Altcoin Daily (Aaron) presents a deep-dive into an allegation that has rippled across parts of the Ethereum community: an alleged, systematic siphoning of user-submitted tips and bribes tied to a popular Telegram trading bot called BananaGun and a centralized Ethereum block builder known as Titan. This analysis is built from publicly available on-chain data, community-compiled research (notably the Mango Gun Dune dashboards), and investigative threads circulating in crypto forums. Everything described here is presented as alleged — all parties should be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Introduction: Why this matters

Transparency and fairness are core tenets that many in the crypto space hold dear. When tools promise automation, priority execution, and revenue-sharing for users, any hint that those promises are not being kept strikes at the heart of user trust. The allegation at hand is not a simple fee dispute; it’s a potential systemwide manipulation that — if true — would have consequences for individual users, token holders, and the perceived integrity of Ethereum’s proposer-builder ecosystem.

Background: Who are BananaGun and Titan?

BananaGun is a Telegram-first trading bot that rose to prominence in late 2023 and throughout 2024 by offering fast sniping functionality and a revenue-share model allegedly attractive to crypto traders. It integrates Telegram commands with a web app backend and became known for automating rapid token snipes and for encouraging users to add tips, fees, or bribes to secure priority entries.

Titan is a centralized block builder on Ethereum. Block builders assemble transactions and can accept “tips” or “bribes” to prioritize certain transactions into blocks. The proposer-builder separation (PBS) in Ethereum is supposed to encourage fair competition among builders — exclusive arrangements or undisclosed deals can undermine that intent.

The alleged hidden scheme — step by step

The accusation, in simplified form, is:

• BananaGun urges users to add tips/bribes (and charges explicit platform fees), representing these costs as necessary to secure better entries and as being used solely to pay validators via block builders.
• In reality, BananaGun allegedly sends those tips/bribes to Titan as an exclusive order flow, bypassing competition among builders.
• Titan uses a portion of the tips to pay validators and then off-chain splits the leftover tips with BananaGun (reportedly Titan keeps ~20% of leftovers and pays ~80% back to BananaGun), without publicly recording or declaring those leftover amounts as revenue.
• Those leftover tips purportedly remain undisclosed and are not redistributed to token holders under BananaGun’s revenue-share promises.

In short: users think they are paying for prioritized execution and that those costs either go purely toward execution or get returned under a transparent revenue model. The allegation claims a substantial portion instead disappears into an undisclosed revenue stream split off-chain between BananaGun and Titan.

Evidence cited by the community

The community researchers point to several sources of public data and analysis:

• Dune dashboards compiled by Mango Gun (and referenced by other researchers such as Juggernaut), tracking bribe flows and declared revenue.
• On-chain transaction traces that indicate tips and bribes routed through specific paths and ultimately to builder-related addresses.
• Clustering and wallet analysis suggesting coordinated behavior during pre-sale allocations and unusual distribution patterns.
• Internal discussions and community threads that describe admitted volume manipulation or documented anomalies in on-platform metrics.

From these sources, the number often cited is ~18,745 ETH of undeclared or leftover bribe revenue (equated in the video to roughly $60 million at the then-prevailing ETH price), versus ~14,364 ETH publicly declared through certain channels as of an August snapshot. The community frames this as a potential ~56% of total revenue not recorded or redistributed.

How Titan allegedly benefited

The alleged mechanics of the Titan arrangement are particularly concerning because they suggest an exclusive order flow (EOF) behavior that removes competitive pressure from other builders. The community’s thesis explains:

• BananaGun sent exclusive orders (with tips) to Titan, rather than broadcasting to multiple builders that would compete for priority.
• With exclusive access to BananaGun-originated tips, Titan could allocate just enough revenue to validators to secure blocks while retaining leftover amounts.
• This preferential flow allegedly helped Titan rapidly grow its builder market share — the community cites a rise from ~1% to ~40% market share in under a year — a dramatic shift that, if accurate, raises questions about whether exclusives and off-chain economics skewed the competition.

Exclusivity in order flow combined with off-chain settlements can create centralization pressure: if one builder controls a heavy share of valuable flash-order traffic, others are squeezed out and the dynamics of proposer-builder separation are undermined.

Unrecorded revenue and alleged rev-share deception

A central complaint is that BananaGun marketed a rev-share model to token holders that relied on declared revenue streams. Yet, the community asserts a large portion of total revenue — primarily the “leftover” tips siphoned via the Titan arrangement — remained unrecorded and undistributed.

Key allegations include:

• BananaGun publicly touted revenue-sharing benefits for BANANA token holders, but only redistributed declared revenue on-chain.
• Significant sums (~18,745 ETH in community reports) allegedly bypassed on-chain declarations and therefore bypassed token-holder payouts.
• BananaGun allegedly returned only a tiny portion of the explicit 0.5–1% fee as “banana bonuses” while keeping the lion’s share of tips off-record.

If the numbers hold, token holders may have been deprived of a material share of economic value they were led to expect when buying or holding BANANA.

