$UNIPOLEON

reading this pool's swap logs…

• · V4 depth is UNMEASURED, not zero: V4's PoolManager is a singleton holding every pool's tokens in one contract balance, so per-pool reserves cannot be read as balances. We say so rather than guess.
• · Volume is the 24h ETH leg the chainwide index attributed to each pool — a floor over what its per-tick budget could walk, never a lifetime total. Share divides by $UNIPOLEON's 24h ETH across all 2 of its pools, not just the rows listed.

• · Every row is the account that SIGNED the swap transaction — never the router the trade was routed through. (Measured while building this: every swap-event “sender” in a live window was a contract; a board of those would be a list of routers.)
• · Totals cover ONLY the indexed window: 421 swaps attributed for $UNIPOLEON between 2026-08-07 15:53Z and 2026-08-07 19:05Z — at least 49% of the 853 swaps our volume index counted over the same hours. Attribution is budgeted per tick and takes the highest-value blocks first, so every figure here is a floor over a stated period, never a lifetime total.
• · ETH in and ETH out are shown separately because net alone cannot tell “never sold” from “round-tripped”.
• · An account signing on others' behalf (a keeper, a relayer) appears as one signer. The “tokens” column is shown so bot- and infrastructure-shaped accounts are visible rather than silently ranked as people.

• · These strings were written into the token contract by whoever deployed it, and some of what is above came from our index rather than from this request — each part says which. Anyone can deploy a contract and write anything into it. A link here is not evidence that the account, site or person it points to has anything to do with $UNIPOLEON — we do not check, we do not ask them, and we never follow the link to see where it lands.
• · A link tagged post, not account points at one specific page rather than a profile. On this chain that is routinely a link to somebody else's post: on 2026-08-06, six unrelated tokens linked the same tweet by Uniswap's founder. It is a fact about the URL, not about who wrote the post.
• · Read them yourself: the contract on the explorer ↗

last 24h 0 ETH added over 0 events · 0 ETH left the pools over 0 movements (V3 collects and V2 burns — the two ways tokens actually leave a pool contract) · 7 V4 events carry a liquidity delta and no amounts, so they are counted here and add nothing to the ETH figures. Floors over the pools and blocks we walked, not a census.

• Every row is a log we decoded, stamped with the block it came from. This panel states what moved, when, and who signed for it — it does not label a removal, and it never will. Taking liquidity out is an ordinary operation; the reader draws the conclusion from the numbers and the times.
• V3 splits a removal in two: closed is the burn, which only credits what the position is owed, and withdrawn is the collect, where the tokens actually leave the pool. A collect carries accrued fees as well as principal and the event does not separate them, so we do not either. V2 does not split: a V2 removed transferred in the same call, with no collect to wait for, which is why the summary counts it as ETH that left rather than as principal credited.
• V4 rows report a liquidity delta (Δ) because that is all the event says. Turning one into ETH needs the pool’s price at that block, which is not in the event and not in the receipt — V4’s ETH side is native and moves with no log. Their ETH column reads “unmeasurable”, never 0.
• A signer shown as unread is one we did not resolve inside this tick’s block-fetch budget. It is never backfilled from the event’s own actor, which on this chain is a position manager essentially always.
• Percentages are deliberately absent. “80% of the liquidity left” needs the depth before the removal, and we hold depth only as a live read at one block — no history to divide by. The absolute amounts above are what we actually measured.

• · The walk only NOMINATES wallets; every percentage above is a balanceOf read, exact at the block it was taken. Balances were read live across blocks 30,471,310–30,471,319 — this chain produces about ten blocks a second, so this is a short span, not a pinned snapshot.
• · These are FLOORS, not totals. Candidate discovery covered the last 120,000 blocks (about 3.3 hours), not full history — a wallet that has not moved $UNIPOLEON inside that window is missing from the count. A missing wallet can only push the real figures UP, never down: the shares shown are measured, the set they are measured over is incomplete.
• · Circulating supply = total supply − the burn address's balance (that is the “burned” figure above, subtracted once) − the balances of 0x8366…0951 Uniswap V4 PoolManager — the singleton holding every V4 pool's tokens. Pools quoted against something other than WETH are not discovered by this read and so are not excluded — such a pool's liquidity would appear here as a holder.
• · Separately, 0x0000…0000 the zero address — mints come from here, 0x0000…dEaD the burn address are skipped when RANKING wallets, so a mint source or a burn can never appear as a holder. The zero address is skipped from that ranking only — its balance is NOT part of the subtraction above, so a token that sends supply to 0x0…0000 instead of the burn address still has that supply counted as circulating here.
• · This is the identical read, over the identical exclusion set, that /scan/0xAa66…6757 uses — the same engine, the same window, the same exclusion set. /scan additionally raises a lower-tone flag from 25% (top holder) and 60% (top 10) — this panel does not tint those, so read the numbers rather than the colour. These are measurements, not a verdict: no threshold here makes a token safe or unsafe, and one wallet holding a large share may be a locker, a bridge, a treasury, or one person.