Blockchain analytics platform Bubblemaps has rejected allegations of a secret $45,000 monthly consulting agreement with Proxima, accusing a rival project’s supporters of circulating a forged contract and threatening legal action.
Summary
- Bubblemaps has denied allegations that it secretly received $45,000 monthly from Proxima for blockchain analytics advice.
- Rival platform Trap Map claims it served a pre-lawsuit notice demanding a response by November 16.
- French business records show that the alleged contract lists an address Bubblemaps adopted after its supposed signing date.
- Bubblemaps disputes the document’s authenticity and denies that the person circulating it previously worked for the company.
- Other blockchain investigators have questioned the accuser’s identity and connections to earlier promotional campaigns.
In a November 3 response, Bubblemaps denied the claims made by an X account identifying itself as a former employee. The company pointed to discrepancies in the document’s address and email details while rejecting the individual’s employment claims.
The dispute began when the account, JuJudog, published what it described as an April 11, 2025, agreement between Bubblemaps and Proxima, a provider of tools used by cryptocurrency traders.
Bubblemaps rejects allegations of secret Proxima payments
The original allegations claimed that Proxima agreed to pay Bubblemaps $45,000 monthly, alongside additional consulting fees of $1,800 per hour.
According to JuJudog, the supposed agreement covered private evaluations of wallet clustering parameters, transaction bundles and methods for identifying connected trading accounts.
The accuser argued that such an arrangement would create a conflict of interest because Bubblemaps provides analytics designed to identify potentially coordinated token trading.
JuJudog claimed to have left the company after discovering the alleged relationship.
Bubblemaps responded by describing the document as “a pitiful attempt at forgery,” rejecting both the supposed contract and its alleged connection to Proxima.
The company said the email address attributed to CEO Nicolas Vaiman did not belong to him. It further challenged the accuser’s claim of being a former employee, saying its small team knew everyone previously employed there.
Bubblemaps accused JuJudog of promoting a competing blockchain analytics platform through the allegations.
French company records support Bubblemaps’ address objection
Among the discrepancies identified by Bubblemaps was the company’s registered address appearing on the alleged April 2025 agreement.
According to French business records, Bubblemaps was registered at 7 Rue Pablo Neruda in Levallois-Perret when the supposed contract was signed.
The company’s registration subsequently changed to 9 Rue des Colonnes in Paris on June 20, 2025.
That date is more than two months after the agreement allegedly took effect.
Bubblemaps argued that the document incorrectly used its newer address for a period when the company had not yet relocated.
Public registration information confirms the timing of the address change, although it does not independently establish who prepared the disputed document.
Readers on X added a Community Note to JuJudog’s allegations referencing the same address discrepancy and questioning the document’s authenticity.
Trap Map threatens class action despite Bubblemaps denial
Following the initial accusations, competing analytics platform Trap Map issued a public legal notice directed at Bubblemaps and Vaiman.
The platform claimed it had privately served the company with formal pre-lawsuit notice concerning the alleged Proxima agreement.
Trap Map demanded a response within 14 days, setting November 16 as its deadline. It encouraged traders who believed they had suffered losses involving undetected token bundles to register potential claims.
However, the public announcement did not establish that a court had accepted a class-action lawsuit or determined that Bubblemaps had engaged in misconduct.
The platform linked the accusations to its competing blockchain analytics service.
Subsequently, JuJudog compared the two platforms’ analysis of the GATO token, claiming Trap Map detected linked wallet groups and developer concentration that Bubblemaps had not flagged.
Those comparisons were presented by the competitor and were not independently verified against a common analysis method.
Previously, Bubblemaps has investigated suspected coordinated wallet activity. In October, crypto.news reported its allegations against a Pump.fun influencer accused of benefiting from linked wallets across multiple token promotions.
The company has separately identified wallet clusters involved in suspected insider activity and unusual token distributions.
Crypto investigators question identity behind contract claims
Other blockchain investigators joined the dispute after Bubblemaps published its denial.
Deebs DeFi, lead detective at Bubblemaps, supported the company’s response and criticized the terminology appearing in the disputed agreement.
In a public reply, Deebs questioned the purported author’s technical knowledge and rejected the claim that JuJudog had worked for Bubblemaps.
Another investigator, dethective, accused the account of repeating a promotional strategy previously used in connection with an unrelated cryptocurrency project.
In a November 3 thread, the investigator alleged that JuJudog had previously promoted a project using another purported leaked contract.
Dethective claimed the earlier campaign involved misleading promotional material and token trading activity, although the account’s identity and alleged financial proceeds were not independently established.
The investigator said the account appeared to have changed its username following the earlier promotion and called for stronger reputation tracking across cryptocurrency communities.
JuJudog maintained its accusations after Bubblemaps’ denial and continued directing readers toward Trap Map.
The company has not publicly confirmed receiving the purported legal notice, and no court filing establishing the threatened class action was identified in the available reports.