Fake volume vs. actual revenue: suspicious metrics

The community also calls attention to a mismatch between reported trading volumes and declared revenue growth. The highlights of this concern are:

• BananaGun heavily marketed record-breaking volumes — especially around the launch of their web app — to attract users and investors.
• On-chain declared revenue, however, allegedly did not scale with this volume; declared fees reportedly fell to record lows even as volume spiked.
• This divergence raises the specter of wash trading or artificially inflated volume metrics used for promotional purposes.
• Multiple internal discussions, according to the community, contained admissions or indications the platform engaged in or tolerated volume manipulation.

Marketing inflated volume while hiding true revenue flows would be troubling to users and regulators alike.

Insider-led token distribution and pre-sale concerns

Beyond revenue flow allegations, the community also raised red flags about BANANA token distribution:

• Analysis suggests a disproportionate share of the initial supply was allocated to insiders and treasury wallets — community analysis cited roughly 75% allocated to team plus treasury wallets.
• Of the advertised 20% pre-sale allocation, clustering analysis allegedly shows a large portion going to freshly funded wallets possibly linked to insiders (so-called pre-sale farming with multi-wallet participation).
• After launch, there are allegations that insiders dumped tokens — the community pointed to an approximate 400 ETH dump equating to around $2.5M in combined gains.

Such distribution dynamics, if accurate, would mean retail participants were crowded out during early allocation events and then exposed to insider sell-pressure at launch.

Wallets drained and the “Telegram oracle” explanation

Another component of community complaints involves reports of user wallets being drained. The disputed points include:

• BananaGun reportedly attributed some wallet drain incidents to a “Telegram oracle problem.”
• Investigators in the community counter that there is no documented oracle system in BananaGun’s architecture, no smart contract or off-chain oracle service matching that description, and no forensic report identifying attackers’ wallets.
• Refunds and clear explanations were reportedly not issued, and the community characterizes the response as vague and insufficient.

For users who lost funds, lack of forensic transparency and missing reimbursements deepen distrust even if the technical explanation might exist. The community has asked for more clarity and accountability.

Community demands and tools

The dissatisfied community has compiled demands and built tools to help affected users:

• They want a public disclosure of any exclusive order flow agreement between BananaGun and Titan.
• They request full refunds for allegedly siphoned leftover bribe revenue and a full reconciliation of on-chain versus off-chain revenue streams.
• They seek transparency into wallet-drain incidents and forensic evidence identifying attacker addresses if thefts occurred.
• To help users self-check exposure, community-built dashboards allow a wallet address to be pasted (no wallet connection required) to calculate whether a given address is allegedly owed anything based on the public analysis.

These measures are aimed at restoring accountability and enabling individual users to independently verify potential losses.

What users should watch for and immediate steps

Because this situation raises tricky technical, legal, and ethical questions, a few practical steps and watch-outs for users are worth highlighting:

• Do your own research: cross-check community dashboards, on-chain traces, and official statements.
• Be cautious with platforms that require signing transactions for off-chain services or encourage outsized tips without clear receipts or on-chain records of settlements.
• Monitor token rev-share documentation: verify how revenue is declared, audited, and distributed on-chain.
• If you used BananaGun and suspect you were affected, use community tools to check your address and preserve all transaction records for potential legal or forensic action.
• Watch regulatory developments: undisclosed revenue-sharing and misleading marketing can attract attention from authorities in multiple jurisdictions.

Conclusion: Sunshine is the best disinfectant

“The spirit and ethos of crypto is transparency, power to the people, a better financial system.”

The allegations against BananaGun and Titan — if true — would represent a major breach of trust: undisclosed revenue flows, alleged off-chain settlements that deprived token holders, possible wash trading, and insider advantages during token distribution. The community is asking for full disclosure, refunds where warranted, and structural fixes to ensure that privileged access and exclusive order flows do not undermine the proposer-builder separation that Ethereum depends on for fairness.

It is essential to repeat: these claims are presented as alleged and sourced from public on-chain data and community investigations. All actors remain innocent until proven guilty in an appropriate forum. Nonetheless, the situation underscores two enduring lessons for crypto participants: audit the platforms you use, and demand transparent, auditable mechanisms for any service that touches your funds.

Ultimately, the call from the community — documented in dashboards and public threads — is simple: disclose agreements, reconcile on-chain records with claimed payouts, and make harmed users whole. Whether regulators, builders, or community governance processes step in, the crypto ecosystem benefits from clarity and accountability. If nothing else, this episode is a reminder that decentralization depends not only on code, but also on transparent incentives and honest accounting.

Readers are encouraged to review the community dashboards (e.g., Mango Gun on Dune) and investigative write-ups for the primary data that underpins these allegations. If you were affected, preserve your transaction history, use the community tools to check your address, and consider coordinating with other users seeking redress.

All information discussed here originates from public sources compiled by community researchers; it is not legal or financial advice. The goal is to surface facts and allegations so that the broader crypto community can ask questions, demand answers, and, if necessary, pursue accountability.