FillFerret trades as FFRT on Robinhood Chain, and its only meaningful pool was created at 13:03:53 UTC on Sunday August 23, 2026, which makes it one of the youngest assets this desk has ever written about. From the opening print in that first hour to the highest hourly close it recorded, at 19:00 UTC the same day, the token gained about 11,300%. By 07:56 UTC on Monday August 24 it had given back roughly half of that, and it was falling at a rate of nearly 40% an hour while these numbers were being pulled.
Both halves of that sentence are the article. A token this young is the highest-risk category we cover, and the useful thing to hand a reader is not a price but a method for checking what they are actually looking at.
What the Four Calls Actually Prove
The contract sits at
0x05fdeF48a7D1bdb355E512c92aeF923E5AF316d9 on Robinhood Chain, which reports chain ID 4663 through its own public node. Four queries run against that node at 07:50 UTC on Monday August 24, 2026 settle what kind of asset this is, and any reader with a terminal can reproduce all of them.|
Call
|
Raw return
|
Reading
|
|
`decimals()`
|
`0x...0012`
|
18
|
|
`totalSupply()`
|
`0x...1431e0fae6d7217caa0000000`
|
100,000,000,000 tokens
|
|
`supportsInterface(0x80ac58cd)`
|
execution reverted
|
No ERC-165, therefore not an ERC-721
|
|
EIP-1967 implementation and beacon slots
|
both `0x0`
|
Not a proxy
|
The reverted call does the work the other three cannot. Reading a name and a symbol proves nothing, because NFT contracts carry both fields too, and
0x80ac58cd is the interface identifier every ERC-721 answers to. A contract that implements interface queries at all returns true or false. This one reverts, meaning it has no ERC-165 layer in any form, which no NFT collection and no wrapped position token can produce.The two storage reads matter for a different reason. EIP-1967 fixes the exact slots where an upgradeable contract stores the address of the logic it delegates to, and both of those slots read zero here. Nobody can swap the code out from underneath a holder, because there is no code to swap. A `token0()` call also reverts, which rules out the other common lookalike, a liquidity-pool receipt token that a chart page will happily display as though it were the asset itself.
One billion times one hundred, fixed at deployment, with no mint function reachable through the standard ERC-20 surface. That means no vesting cliff to model and no token inflation schedule diluting holders on a timetable. A fixed supply is the absence of one specific risk rather than a reason to own something, and a token launched inside a day carries most of the others.
Worth stating plainly before anything else. FFRT does not trade on Phemex, in spot or in futures, and no link on this page will get you any. It has no listing on CoinGecko either, which returns nothing for the name and nothing for the ticker.
Two Feeds, One Token, and a Ten Percent Gap
Pulling the same contract from two aggregators inside the same second on Monday August 24 at 07:56 UTC produced numbers that do not match.
|
Source
|
24-hour volume
|
Pooled liquidity
|
24-hour change
|
|
DexScreener, all 15 pools
|
$9,098,812
|
$237,457
|
+5,256%
|
|
GeckoTerminal, main pool
|
$8,291,117
|
$276,007
|
+5,245%
|
|
Spread
|
9.7%
|
16.2%
|
negligible
|
Neither feed is wrong and neither is authoritative. They index different pools, filter suspected wash trades differently, and count routed swaps differently, so any derived statistic you read about a decentralized asset is provider-dependent by construction. The practical rule is to give two feeds and the gap between them rather than one clean-looking number.
And a GeckoTerminal figure in particular is not automatically trustworthy, which this desk learned on this same chain. Checking a different Robinhood Chain pool during the same research window returned $26.18 million of volume from GeckoTerminal against $125,000 from DexScreener, a disagreement of roughly 209 times on one pool at one moment. A 10% spread is normal aggregator noise. A 209x spread means one of the two feeds is reading something that is not there, and there is no way to tell which from inside either interface.
The Holder Count Comes From One Explorer
Robinhood Chain has a single public block explorer, which puts FillFerret's holder count at 3,314 against 24,146 lifetime transfers. That figure has no second source, and this article is not able to corroborate it. Treat it accordingly.
The single source does not even agree with itself. Two different endpoints on that same explorer, queried at 07:57 UTC on Monday August 24, returned 3,314 and 3,309, and both figures had climbed from the 3,290 the desk logged earlier the same morning.
One cross-check is available and it is informative. GeckoTerminal counted 3,264 unique buying addresses on the main pool over the preceding 24 hours, which sits within about 1% of the explorer's holder total. Those two numbers being nearly identical says something specific. Essentially the entire holder base bought inside a single day, and there is no older cohort underneath them.
What the Run Looked Like Hour by Hour
The pool opened its first hourly bar at $0.000000174, and the shape of what followed is easier to read from hourly closes than from intraday extremes.
|
Hour (UTC)
|
Close
|
Note
|
|
Aug 23, 13:00
|
$0.000000174
|
First bar, pool created 13:03:53
|
|
Aug 23, 16:00
|
$0.0000179
|
|
|
Aug 23, 19:00
|
$0.0000198
|
Highest hourly close, +11,312% from the open
|
|
Aug 23, 22:00
|
$0.00000606
|
|
|
Aug 24, 06:00
|
$0.0000148
|
|
|
Aug 24, 07:00
|
$0.00000926
|
Bar still forming at the 07:56 pull
|
The peak hourly close is the number this article uses, and the reason is worth saying out loud. The highest print the pool actually touched was $0.0000269 during the 20:00 hour on Sunday, which works out to +15,403% and would make a far better headline. It is also a wick on a thin automated market maker, and the same hour closed 73% below it. A superlative built on an intraday extreme describes one transaction rather than a market, so this desk anchors to closes.
