Two Artificial Doges: Telling Copies Apart
- Collisions are routine: today there are 7 Zcash contracts, 4 Shiny Packs, 2 Artificial Doges and 2 "just a dog"
- Three steps: take the address from the project body text, check the pool its chart points at, then health-check by 24h volume
- A cheaper price is not an earlier entry; the copy contract traded $2 in 24 hours against the real one’s $381,275
The biggest mover on Robinhood Chain today is $AD (Artificial Doge), up 20,456.84% in 24h. So I searched that name on DexScreener and got back two different contracts. One did $381,275 of 24h volume. The other did $2 — and it is roughly 86x cheaper, which makes it look like the better entry in any interface that sorts by price.
This is about how common name collisions are on this chain, and the three checks that separate the real contract from the copy. All figures from 2026-09-18, 00:08–00:50 UTC.
Today's collisions are not freak events
| Name | Contracts | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Zcash / ZEC | 7 | Six of them sit in a narrow $24,021–$31,951 liquidity band; a seventh reads negative liquidity (-$7,337.52) |
| Shiny Pack | 4 | Two carry the identical name "Shiny Pack NFT: By Logan Paul", with pools created about 27 seconds apart |
| Artificial Doge | 2 | One verifies against its website ($41,853 liquidity), one has no project information at all ($5,419, $2 of 24h volume) |
| just a dog | 2 | Both contract addresses end in 1e18; liquidity $20,604 and $20,269 |
| A Meme Coin / MEME | 2 | Today's board MEME ($2,770,890) and a second MEME contract ($40,500, $107 of 24h volume) |
There is a nastier variant too: symbol and name deliberately mismatched. Today I found two contracts whose symbol is PAWSINU but whose token name is "UNISWAP" (0xAE67fead…aEb8 and 0xfCb8d04A…71CB). In any interface that shows the name, that reads as Uniswap.
Why there are so many
Because launching costs almost nothing here. Eight of today's ten new tokens opened on Pons V2 bonding curves — no initial liquidity, no code. The same name can be registered a hundred times and the chain is fine with it, because ticker and token name are not unique identifiers on-chain. The contract address is. That is basic ERC-20, not a quirk of this chain.
The practical consequence: you see someone post $AD, you type "AD" into a trading interface, two results come back. Now what?
The three-step check
Step 1: take the address from the project, then search the address
Reverse the usual order. Get the address first, then look it up — do not search the name and then hunt for an address.
Ranked by trust: the project's own website body text, then the project's pinned post, then an aggregator's info field. Be careful with that last one, because the "website" and "twitter" fields on market data sites are submitted by the project, not verified by the platform. On September 14 we hit a token whose declared "website" had a stablecoin-sounding domain and 302-redirected straight to a different project's launchpad page.
AD passes this step cleanly: artificial-doge.com prints 0x63ffd4aa844f4befcee1b4606e467d1d209a926b in its body text, identical to the address in the data.
Step 2: check which pool the project's own chart link points at
Most people skip this, and it catches the case where the address is right but the chart points somewhere else. AD's site links a GeckoTerminal chart for pool 0x2a4e49b6…27978 — exactly the main pool in the hot-token data. Both lines agree.
If a site gives you a "Buy" button but no contract address and no chart link, this step simply fails. That is today's MUSEBOOK: second golden dog on the board, and musebook.lol has now gone three straight days without publishing a contract address anywhere — the only mention is one line imagining auction slots priced in "$musebook". That does not make it fake. It means you cannot prove the thing you bought is the thing they built.
Step 3: run a volume-over-liquidity health check
Even if both steps above are impossible because the project publishes nothing, the data still talks. The gap between a live token and a shell is usually brutal:
| Metric | AD (verified) | AD (same-name) |
|---|---|---|
| 24h volume | $381,275 | $2 |
| Liquidity | $41,853 | $5,419 |
| Distinct buyers (research pack) | 1,066 | No public data |
| Pools | 2 | 1 |
The pattern is stable: copies barely trade. Their whole business model is that you find them by name and buy without looking at volume. The harder case is when both same-name contracts have real volume — which is exactly today's Shiny Pack: two "Shiny Pack NFT: By Logan Paul" contracts, one with $106,443 of 24h volume at +200%, the other with $73,736 at -81.77%, pools 27 seconds apart. That one gets its own write-up.
One more: a cheaper price is not "earlier"
This is the psychological lever the copy trade runs on. The AD copy prints $0.000003499 against the real one's $0.0003001, which feels like getting in earlier. But a lower unit price is just a function of supply and where the pool started; it says nothing whatsoever about how early you are. Earliness is age (the real AD is seven hours old), distinct buyer count, and turnover — not how many zeros follow the decimal point.
The counterpoint: a collision is not automatically a scam
We have run several of these surveys — two BF4s on September 8, three RHCs on September 10, two SWIFTIEPHYLUS on September 11. The conclusion each time: most collisions are just different people landing on the same joke, especially with generic words like "just a dog", "MEME" or "TOKEN". Three combinations deserve real suspicion:
- Riding a well-known off-chain asset's name (today: seven Zcash contracts)
- Riding a token that is pumping on this chain right now (today: the AD copy)
- Symbol and name mismatched on purpose (PAWSINU displaying as UNISWAP)
Thirty-second checklist before you sign
- Did the contract address come from the project's own site or pinned post?
- Does the project's chart link point at the pool you are about to trade in?
- Does this contract have 24h volume, and how many digits?
- Is there a second contract with the same name? (Search the name once on an aggregator.)
- What is the fee tier of the pool you are routed through? (81% pools exist on this chain.)
BigPump's hot-token pages are addressed by contract — /robinhoodchain/hot/0x63ffd4aa…a926b opens that address and nothing else, with chart, trade feed, holder distribution and swap on one page. Pasting an address into a URL is a lot safer than typing a ticker into a search box.
FAQ
How do I know which contract is "official"?
There is no such thing as official on-chain — only "matches the address the project itself published". Use the site body text or pinned post, then cross-check with step 2.
Can I trust the website and Twitter shown on market data sites?
Those are project-submitted, not platform-verified. Treat them as a lead, open them yourself, and follow the redirects to the final URL.
Can a copycat contract be delisted?
Nobody can delete a deployed contract. Aggregators can choose not to display it, but the token stays on-chain and anyone can still route into it.
Which names should I be most careful with today?
Zcash (7 contracts), Shiny Pack (4), Artificial Doge (2). Details in Seven Zcash Contracts and One Negative Number.
If I launch a token, how do I stop people copying the name?
You cannot stop the name, but you can make verification easy: put the contract address in your site's body text and your pinned post, and publish your main pool address. Tokens launched from the BigPump launch page hand you the contract address on completion; the mechanics are documented at book.bigpump.ai.
BigPump is an independent project, not affiliated with, endorsed by or sponsored by Robinhood Markets, Inc. On-chain figures from 2026-09-18, 00:08–00:50 UTC. Not investment advice — memecoins can go to zero.
Disclaimer: memecoins are extremely volatile and most go to zero. This article is not financial advice. Do your own research and only spend what you can afford to lose.