BAFE: From ‘Removing a Zero’ to 96% Crash for Holders

BAFE launched on LBank on May 13, 2021, promising to remove a zero. Holders reported crashes between 80% and 96%.

English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published

BAFE: From ‘Removing a Zero’ to 96% Crash for Holders
The coin promising to remove zeros crashed up to 96%, according to holders

LBank’s announcement set BAFE’s debut on the exchange for May 13, 2021, at 16:00 (UTC+8), with the BAFE/USDT pair. According to the announcement, deposits were enabled on the 12th, trading peine on the 13th, and withdrawals began on the 14th. The post triggered a wave of early purchases on PancakeSwap, the only way to enter before listing, along with the classic promise: getting ahead of the market before the coin ‘removes another 0.’

The message that lit the fuse spoke of a loyal community, ‘quite large’ growth, and Juggernaut mode. Pimp later added that he had donated to pay marketing to a content creator with 6.4 million trinc. In this climate, buying wasn’t investing: it was joining a stampede hoping to exit before the rest.

How was BAFE bought before its listing?

With BNB and PancakeSwap, and with much more patience than anyone expected. The standard process started by buying BNB on Binance, trinc by installing a mobile wallet, requiring the conversion of the token to its Binance Smart Chain version, and ending with manually pasting the contract address into the V1 version of the decentralized exchange. Then, increasing the slippage to 12% and hoping the transaction wouldn’t fail.

The technical friction did the rest. Some rounded the amount to 860,000,000 to avoid slippage, others hit an insufficient funds warning because they didn’t have enough BNB to pay the gas fee, and some couldn’t find the coin simply because they didn’t know they had to paste the contract. An entrance exam disguised as a purchase that left many players out before they even started.

The crash: from removing decimals to adding them

The scenario flipped within days. According to the thread’s account, Bitcoin’s drop and Elon Musk’s message dragged the entire market, and small coins were the first to bleed. BAFE went from promising fewer zeros to adding another zero to its decimals every day, as one user summarized.

Testimonials paint a scale of damage: some lost 300 euros, which the owner considered a minor misfortune, 2 BNB were volatilized, and over 3,000 euros were reduced by 80%. Overall, crashes of ‘around 96%’ were reported. Even residual $5 didn’t exit the contract with a 15% slippage, and some saw $6 turn into $2. To sell, one needed a tolerance that was no longer prudence, but surrender.

Was BAFE a scam or a victim of the market?

The question remains unanswered. One side argues it was a manual fraud, citing the team’s disappearance for weeks and the inability to close positions. Another current attributes the collapse to the context: the general crash of small coins trinc Bitcoin’s drop, which took down entire projects without anyone touching a line of code.

The uncomfortable part is that the fraud narrative coexists with two details that don’t quite fit. Liquidity was scarce but not null, to the point that the thread cited days with $34,000 traded, and the price never reached absolute zero. The boundary between a poorly executed project and pure fraud is, in this terrain, much blurrier than it should be for either side.

The risk taken and the bill left behind

There is an argument almost no one disputes: no one was forced to buy. Those who entered did so knowing these coins can go to zero, and those who lost money tend to acknowledge it without needing reminders. The mistake wasn’t believing in the project, but misjudging the stake.

From this came the most repeated practical lesson: always keep a BNB reserve for gas and the next move, and never risk what you can’t afford to lose. A basic risk management advice that, in the midst of the frenzy, sounded like a buzzkill.

The team reappears and the coin rebounds 30%

After the silence, the developer showed signs, and a user observed a 30% rise. This reactivated purchases from those who had already lost, including the initial recommendation’s author, who announced expanding their position precisely because the team had reappeared.

No one knows if this rebound is the start of something or the last gasp of an idea. The only thing that hasn’t stopped moving is the negative percentage figures: the coin that came to remove zeros ended up leaving between 80% and 96% along the way, according to the thread’s counts.

Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (233 replies).

More summaries

All summaries in English →

Back