The Bitcoin Token Sale Whose Treasury Was Swept Started Settling Trades on Sunday and Repriced 72% on Monday Night — Seven On-Chain Settlements, a Commission of Exactly 3.00% Every Time, and a Market Page That Still Reads “Awaiting Price Discovery”

On Sunday this desk reported that the treasury of the “ico-20” token sale trading as LEAF had been swept on day two of an advertised 9,666-block window, 1.335 BTC leaving in seven transactions to three addresses that had never transacted before. On Monday night, one of those three addresses started settling trades.

Between 20:07:41 and 23:00:43 UTC on Monday 14 September, address B — bc1pa8vrkzs…qrffjrs, the taproot address that received 60,500,000 satoshis in the sweep — confirmed six Bitcoin transactions built to an identical six-output template, each carrying an ico-20 transfer instruction in an OP_RETURN and each paying a counterparty in satoshis. With the single transaction of the same shape from Sunday afternoon, that makes seven settlements.

Every one of the seven can be priced. Divide the satoshis the counterparty actually netted by the token quantity named in the OP_RETURN and the answer rounds to a clean four-decimal number in all seven cases — and the four-decimal figure then reproduces the payment exactly, to the satoshi, under a single rounding rule. On Monday night that number went 0.0860 → 0.0880 → 0.0900 → 0.0970 → 0.1200 → 0.1480 satoshis per LEAF: a rise of 72.093% in 2 hours 53 minutes and 2 seconds.

The project’s own front-end, fetched at 06:24 UTC this morning, still displays “Market data is unavailable”, “Awaiting price discovery”, an em-dash where the floor price should be and an em-dash where the market cap should be. The website says there is no price. The chain says there have been seven.

The seven settlements, in full

“Net satoshis” is the number that matters and it is not the number an explorer shows you at a glance. In each transaction the counterparty contributes two inputs of 670 satoshis — 1,340 in total — and receives a single larger output. The gross output in settlement 2, for example, is 92,567 satoshis; subtract the counterparty’s own 1,340 and the net transfer is 91,227. Price the gross and you get 0.08726 satoshis per LEAF and no pattern at all. Price the net and it comes to 0.0860 at four decimal places — and, as the next section shows, the exact relation is ceiling(1,060,779 × 0.0860) = 91,227.

Two rounding rules, recovered from the chain, exact on all seven

Once the net figures are in hand, two arithmetic rules fall out, and both hold to the satoshi on every one of the seven transactions.

• • Rule one — the price leg. Net satoshis = the token quantity multiplied by the four-decimal price, rounded up to the next whole satoshi. 1,060,779 × 0.0860 = 91,226.994, paid as 91,227. 8,400,950 × 0.0900 = 756,085.5, paid as 756,086. 2,754,610 × 0.0970 = 267,197.17, paid as 267,198. 1,326,126 × 0.1480 = 196,266.648, paid as 196,267. The three trades whose products are already whole numbers — 100,000 × 2.0000, 1,000,000 × 0.0880 and 7,000,000 × 0.1200 — are paid exactly. Seven of seven.
  • Rule two — the commission leg. The fourth output of every transaction goes to an address that is neither the counterparty nor B, and its value is 3% of the net, again rounded up. 200,000 → 6,000. 91,227 × 0.03 = 2,736.81 → 2,737. 756,086 × 0.03 = 22,682.58 → 22,683. 267,198 × 0.03 = 8,015.94 → 8,016. 196,267 × 0.03 = 5,888.01 → 5,889. Seven of seven, and never 2.99% or 3.01%.

Two stacked ceiling-rounding rules — the commission is charged on the output of the price rule, so they are not independent — holding exactly across seven transactions, four of them producing a fractional product that had to be rounded, is not a coincidence you can talk yourself into. It is software. Somebody is running a matching engine, and the engine charges three per cent.

The constant that appears in all seven

There is a fourth address in every transaction, and it is neither buyer nor seller nor the commission taker. Alongside the counterparty’s two 670-satoshi inputs and B’s entire balance, each settlement takes a 1,000-satoshi input from bc1q54cxdsctws…wu0zt2 and pays 1,000 satoshis straight back to it. It is never a payer and never a payee; it contributes a signature and a re-created anchor output. The same address appears in the Sunday settlement and in all six of Monday night’s. B also pays itself 1,000 satoshis back in every transaction, on the same pattern.

The commission address, by contrast, is not constant. Sunday’s trade paid bc1qvz6h07y…gs6v3p. Monday’s first paid bc1q9evppxq…vq7v4w. The remaining five all paid bc1qz9neflnz…7qg2uc. Three commission addresses across seven trades, on an otherwise identical output template.

