BULLENCIAGAHolding study
DEEP DIVE ↗

THE HOUSE / A LITTLE LESS GUESSWORK

What if
I held?

Did your trades help?
Or would sitting still have paid more?

Compare the percentage return from your trades with the return from simply holding. Tokens you haven’t sold count too.

Check a wallet ↓
Snapshot · 02 Oct 2026 · 02:17 UTCRETURNS MEASURED IN SOLLIVE WALLET LOOKUP · DATED GROUP STUDY
Loading the verified trade history…

01 / SAME WALLET. TWO WAYS TO PLAY IT.

Did trading earn its keep?

Paste a public wallet address.
No connection or signature needed.

Inspect any public Solana wallet. First scans can take a little longer.

OR EXPLORE A DATED STUDY EXAMPLE

DATED GROUP STUDY / 02 OCTOBER 2026

THE FULL HISTORY

74of 94 wallets

would have finished ahead by holding.

TYPICAL TOTAL RETURNS IN THIS GROUP (MEDIAN)

WITH TRADING

Sold gains + unsold gains

JUST HOLDING

Same funding, no sales

These are separate group medians. The matched difference is calculated for each wallet first.

02 / THE SIMPLE VERSION

Profit is profit.
A loss is still a loss.

Trading gets credit when it improves the result. Holding gets credit when the tokens rise without being sold.

01

You’re still holding

Spend 1 SOL. Your tokens are now worth 1.5 SOL.

+50% total return

The 0.5 SOL gain counts, even though you haven’t sold.

02

You sell and buy back cheaper

Spend 1 SOL. Sell for 1.2. Buy the same tokens back for 1. Keep 0.2 SOL.

+20% total return

If those tokens are still worth 1 SOL, trading has put you ahead.

03

You close at a loss

Spend 1 SOL. Sell everything for 0.8 SOL.

−20% total return

Still a loss. It can also be a better outcome than holding through a larger fall.

Illustrative examples, before additional costs. Direct SOL trades include successful transaction costs. Routed or non-SOL trades may use an estimated SOL value, as marked in each result.

03 / WHAT’S BEHIND THE NUMBERS

One fair comparison.
Clear limits.

The question is what each wallet could have kept by holding the same purchases funded with the same money.

Return % = total profit or loss ÷ funding × 100.

Total profit or loss = profit on sales + profit on unsold tokens + change in value before tokens were moved or spent.

Funding = new SOL needed by the strategy, plus opening tokens and received transfers at their market value. Reused sale proceeds aren’t counted twice.

How the comparison works +

Each wallet is compared with its own no-sale alternative. Recorded sales stay as SOL in a simulated BULLEN account and fund later buys first. When those proceeds are insufficient, both versions receive the same extra SOL. The holding version uses that new SOL to buy at the observed all-in execution price and never sells. Final values include remaining tokens and retained SOL, priced at the same snapshot.

The measure is a simple return on contributed strategy capital, not an annualized or time-weighted return. Results are in SOL, not USD. A difference between +50% and +20% is 30 percentage points. The former report’s “44.9% more ending value” uses a different denominator and is not the same as a return gap.

Profit on sold tokens uses FIFO: the oldest acquisition cost is assigned first. Unrealized profit is the remaining tokens’ marked value minus their remaining acquisition cost. When tokens leave through a transfer or NFT payment, their gain or loss up to that moment is a separate component. Those three components add to the total. In the recent week, opening inventory starts at that week’s opening market value, so these are period gains rather than lifetime tax gains.

Successful-swap SOL costs are included. Failed-transaction fees and activity in other assets are outside this comparison. Recoverable token-account rent and wrapped SOL are reconciled. Final values are spot marks, not guaranteed sale proceeds; hypothetical exit fees, liquidity limits and price impact are not simulated. The hold replay prorates fixed trade costs when its hypothetical buy is smaller.

How live wallet results handle transfers +

Any public Solana wallet can be scanned. The tool fetches its BULLEN movements on demand, checks the token balances, and refreshes while this page is open. The balance and price have their own finalized block references. A cached result is reused for up to one minute; the displayed timestamp always belongs to the actual observation.

Received tokens, including early allocations, start at their market value on arrival. That is a performance estimate from receipt, not the recipient’s original purchase cost. If tokens arrived before the first available market price, the comparison begins at that first priced balance and says so.

Transfers, burns and NFT payments withdraw tokens from this comparison. The same fraction of the holding balance is withdrawn at that time. Both versions keep that withdrawn market value in their ending totals, so spending tokens is not reported as a zero-proceeds trade. Later performance of a destination wallet or NFT is outside this model.

Direct SOL settlement uses the wallet’s net balance change. Routed or non-SOL trades may use the executed pool’s SOL leg as an estimate; fees and the recipient’s actual settlement can differ. Unsupported movements never become invented trades. A wallet with unresolved history still shows its balance and available receipts, with the return withheld where it cannot be established.

Results show the effect of decisions at this wallet address, not a person’s complete finances. The retained SOL is a simulated strategy balance, not the wallet’s current native SOL balance. The first scan is paginated; unusually large histories above 20,000 indexed BULLEN transactions are explicitly marked partial. Provider outages or shared usage limits can temporarily delay a scan.

Which wallets are included in the dated group study? +

Full-history wallets must begin with zero BULLEN, have priced SOL trades on the main pool, and reconcile at every observed balance change and the closing snapshot. Gifts, transfers, early pooled allocations, burns/NFT spending, non-SOL routes and unresolved trades can prevent a reliable lifetime result. An excluded address is not assumed to have zero cost or no trading activity.

The 12 early contributors in the supplied allocation record have verified proportional deliveries across 14 wallets. Their complete personal purchase costs are not established, so they are excluded from the lifetime comparison. The recent-week comparison can use equal opening marked balances without inventing that earlier cost.

The default group has at least two buys and two sells, activity spanning 24 hours or more, and at least 0.1 SOL of funding. Frequent traders need at least ten swaps and two sell-to-buy transitions. Fully exited wallets can qualify. Addresses are not necessarily independent people; no disclosed contributor pair appears twice in either default group.

80 of 94 full-history repeat traders first bought in August. Entry date and price changes matter. The shorter window contains a different group. These historical results do not establish that trading will lose, that holding always wins, or that the sample represents every holder.

Snapshot, sources and downloads +

The group study and its example buttons retain the original 2 October research snapshot. A typed wallet address always uses the live scanner and its own displayed timestamp. Group filters do not limit which addresses you can inspect.

Download the public study data ↗ · Inspect the source ↗