According to @AltcoinGordon, "Alex from Blackrock" has burned another 16.5M SWIF tokens, and the post states this single actor has burned over 12% totaling about $500k to date (source: @AltcoinGordon on X, Sep 15, 2025). According to the source post, no transaction hashes or wallet addresses were provided, so independent on-chain verification is not available within the post itself (source: @AltcoinGordon on X, Sep 15, 2025). According to the same source, the post tags @sheepwifhatcoin, signaling where traders might look for official confirmation (source: @AltcoinGordon on X, Sep 15, 2025). Based on the source claim, traders should treat SWIF as a potential supply-tightening setup and monitor on-chain circulating supply, top-holder concentration, and DEX or CEX liquidity for widening spreads and higher slippage that often follow large burns by a single wallet (analysis anchored to the claim by @AltcoinGordon). According to the source-triggered context, prudent steps include waiting for on-chain confirmation, watching for abnormal exchange inflows/outflows of SWIF, and tracking any follow-up statements from the tagged project account before initiating momentum entries or short squeezes (analysis anchored to the claim by @AltcoinGordon).

According to @AltcoinGordon, a post on X dated Sep 14, 2025 claims an additional 1% of SWIF supply will be burned next week, citing an unnamed contact at BlackRock as the source of the information (source: @AltcoinGordon on X, Sep 14, 2025). The post provides no supporting evidence such as an official statement, transaction hash, wallet address, or governance notice to validate the claim (source: @AltcoinGordon on X, Sep 14, 2025). For trading purposes, the only concrete details contained in the post are the alleged burn size (1%) and the tentative timing window of next week; no exchange notices or on-chain references are included in the post (source: @AltcoinGordon on X, Sep 14, 2025).

According to AltcoinGordon, another 500,000 SWIF tokens were burned and removed from supply (source: X post by @AltcoinGordon, Sep 13, 2025). The post states the tokens are out of circulation and tags the project account @sheepwifhatcoin (source: X post by @AltcoinGordon, Sep 13, 2025). This announcement indicates a 500,000 SWIF reduction in circulating supply at the time of posting (source: X post by @AltcoinGordon, Sep 13, 2025).

According to @AltcoinGordon, daily $SWIF token burns are underway and the token’s supply is shrinking, a supply-side change that is trading-relevant (source: @AltcoinGordon on X, Sep 12, 2025). The post provides no burn amounts, transaction hashes, or contract address, so the scale and pace of the reduction cannot be quantified from this post alone (source: @AltcoinGordon on X, Sep 12, 2025). The post tags @sheepwifhatcoin, indicating the project’s account is referenced in the communication around the burn claim (source: @AltcoinGordon on X, Sep 12, 2025). Traders tracking $SWIF can monitor official project disclosures and confirm burns on-chain via block explorer data before acting on the headline to manage execution and liquidity risk (source: @AltcoinGordon on X, Sep 12, 2025).

According to @AltcoinGordon, another $1,000 worth of SWIF was burned, with daily burns reportedly removing nearly 11% of the token’s supply to date. Source: https://twitter.com/AltcoinGordon/status/1966052240562565426 Token burns permanently remove tokens from circulation, reducing total supply when executed as stated, a mechanic that can influence price dynamics in thin markets. Source: https://academy.binance.com/en/articles/what-is-a-coin-burn A shrinking float can tighten liquidity and heighten volatility and slippage, which are key considerations for short-term position sizing and stop placement. Sources: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/liquidity.asp and https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/slippage.asp For confirmation and timing, traders should monitor the project’s official updates before acting on the burn narrative. Source: https://x.com/sheepwifhatcoin

According to @AltcoinGordon, daily SWIF burns continued with 3,000,000 SWIF (about $10,000) removed from supply permanently on Sep 10, 2025, source: @AltcoinGordon. According to @AltcoinGordon, the post also tagged @sheepwifhatcoin and emphasized ongoing daily burns reducing SWIF supply by 3,000,000 tokens, source: @AltcoinGordon.

According to @AltcoinGordon, another 1,000,000 SWIF tokens have been burned, indicating a further reduction in circulating supply for $SWIF; source: X post by @AltcoinGordon on Sep 9, 2025. According to @AltcoinGordon, the post cites the project as sheepwifhatcoin and characterizes the burn as part of an ongoing mission, but it does not provide a transaction hash, burn address, or context on total supply or schedule; source: X post by @AltcoinGordon on Sep 9, 2025. According to @AltcoinGordon, the lack of on-chain details means traders should verify the burn on-chain and monitor $SWIF liquidity and volume to assess near-term price impact consistent with a 1,000,000-token supply reduction; source: X post by @AltcoinGordon on Sep 9, 2025.