The arithmetic reconciles to the satoshi

B’s balance at 06:10 UTC this morning is 57,972,603 satoshis. The final change output of Monday night’s last settlement was 57,465,603. Add the seven 1,000-satoshi anchor outputs B paid itself and the 500,000-satoshi output it received in the second sweep cluster on Sunday and you get 57,465,603 + 7,000 + 500,000 = 57,972,603. There is nothing unaccounted for.

Across the seven settlements: 21,642,465 LEAF were named in the OP_RETURN transfer instructions, 2,438,778 satoshis (0.02438778 BTC, about $1,907 at Monday’s close of $78,185.01) moved to counterparties, 73,165 satoshis (about $57) went to the three commission addresses, and 15,454 satoshis went to miners. Seven distinct counterparty addresses; no address appears twice.

What the deploy inscription says, and what it implies

The sale’s deploy transaction carries the payload {"p":"ico-20","op":"deploy","tick":"LEAF","max":"1000000000","lim":"21347","btc":"7000","ordi":"1"}. A maximum supply of one billion LEAF and a stated per-mint limit of 21,347.

This desk has recounted the treasury address in full this morning and finds 1,115 mints plus the deploy. If — and this is a genuine if, because the indexer’s crediting rule is not something we can verify — every mint were credited the full stated limit, the ceiling on everything ever minted is 1,115 × 21,347 = 23,801,905 LEAF, which is 2.3802% of the one-billion maximum. The 21,642,465 LEAF named across all seven settlements would then be 90.93% of that ceiling; Monday night’s six settlements alone account for 21,542,465, or 90.51%, inside 2 hours 53 minutes.

On the same if, the arithmetic on the other side is unkind. At Monday’s last print of 0.1480 satoshis, the entire minted ceiling is worth 3,522,682 satoshis — about $2,754. Buyers committed 137,994,517 satoshis (1.37994517 BTC, roughly $107,891) to the treasury to mint it. That is 2.55 cents of last-print value for every dollar committed. At the session’s opening print of 0.0860 it was 1.48 cents. We publish the range rather than one number because the price moved 72% inside one evening on six trades, and six trades on one desk is not a market.

Corrections to this desk’s own figures

This morning’s recount, run over the full 1,125-transaction list of the treasury address rather than an incremental update, supersedes six figures published here on Monday, across four findings. No new mint has landed since Sunday, so the differences are ours, not the chain’s.

• • 1,115 mints, not 1,114. One mint was missed by Monday’s count.
  • 1,114 of 1,115 mints carry the 330-satoshi output to the Liquid whitehat address — not all of them. Monday said “1,114 of 1,114”. The exception is transaction bd98708acc53… in block 966,751 at 01:40:03 UTC on 13 September: 30,000 satoshis to the treasury, a valid ico-20 mint payload, and no whitehat output at all. The 330-satoshi payment is therefore a convention that 99.910% of mints carried, not something the transaction is required to contain.
  • 137,994,517 satoshis committed to the treasury by mints, not 137,964,517.
  • Mint fees 1,345,269 satoshis over 766,065 virtual bytes across 82 blocks, from 873 distinct funders — Monday printed 1,344,703 / 765,745 / 875. The fee-to-delivery ratio is 3.659×, which rounds to the 3.66× published on Monday.

Meanwhile the sale itself is not taking money

The last mint confirmed at 15:39:02 UTC on Sunday 13 September — 1,000 satoshis. As of the 06:10 UTC snapshot that is 38 hours 30 minutes with no new mint, in a sale the project advertised to run 9,666 blocks, roughly sixty-seven days at ten minutes a block. The treasury balance is 4,343,439 satoshis and has not changed since Monday. Address A has not moved since Sunday afternoon and holds 58,399,577 satoshis. Address C has still never spent an output and holds 12,500,000.

The Liquid whitehat address gained 2,222 satoshis over the same period, and it is worth saying plainly what that was, because it was not ico-20 dust: two OP_RETURN messages of 1,111 satoshis each reading “f1rst-mixer.com Lets Go!”, confirmed at 11:06:48 and 11:12:59 UTC on Monday. No ico-20 mint has paid the whitehat address since Sunday afternoon. The address has still not spent an output since 7 September and holds 598.50433001 BTC across 1,442 confirmed transactions, of which the 1,114 whitehat-paying ico-20 mints are 77.25%.

