the news pipeline. URL-based decisions are designed to carry three independent witnesses — the original source, an Internet Archive snapshot, and a Solana memo signed by our publicly-disclosed publisher key. Archive coverage is still being backfilled, so each decision below reports its own snapshot status rather than assuming one exists.

1. #1publishby system:backfill

   2026-05-14 06:02:34Z
   Score: ? → ? (no score change)
   anchoranchored

   chain

   ●mainnet-betaslot 419,628,927

   sig

   ScZbQEeHawMb…BGEQqMG1copyexplorer ↗

   hash

   C7RXMxJ2dqT6…wGk6bLV5copysha256 → base58

   verifying row…full verify ↗

   canonical bytes (4725 B) ▸

   {"actor":"system:backfill","investigation_id":"2a48b3c5-5a6f-4913-a093-0800cc23a7e9","kind":"publish","page_slug":"bonk","published_at":"2026-05-14T06:02:34.568Z","sequence_num":1,"snapshot":{"content_type":"investigation","entity_name":"Bonk","sections":[{"content":"Bonk launched on December 25, 2022, created by an anonymous core team of 22 Solana community developers and builders. Positioned as 'the first Solana dog coin for the people, by the people,' it was designed to revitalize the Solana ecosystem after the FTX collapse. 50% of total supply was distributed via airdrop to Solana NFT collectors, developers, and artists. The airdrop generated ~$20M in trading volume on Orca DEX alone, and BONK surged over 2,000% in its first week.","heading":"Origins and Launch","severity":"medium","sources":[{"credibility":2,"name":"CoinMarketCap: Deep Dive Into Bonk","type":"news_article","url":"https://coinmarketcap.com/academy/article/a-deep-dive-into-bonk"},{"credibility":2,"name":"Atomic Wallet: What Is BONK","type":"news_article","url":"https://atomicwallet.io/academy/articles/what-is-bonk"}]},{"content":"In early January 2023, Bonk developers burned over 5 trillion tokens (5% of total supply), effectively burning all tokens earmarked for the development team. This was an unusual move for a meme coin project and was interpreted as a signal of community-first intent. Bonk DAO later pledged to burn an additional 1T BONK if unique on-chain holders surpassed 1 million.","heading":"Team Token Burn","severity":"low","sources":[{"credibility":1,"name":"CoinDesk: Bonk Developers Burn All Team Tokens","type":"news_article","url":"https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2023/01/06/bonk-inu-developers-burn-all-their-team-tokens-as-solana-ecosystem-frenzy-continues"}]},{"content":"The founding team of 22 members remains anonymous. While this is common in the meme coin space, it creates accountability risks. There is no known entity behind the project that could be held legally responsible. The project operates through a Bonk DAO structure for governance decisions.","heading":"Anonymous Team Risk","severity":"medium","sources":[{"credibility":2,"name":"Blockchain Council: Bonk Meme Coin","type":"news_article","url":"https://www.blockchain-council.org/cryptocurrency/bonk-meme-coin/"}]},{"content":"In September 2025, NASDAQ-listed Safety Shot acquired over 228 billion BONK tokens (~$55M) for its corporate treasury, representing one of the first instances of a publicly traded company taking a significant position in a meme coin. Bonk remains one of the most liquid meme coins on Solana with significant trading volume across major exchanges.","heading":"Institutional Adoption","severity":"low","sources":[{"credibility":2,"name":"Atomic Wallet: BONK in 2025","type":"news_article","url":"https://atomicwallet.io/academy/articles/bonk-2025-solana-memecoin"}]}],"sources_used":[{"credibility":1,"name":"CoinDesk: Bonk Team Token Burn","type":"news_article","url":"https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2023/01/06/bonk-inu-developers-burn-all-their-team-tokens-as-solana-ecosystem-frenzy-continues"},{"credibility":2,"name":"CoinMarketCap: Bonk Deep Dive","type":"news_article","url":"https://coinmarketcap.com/academy/article/a-deep-dive-into-bonk"},{"credibility":2,"name":"Atomic Wallet: BONK 2025","type":"news_article","url":"https://atomicwallet.io/academy/articles/bonk-2025-solana-memecoin"}],"summary":"Bonk (BONK) is a Solana-based dog-themed meme coin launched Christmas Day 2022 by an anonymous team of 22 Solana community members as a post-FTX community revival initiative. 50% of total supply was airdropped to Solana NFT holders, developers, and artists. Developers burned all team tokens (5T BONK, 5% of supply) in January 2023. BONK surged 2,000%+ in its first week. NASDAQ-listed Safety Shot acquired 228B BONK ($55M) for its treasury in September 2025. No protocol-level exploits recorded. Key risks: anonymous team, meme coin volatility, no fundamental utility beyond community engagement.","timeline":[{"date":"2022-12-25","event":"Bonk launches on Solana with 50% supply airdropped to community members","source":"coinmarketcap.com","source_url":"https://coinmarketcap.com/academy/article/a-deep-dive-into-bonk"},{"date":"2023-01-06","event":"Developers burn all team tokens (5T BONK, 5% of supply)","source":"coindesk.com","source_url":"https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2023/01/06/bonk-inu-developers-burn-all-their-team-tokens-as-solana-ecosystem-frenzy-continues"},{"date":"2025-09-01","event":"NASDAQ-listed Safety Shot acquires 228B BONK (~$55M) for corporate treasury","source":"atomicwallet.io","source_url":"https://atomicwallet.io/academy/articles/bonk-2025-solana-memecoin"}]},"v":1}