According to @AltcoinGordon, an additional 1,000,000 SWIF has been burned, raising the prospect of a supply shock. According to @AltcoinGordon, the post was published on Sep 8, 2025 and did not include an on-chain transaction hash or burn address to verify the burn. According to @AltcoinGordon, the wording "another" indicates there have been prior SWIF burns. According to @AltcoinGordon, no price action, liquidity details, or market impact metrics accompanied the burn claim.

According to @AltcoinGordon, another 1M SWIF tokens were burned, bringing reported cumulative burns to over 100M, as stated in his X post on Sep 8, 2025 (source: @AltcoinGordon on X). The post also states the burned tokens are removed from supply permanently (source: @AltcoinGordon on X). The announcement did not include transaction hashes, burn address, chain details, or pricing data, limiting on-chain verification from the post alone (source: @AltcoinGordon on X). For traders, if accurate, the reported cumulative burn implies a smaller circulating float versus prior periods because the tokens are described as removed from supply forever in the same post (source: @AltcoinGordon on X).

According to @AltcoinGordon, SWIF is still trading within a triangle consolidation (the author’s “blue triangle”), signaling ongoing range compression under defined trendlines, per the author’s post on X; source: @AltcoinGordon on X, Sep 7, 2025. According to @AltcoinGordon, the post does not include timeframe, price levels, or invalidation criteria, limiting immediate trade execution guidance and risk parameters; source: @AltcoinGordon on X, Sep 7, 2025. According to @AltcoinGordon, next week is expected to be “huge” for @sheepwifhatcoin, but no evidence such as volume buildup, catalyst details, or on-chain metrics is provided to substantiate the claim; source: @AltcoinGordon on X, Sep 7, 2025. According to @AltcoinGordon, traders may treat this as a watchlist alert and await a confirmed breakout with clearly defined levels or confirmations from live price action before acting; source: @AltcoinGordon on X, Sep 7, 2025.

According to @AltcoinGordon, over 10% of SWIF’s supply was burned in recent weeks, as stated in an X post dated Sep 6, 2025 (source: X post by @AltcoinGordon, Sep 6, 2025). The same post alleges additional burns next week, which should be treated as unverified until confirmed by the project (source: X post by @AltcoinGordon, Sep 6, 2025). Token burns reduce circulating supply and can tighten float, impacting price impact and liquidity during execution (source: Binance Academy, What Is a Coin Burn; Investopedia, Float definition). Traders should confirm burn transactions via the project’s official channels and the relevant block explorer before acting (source: project account @sheepwifhatcoin; explorers such as Etherscan, Solscan, BscScan). Monitor burn wallet activity, changes in circulating supply, and DEX liquidity to gauge potential near-term volatility in SWIF (source: block explorers and DEX analytics such as DEX Screener).

According to @AltcoinGordon, SWIF remains inside a blue triangle consolidation and Monday is expected to be the breakout day, indicating a triangle breakout setup traders can track for direction; source: X post by @AltcoinGordon dated Sep 6, 2025. According to @AltcoinGordon, the same post includes the string 9hdynudAhhWzuNFAnpz7NjvdKMfh9z8mcZKNYHuAUgJQ and tags @sheepwifhatcoin alongside the SWIF ticker; source: X post by @AltcoinGordon dated Sep 6, 2025. According to @AltcoinGordon, no specific price levels, chart timeframes, or risk parameters were provided beyond the triangle reference and Monday timing; source: X post by @AltcoinGordon dated Sep 6, 2025.

According to @AltcoinGordon, SWIF token burns are now occurring daily, with more than 10% of the supply reportedly destroyed permanently. Source: @AltcoinGordon on X, Sep 6, 2025. For traders, a persistent burn cadence lowers circulating supply, which can tighten liquidity, widen spreads, and heighten volatility during news-driven flows. Source: @AltcoinGordon on X, Sep 6, 2025. The post tags @sheepwifhatcoin, indicating the project account as a channel for burn updates; monitoring official announcements and confirming each burn’s size and frequency can inform position sizing and risk controls. Source: @AltcoinGordon on X, Sep 6, 2025.

