Twelve Tokens, One Operator

“Operator” here means whoever controls these wallets — one party signing the transactions. It is not a claim about headcount: a project can have a team, contributors and paid contractors, and several of these do. What the ledger shows is the wallets, and the wallets are one set.

Every one of the 11 issued tokens went out through the same launchpad, FirstLedger — across nineteen months and ten different creator wallets, the tool never changed.

Newest last. Marketcap is what every unit in existence is worth added together, and holders is how many addresses still hold any.

Every one of the 8 low-value tokens did trade above 500 XRP at its peak — from 991 to 15,134 XRP — so these are declines, not tokens that never got going. Today they are worth 821 XRP, which is less than a single mid-size trade. 3 are still worth something — YZZUF, ZERPS, YZZUF — and the two largest arrived last. The twelfth, ARMY, is in the table because the wallet belongs to the same operator, but it never issued a single unit and has never traded: an issuer account was created and then abandoned.

They are not one flat group. They fall into three clusters, and what joins the clusters to each other is a single account at an exchange.

5 of the 12 tokens name an X account. X publishes where an account is based — for some it shows a country, for others only a broad region. 3 of these show a country, and every one of them says New Zealand.

For scale: of the 8,081 X accounts we track across the whole XRP Ledger, 33 are based in New Zealand — about 0.4%. Getting 3 out of 3 by chance is roughly one in 14,684,309.

One date is worth adding. The X account for the newest token was created on 4 December 2024 — the same day as the 192.55 XRP withdrawal that started the funding chain, and the same day the first token launched.

Treat this as context, not proof. Where an account says it is based can be affected by travel, a VPN or a phone bought in another country, and half of these tokens name no account at all. It agrees with the ledger evidence; it does not carry it.

The 3 tokens still worth something present themselves very differently from the 8 that are not — and from each other.

Drawn to one scale, largest at the top of the axis. Most of these bars are invisible because there is almost nothing left in them.

The obvious question about a run of launches is how much the operator made. Added up across all 12 tokens, their 170 wallets spent 38,194 XRP buying and received 30,071 XRP selling — they are 8,123 XRP down on their own tokens. This is not a dump-for-profit pattern.

The reason shows up when you ask who the trades belong to.

Half of ZERPS's trades come from wallets in this group. The single busiest wallet in that token is rhLfUuBD… — the wallet that created CASTLE, from the funding chain — with 364,815 trades, 13,859 XRP bought against 13,612 XRP sold, finishing -38 XRP down.

Two readings fit that, and the ledger does not choose between them. Constant small round-trips at break-even is what an automated market maker looks like when someone provides liquidity in their own token — a normal and useful thing to do. It is also what inflating a trade count looks like. What the number does establish is that the activity is not independent demand: anyone reading ZERPS's 1.13 million trades as a crowd should know that half of them are the project itself.

YZZUF is the opposite. Its 27 family wallets account for 0.1% of its trades. Whatever is happening there is other people.

One limit worth stating: these figures cover trades on the order book and the AMM. They do not include liquidity pulled back out of a pool, or anything sent directly wallet to wallet. The only cash-out we can actually name is the 679.91 XRP across 8 payments in the table above.

There is one more on-chain tie between the two live tokens, and it is not subtle: a live AMM pool holding ZERPS on one side and YZZUF on the other — rQHJzdXvrZ94PK…, holding 2.86e13 ZERPS against 22.5M YZZUF at a 0.864% fee.

Anyone can look it up, and the operator points to it himself as evidence he has not hidden the relationship — which is fair, and worth saying plainly. It is also the most direct statement on the ledger that these two projects are run together.

A third account, @QuantZillaCoin, promotes these tokens: on 14 Aug 2026 it quote-tweeted the YZZUF account praising its new website. Readers told us it belonged to the same team, so we tested it the same way as everything else on this page. Every answer came back negative:

Then both of them told us directly that they do work together. The operator of ZERPS and YZZUF says he has a small team; the account above says it was contracted and paid in advance to provide a service to YZZUF — airdrops to NFT holders and liquidity injections — through its own platform.

So the affiliation is real, and none of our on-chain methods can see it. That is the honest limit of this kind of analysis, and it cuts both ways. A contract, an employee, a paid promoter and a co-founder all leave the same trace on the ledger, which is to say none at all. Wallets record who moved money into existence and who cashed out where; they do not record who was hired.

It is still not counted anywhere on this page, and none of its tokens appear in the table — because what this article measures is wallets, and by that measure they are separate. A working relationship is not the same claim as a shared wallet, and only one of the two is something we can show you.

Their statements were made to us in private messages and are paraphrased here rather than quoted, so treat them as what they are: the subjects' own account of the arrangement, not something we independently verified.

The obvious way to ask “has this developer done this before?” is to count the tokens their address has issued. Against a brand-new wallet that question always answers one, however long the history behind it.

This is not a claim that launching several tokens is wrong. It is a point about what a number means: an address with no history is not the same thing as a developer with no history, and only one of those is what a buyer wants to know. The token page for the newest launch now shows the whole group instead of the single address — see it there.

Every claim above comes from two public sources and needs no special access.

1. Who created a wallet. Ask any full-history XRPL server for the account's earliest transaction — account_tx with forward: true and limit: 1. The sender of that payment is the funder. Run it on any address in the table above.
2. The payments themselves. Open any hash in the receipts table; each one resolves to a Payment whose destination is the wallet on that row.
3. Token state. Holders, trustlines and marketcap come from our token index and are linked per row — they move, so figures are stamped 2026-08-15.

One boundary is worth stating plainly. A funding chain proves that one wallet paid to create another. That is a fact about money, not about people: it is very strong evidence of a single operator, and it is not a signed confession. We publish the payments so the reader can judge them, and we do not name anybody.

More like this in XRPL Insights.