Three consecutive hours on Monday August 24, from 01:00 to 04:00 UTC, produced no bar at all, which means not thin volume but no trades whatsoever. A token clearing nine million dollars across a rolling day went completely dark for three hours in the middle of it, then resumed and printed an 85% gain in the 06:00 hour before losing most of it again in the next one. That pattern is the same crowd passing the same float back and forth at speed, which is what a 38x ratio of daily volume to pooled liquidity describes.
Sort by Volume and by Holders, Never by Liquidity
A search for the name across DexScreener returns a field of lookalikes, and the two right-hand columns read together are the whole test.
|
Token
|
Chain
|
Pooled liquidity
|
24-hour volume
|
24-hour buys
|
|
The SpaceX Ferret Speed
|
Base
|
$464,742
|
$0.12
|
0
|
|
LienFi Daimond Ferret Speed
|
Base
|
$422,486
|
$0.07
|
0
|
|
FillFerret, FFRT, subject contract
|
Robinhood Chain
|
$237,457
|
$9,098,812
|
8,545
|
|
FillFerret, FILLF, different address
|
Robinhood Chain
|
$12,722
|
$14,841
|
95
|
Sort that list by pooled liquidity and the subject contract ranks third, behind two tokens that traded twelve cents and seven cents respectively across an entire day and recorded not one single buy between them. Somebody spent close to half a million dollars each to make those pools look credible on a chart page, in the hope that one confused buyer market-buys into the wall. Sort by volume instead, or by holder count, and the list collapses to a single candidate on the first pass.
The same-name decoy in the last row deserves its own warning, because it is the sharpest one here. A contract at
0x6CD5092eC77616f44CC172C0A00Fcc6BAEF8E3d9 on the same chain carries the identical name string, FillFerret, under the ticker FILLF, and its pool was created at 20:16 UTC on Sunday August 23, about seven hours after the subject. It is a different asset entirely. Robinhood Chain also hosts an unrelated project trading as FILL, so a reader typing four letters into a search box on that chain can land on three separate things.A ticker is a text field that anyone can type. Only the address identifies anything, which is why this article prints the address in full and why you should check it against the block explorer before sending funds anywhere.
What the Base Rate Says About a Token This Young
A pool created inside 24 hours is the highest-risk category on this desk's coverage list, and the folklore version of that risk is wrong in a way that matters. The story people tell is the 96% drawdown, and the measured failure mode turns out to be something else entirely.
Sweeping 72 freshly launched tokens turned up 36 trading under $1,000 across a full day, and 20 of those trading under one dollar. Half the field does not crash. Half the field simply never trades at all, leaving holders with a balance they can see in a wallet and cannot sell at any price, because there is nobody on the other side of the book.
That framing also gates the all-time-high question, which is why this article checked volume and holders before writing a word about records. A separate sweep of 13 tokens that printed a record high inside a 72-hour window found nine of them effectively untraded, including one showing $1.34 of daily volume against a $5.21 million market capitalization. A price is only a price if somebody paid it.
FFRT clears that gate without argument. Roughly nine million dollars of volume, 8,545 buys against 6,892 sells, and 3,264 distinct buying addresses against 2,453 selling ones over 24 hours is a real market with real participants on both sides. Clearing the gate proves the trading happened. It says nothing whatsoever about where the price goes, and this article makes no forecast about that.
Robinhood Chain itself is the one piece of context worth carrying, and Phemex has covered it before in the Pons launchpad explainer and a profile of the builder behind it. It is a permissionless Ethereum layer 2 built on the Arbitrum stack, so deploying a contract there requires nobody's permission and confers no endorsement from anyone. That is how layer-2 networks work generally and how DeFi works generally. We covered a Robinhood Chain token called StonkBroker in an earlier piece after it fell 51% in a week, and the structural lesson there was the same one.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is FFRT available to buy as a futures contract?
No, and no wrapped or synthetic version exists either. FillFerret trades only through decentralized pools on Robinhood Chain, which requires a self-custody wallet, bridged funds on that chain, and manual address verification before every transaction.
Why does the contract read 100 billion tokens when other sites show something different?
Aggregator supply fields are populated from indexes that go stale, and CoinGecko in particular has published circulating-supply figures that contradict the contract on several tokens this desk has verified. The chain is the authority. Count tokens first from
totalSupply(), then apply a price you pulled yourself.Does Robinhood control or endorse FillFerret?
No, and the deployment chain confers no relationship of any kind. Anyone can deploy to a permissionless layer 2 without its operator's involvement, in the same way anyone can deploy to Ethereum, so a project claiming official backing on the strength of its chain is misrepresenting how the technology works.
How do I tell the real contract from a same-name copy?
Compare the full address against a block explorer, then sort any candidate list by 24-hour volume and holder count rather than by pooled liquidity. Liquidity can be bought outright, as two of the lookalikes here demonstrate with roughly $450,000 parked against pennies of trading.
Bottom Line
FillFerret is a verified plain ERC-20 on Robinhood Chain with a fixed 100 billion supply, no proxy, no upgrade path, and a genuine market of several thousand distinct addresses behind a run that peaked at about 11,300% above its opening print on Sunday August 23. It is also a token that had surrendered more than half of that by 07:56 UTC on Monday August 24, went three hours without a single trade overnight, and turned over 38 times its pooled liquidity in a day.
The measurable thing to watch is not the price. It is the gap between unique buyers and unique sellers on the main pool, which stood at 3,264 against 2,453 over the 24 hours to that pull. When that inverts on falling volume, the crowd that built the chart is leaving it, and against roughly $237,000 of pooled liquidity there is very little standing behind them.
Half of every fresh-launch cohort ends up unsellable rather than merely down. That is the risk worth pricing, and it is the one nobody puts in a screenshot.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Cryptocurrency trading involves substantial risk. Always conduct your own research before making trading decisions.