According to @AltcoinGordon, an additional 3 million SWIF tokens were burned, bringing the cumulative burn to over 10 percent of the token’s supply and described as gone forever. Source: @AltcoinGordon on X, Sep 5, 2025. The post did not share on-chain transaction details or a contract address for verification, so the update remains based on the author’s disclosure. Source: @AltcoinGordon on X, Sep 5, 2025. Token burns permanently remove tokens from circulation and can impact supply-demand dynamics that traders monitor. Source: Binance Academy, What Is a Token Burn?

According to @AltcoinGordon, Alex from BlackRock burned another 1,000,000 SWIF tokens and shared a transaction link and image as evidence on September 3, 2025, highlighting a fresh supply reduction event for SWIF; source: @AltcoinGordon. According to @AltcoinGordon, the use of the word another indicates this is at least the second SWIF burn, a detail traders tracking circulating supply and short-term volatility often factor into order flow and liquidity assessments; source: @AltcoinGordon. According to @AltcoinGordon, the post itself did not include official confirmations from BlackRock or the SWIF project within the tweet, so traders may rely on the shared on-chain link for verification when evaluating trade timing and size; source: @AltcoinGordon.

According to @AltcoinGordon, SWIF shows perceived herd behavior, as he posted “Seems sheep here $SWIF” on X. Source: @AltcoinGordon on X, 2025-08-17. The post conveys a cautionary sentiment toward short-term entries in SWIF due to perceived crowding, with no price levels, metrics, or catalysts provided. Source: @AltcoinGordon on X, 2025-08-17. Traders considering this a sentiment-only signal should note the absence of additional context or data in the source post. Source: @AltcoinGordon on X, 2025-08-17.

According to @AltcoinGordon, a double bottom has formed on SWIF and the post asks if it is time to run it back, highlighting a potential rebound setup on the attached chart, source: @AltcoinGordon on X, Aug 17, 2025. According to @AltcoinGordon, the post explicitly references the ticker SWIF and includes the string 9hdynudAhhWzuNFAnpz7NjvdKMfh9z8mcZKNYHuAUgJQ alongside the chart, source: @AltcoinGordon on X, Aug 17, 2025.

According to @AltcoinGordon, an additional 0.6% of the SWIF token supply was burned, bringing the reported weekly total to 6.6%; source: @AltcoinGordon on X, August 16, 2025. According to @AltcoinGordon, the post tags @sheepwifhatcoin and includes the string 9hdynudAhhWzuNFAnpz7NjvdKMfh9z8mcZKNYHuAUgJQ as a reference; source: @AltcoinGordon on X, August 16, 2025. According to @AltcoinGordon, the update suggests a potential move toward a 10% weekly burn, framed as a question in the post; source: @AltcoinGordon on X, August 16, 2025. According to @AltcoinGordon, no on-chain explorer link is provided in the text excerpt here, making the post itself the sole cited evidence at this time; source: @AltcoinGordon on X, August 16, 2025. According to @AltcoinGordon, if the claimed 6.6% weekly burn is accurate, it would represent a significant short-term supply contraction that traders may factor into liquidity and price dynamics for SWIF; source: implication based on the reported percentages by @AltcoinGordon on X, August 16, 2025.

According to @AltcoinGordon, a person described as high up at BlackRock has allegedly burned 6% of $SWIF’s supply and is considering burning more next week, as stated in a public X post on Aug 15, 2025 (source: @AltcoinGordon on X, Aug 15, 2025). The post provides no wallet address, transaction hash, or official confirmation from BlackRock or the SWIF project, leaving the claim unverified at the time of posting (source: @AltcoinGordon on X, Aug 15, 2025). For trading, participants should wait for on-chain proof of any burn (e.g., verifiable burn wallet activity or supply reduction) or an official team statement before acting on the claim (source: @AltcoinGordon on X, Aug 15, 2025).

According to @AltcoinGordon, comparing $SWIF moving from $30M to $10M with a coin dropping from $170M to $100K conflates very different loss magnitudes and is not the same event for traders (source: @AltcoinGordon on X). Based on the figures in the post, $30M→$10M reflects a 66.7% decline, while $170M→$100K reflects a 99.94% collapse, indicating materially different drawdown profiles (source: @AltcoinGordon on X). Using the same figures, recovering from $10M back to $30M requires a 200% gain, whereas $100K back to $170M requires roughly a 169,900% move, underscoring non-equivalent recovery math for position sizing and risk management (source: @AltcoinGordon on X). For trading decisions on SWIF and similar altcoins, the actionable takeaway is to compare percentage drawdowns and required recovery multiples rather than relying on visual chart similarity alone (source: @AltcoinGordon on X).