27% of addresses purchased multiple AI Agents. Who is driving AI Agents behind the scenes?
Author: Frank, PANews
AI Agent has become a hot topic in current on-chain transactions. From ai16z to Virtual, and then to Swarms, in just one month, the AI Agent track has once again derived a new sub-ecology in the MEME field. In the face of the ever-evolving AI Agent tokens, which ones can break through the siege and which ones are just a concept wave? There may be multiple angles to consider, but the flow of funds on the chain and the changes in the main force may still be the most important consideration indicators.
PANews takes the recently popular Swarms token as the main analysis object, and conducts comparative analysis on the addresses of the major holders of the six AI Agent tokens with higher market value, trying to "carve the boat to find the sword" again and spy on some codes. The data range of this analysis includes: the initial purchase and initial sale of the top 1,000 holding addresses of Swarms tokens (data time as of 24:00 on January 6, 2025), the address overlap of six AI-related tokens with a market value of more than 100 million US dollars, such as Fartcoin, GRIFFAIN, ZEREBRO, ai16z, arc, and Swarms (data time as of 14:00 on January 7, 2025), and the transaction records of the internal market.
Some quietly laid out at the bottom, while others followed suit to enter.
First, from the timeline of large investors entering the market, most large investors began to enter after January 2, which was 12 days after the token's creation. From a temporal perspective, many large investors in Swarms also started buying only after the Swarms ecosystem began to heat up, failing to complete early layouts.
However, looking at the price curve of Swarms, if purchases were made before December 27, the price could generally maintain below $0.02, with nearly a 30-fold increase from the current highest price of $0.6. By analyzing the initial purchase prices of these addresses, it is found that 202 addresses bought within the price range of $0.01 to $0.05, while the highest number of addresses purchased between $0.3 and $0.4.
The distribution of these two data points means that the early investors in Swarms purchased in batches at the bottom price during the period of price collapse, and this buying was also relatively dispersed, not concentrated in a uniform time period. The benefit of this is that they can acquire chips at a lower price. Meanwhile, another group of large investors began to enter significantly after the discussion around Swarms heated up, but these investors' holding prices do not have a significant competitive advantage.
This distribution of chips may explain the reason why the Swarms market appears to have significant short-term fluctuations. If early investors who have positioned themselves sell at high points, new large investors have a higher cost; once there is a significant sell-off, it can easily trigger sensitive nerves on both sides, leading to a sharp short-term crash.
However, looking at the distribution of chips, the main distribution of Swarms' chips is relatively dispersed. In the analysis of the top 1000 holding addresses, there are not many tokens sourced from the same address; most of the initial token sources come primarily from on-chain exchanges. Therefore, there is a rare occurrence of early large investors acquiring a large number of chips and dispersing them to multiple addresses.
Moreover, through comparing internal trading addresses, it was found that the addresses used for internal purchases have basically not appeared among the current top 1000 holding addresses. Therefore, the early chips for this token have basically completed rotation.
From the overall data, the average initial purchase price of Swarms tokens is $0.17, the average initial selling price is $0.23, and the average initial purchase amount per address reached $37,600, while the average initial selling amount is about $28,200. In comparing the buying and selling situations of individual addresses, the average initial selling price of these addresses is about 2.43 times the purchase price.
The largest investor has a profit of $25 million and has not sold.
Relative to other MEME tokens, the average initial purchase amounts mentioned above are significantly higher, primarily influenced by some large investor addresses, with the address that transferred the highest initial amount being Dsjzh2oj3HxyPefjQr5qqvbR5NrMnvBgptGLSQ3t8T5i, which transferred approximately $4.13 million from another address on December 31, followed by several transfers of about $500,000, with its current holding value at $27.33 million.
The address that transferred in, 5HfrnyodRraAw63aRVPueD5Er4D1sRKMZBMx9LBbhUAs, began making large purchases as early as 8:22 on December 20, subsequently making continuous purchases, spending a total of $1.89 million to buy 54.95 million Swarms at an average price of about $0.034, currently yielding a profit of about $25.44 million.