   Verify offline (run on your own machine)

   python -m src.verify_decision 79e13d96-2acf-4ba1-958c-d2fa73b0bc4fcopy
2. #2reviewby reviewerreviewer

   2026-08-27 10:40:23Z
   Score: 45 → 45 (no score change)
   The page's historical claims about Bonk's December 2022 launch, airdrop mechanics, first-week price surge, and January 2023 team-token burn are well-supported by independent contemporaneous reporting. However, the page is thin relative to how heavily covered this token is: it omits a ~$20M BonkDAO governance-attack treasury drain and subsequent Upbit delisting (contradicting its own 'no protocol-level exploits recorded' claim), presents an already-resolved 1-trillion-token burn conditional as still pending, and describes the Safety Shot treasury position without noting the company's subsequent rebrand and expanded holdings. No tokenomics table, current market data, or on-chain analysis is present.
   anchorpending

   chain

   ●—

   hash

   8THonU5VunnW…EcprF6JGcopysha256 → base58

   verifying row…

   canonical bytes (1046 B) ▸

   {"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-08-27T10:40:22.787Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"2a48b3c5-5a6f-4913-a093-0800cc23a7e9","new_score":45,"page_slug":"bonk","prev_score":45,"reason":"The page's historical claims about Bonk's December 2022 launch, airdrop mechanics, first-week price surge, and January 2023 team-token burn are well-supported by independent contemporaneous reporting. However, the page is thin relative to how heavily covered this token is: it omits a ~$20M BonkDAO governance-attack treasury drain and subsequent Upbit delisting (contradicting its own 'no protocol-level exploits recorded' claim), presents an already-resolved 1-trillion-token burn conditional as still pending, and describes the Safety Shot treasury position without noting the company's subsequent rebrand and expanded holdings. No tokenomics table, current market data, or on-chain analysis is present.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}

   Verify offline (run on your own machine)

   python -m src.verify_decision 9062f509-1d87-4b8d-9ac8-95775ab676e4copy
3. #3review reviseby judgejudge

   2026-08-27 10:40:23Z
   Score: 45 → 33 (-12)
   The numeric disputed rate (1 disputed + 0 unverifiable out of 11 claims = 9.1%) falls in the approve band on its own, but two of this run's explicit adjustment rules override a flat approval here. First, claim_findings[7] disputes the page's own summary statement that there are 'no protocol-level exploits recorded' -- the reviewer found a well-documented ~$20M BonkDAO governance-attack treasury drain (~July 2026) and a subsequent Upbit delisting citing unresolved security issues, neither mentioned on the page. This is not a peripheral fact; it directly contradicts the core safety assurance a risk-intelligence page exists to provide, on a widely-held token, so it carries more weight than an ordinary single disputed item. Second, coverage_gaps lists a high-priority gap for exactly this same missing security-incident history, and this run's rules direct that a high-priority gap should push a page toward review_revise even when the disputed percentage is low. Compounding this, claim_findings[5] shows the page presents a 1-trillion-token burn as a hypothetical future condition when the threshold was actually reached and the burn scheduled/executed roughly eight months before this review (marked stale, wrong-direction). Given these findings, together with the reviewer's moderate (0.75) confidence, a light downward revision is warranted rather than either a clean approval or a denial.
   anchorpending

   chain

   ●—

   hash

   D2JqMyEsYEtk…fF6WBR3Xcopysha256 → base58

   verifying row…

   canonical bytes (1746 B) ▸

   {"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-27T10:40:22.787Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"2a48b3c5-5a6f-4913-a093-0800cc23a7e9","new_score":33,"page_slug":"bonk","prev_score":45,"reason":"The numeric disputed rate (1 disputed + 0 unverifiable out of 11 claims = 9.1%) falls in the approve band on its own, but two of this run's explicit adjustment rules override a flat approval here. First, claim_findings[7] disputes the page's own summary statement that there are 'no protocol-level exploits recorded' -- the reviewer found a well-documented ~$20M BonkDAO governance-attack treasury drain (~July 2026) and a subsequent Upbit delisting citing unresolved security issues, neither mentioned on the page. This is not a peripheral fact; it directly contradicts the core safety assurance a risk-intelligence page exists to provide, on a widely-held token, so it carries more weight than an ordinary single disputed item. Second, coverage_gaps lists a high-priority gap for exactly this same missing security-incident history, and this run's rules direct that a high-priority gap should push a page toward review_revise even when the disputed percentage is low. Compounding this, claim_findings[5] shows the page presents a 1-trillion-token burn as a hypothetical future condition when the threshold was actually reached and the burn scheduled/executed roughly eight months before this review (marked stale, wrong-direction). Given these findings, together with the reviewer's moderate (0.75) confidence, a light downward revision is warranted rather than either a clean approval or a denial.","score_delta":-12,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}

   Verify offline (run on your own machine)

   python -m src.verify_decision 77298097-829f-49ca-ac71-4818567cffd0copy