What this desk is not asserting

• • Not that the ico-20 specification works the way any indexer implements it. We have read the payloads; we have not verified what any indexer credits to whom. In particular we do not assert the direction of the token leg — which party ends up holding the LEAF — because that depends on indexer rules we cannot check. The satoshi flows are read directly from the transactions and are not in doubt.
  • Not that these are arm’s-length trades. Seven settlements, seven counterparties, one balance-holding address and one constant co-signer is equally consistent with a working marketplace and with a small number of parties transacting with themselves. Nothing here distinguishes the two.
  • Not that 0.1480 satoshis is the price of LEAF. It is the price of the last of six settlements on one desk on one evening.
  • Not theft, fraud, abandonment, or any loss to any holder. Not that the whitehats control, endorse or know anything about any of this.
  • Guard, restated: the asset trading as “LEAF” on CoinGecko at $0.1755 as of this desk’s check on 14 September is a different asset entirely and has nothing to do with the token described here.

What settles next

Three tests from this desk’s standing list bear on the story and none of them can be graded today. AI1 asks whether any two of addresses A, B and C sign into a single transaction before 00:00 UTC on Wednesday; as of this morning they have not, and this desk said in advance that it expects a fail. AE1 asks whether ico-20 mints paying the whitehat address reach 2,000 by the same deadline; the count is 1,114 and the sale has taken nothing in thirty-eight hours. AK1 asks whether address C spends any output by Monday 21 September. A marker is graded on its settlement date and not before.

New test AM1, set today: an eighth settlement of the six-output template confirms, at a price outside the 0.0860–0.1480 band, before 00:00 UTC on Thursday 17 September.New test AN1: the leaficobtc.vercel.app front-end displays a numeric floor price by 00:00 UTC on Friday 18 September. Both will be graded here on their dates.

Searches run this morning for the token name together with the sale, the sweep and the marketplace return nothing from any outlet. Within the coverage this desk has reviewed, the seven settlements and the three-per-cent commission remain unreported.

Verify it yourself

• • Address B: mempool.space — the six-output template is every transaction from block 966,829 onward.
  • The constant co-signer: bc1q54cxdsctws…wu0zt2. The five-trade commission address: bc1qz9neflnz…7qg2uc.
  • The first Monday-night settlement: cc998aa77eb6…. The last: f324685493b8….
  • The mint with no whitehat output: bd98708acc53…. The deploy: f56a30447862…. The last mint: af20e437ad4b….
  • Treasury: bc1pq43ahs…sypleaf. Address A: bc1qeyylxht…ujajqt. Address C: bc1ppszyukd…qtvezl8. Whitehat: bc1ql4mfu6a…yqjlte.
  • The front-end: leaficobtc.vercel.app, which serves noindex, nofollow.

Background from this desk: the treasury sweep, transaction by transaction; the 330-satoshi output that started the story; Field Guide #48, how to read a token-sale treasury; and Field Guide #47, on telling a payment from a message. Today’s companion guide on reading a settlement transaction is Field Guide #49, and the full index is in the Reading Room.

Method: prices, funding, open interest, basis, mining and on-chain figures in this article are pulled directly by Bitcoin Mastery at the timestamp stated — Bitstamp BTC/USD daily candles for closes, Binance BTCUSDT spot and USDT-margined perpetual for intraday, open interest, funding and account ratios, Binance COIN-M quarterly contracts for basis, mempool.space for difficulty, hashrate, address balances and individual Bitcoin transactions, blockstream.info’s Liquid API for sidechain block heights, hashes, timestamps and transaction counts, alternative.me for the Fear & Greed series and Farside Investors’ table for ETF flows. Transaction counts, fee totals, byte totals and OP_RETURN payloads are recomputed from the full confirmed transaction list of the address concerned, not read off a summary. Where a third-party figure is cited we name the source and its date; where two sources disagree we print both. Every streak or extreme figure is published with the first date of its series in the same sentence. Where a figure published by this desk on an earlier date is superseded by a recount, the correction is printed in the article that supersedes it.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Cryptocurrencies are volatile and you can lose money. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy or sell any security, digital asset, token or exchange-traded fund, including MSTR, STRC, L-BTC, ORDI or the LEAF token where discussed above. Token sales and unregulated token marketplaces of the kind described here are unaudited, frequently anonymous and have no obligation to deliver anything in return for a payment; treat any coin sent to one as capable of going to zero, and treat a price observed in a handful of transactions on a single desk as capable of being unrepeatable. Do your own research and consult a licensed financial advisor before making investment decisions.