According to tracking, the earliest associated purchase for this address began at 7:13 (around 06:45 on December 20, the opening time for Swarms). It is worth mentioning that the associated funding address for this address also began purchasing ai16z tokens as early as October 27, achieving a profit multiple of about 36 times.
Additionally, another address 5NQTp9jHbzS4N9yKMWxwm8pPZW3RFSFPze3Edwss7iLe transferred approximately $3.63 million worth of Swarms tokens on January 4. According to on-chain traces, this address also dispersed purchases through several addresses around January 2, ultimately consolidating the tokens into one address, which currently has a holding value of about $5.26 million.
Another address, H1zFMUjYLzJwcfgXEtwiJ2ykvxmBr7JW6afW29PkcEAe, also used a similar approach, holding about $2.27 million, but the initial token source for this address came from the Bitget exchange, followed by multiple on-chain purchases.
The total initial transfer amounts for these three addresses reached approximately $10.53 million. Examining the purchasing process, the initial method involved multiple addresses making dispersed purchases, and once the popularity of Swarms increased, all tokens were consolidated into a few addresses, becoming smart money in the eyes of on-chain hunters.
27% of addresses purchased multiple AI Agents; who is driving AI Agents behind the scenes?
In addition to analyzing the token addresses of Swarms, PANews also conducted comparative analyses of the top 1000 holding addresses for six addresses: Fartcoin, GRIFFAIN, ZEREBRO, ai16z, arc, and swarms. In the analysis, it can be seen that among the 6,000 addresses analyzed, 1,647 addresses appeared repeatedly, meaning that about 27% of addresses purchased multiple AI Agent-related tokens, with ZEREBRO seemingly being the most favored token among large AI investors, with 405 addresses purchasing this token. Next were arc (368 addresses) and ai16z (334 addresses).
Among these addresses, the address with the highest holdings, DJnHztNmw1H56uYm98PNu5eVZ5yhi9482rZ9zA22TUUz, currently holds AI-themed tokens valued at approximately $49.86 million, including about $42.7 million in ai16z alone. Moreover, this is not the entirety of this address's holdings; as early as a month ago, this address profited tens of millions of dollars by purchasing tokens like ZEREBRO and GRIFFAIN.
Additionally, 3xzTSh7KSFsnhzVvuGWXMmA3xaA89gCCM1MSS1Ga6ka6 also holds approximately $42.84 million in AI-related tokens, and the on-chain holding value of this address exceeds $73 million. According to social media information, this address is likely the wallet address of the early AI Agent address, Truth Terminal.
Moreover, there are many similar addresses; among the statistics, the 1,647 large addresses hold AI-related tokens valued at over $1.58 billion, with about 29 addresses holding amounts over $10 million, which collectively amount to about $690 million.
Rather than saying that AI Agents may be the hottest trend in 2025, it is more accurate to say that AI Agents are essentially a better story material in the eyes of large fund investors.
Analyzing trading behavior is more important than tracking smart money addresses.
With the continuous deepening of on-chain data analysis, tracking smart money seems to have become a significant academic field. However, from the perspective of large investors, when laying out early chips, they do not wish for too many retail investors to enter the market and seize the bottom price chips. Therefore, constantly changing new wallets and making dispersed purchases have become the basic operations for large investors.
In this case, blindly chasing smart money will gradually become ineffective and may instead become the target of malicious harvesting. However, after multiple analyses of the operations of large investors, even if they use new addresses and make dispersed purchases, there are still management difficulties and issues with capital aggregation. Therefore, in most cases, large investors still need to consolidate the funds from various wallets into one or several wallet addresses for easier management, and can also stimulate more following users to enter the market through small purchases during peak times. Secondly, to quickly gather funds in the early stages, these early investors had to concentrate on making large purchases within a specific time frame. Although the amounts were relatively dispersed, such regular purchasing could still become a sign. After all, their investment amounts are often between hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars, and without a certain level of operational determination, they generally would not buy in frantically.
Overall, for ordinary retail investors, if they insist on tracking through on-chain data to chase smart money, it may be much more effective to focus on on-chain behavior than to pursue smart money addresses. Of course, an important premise is to think like large investors about what kind of themes will make a good story; otherwise, faced with an endless stream of new tokens, blind chasing is no different from searching for a needle in a haystack.
