A Instagram story is enough to tip the market

In an ecosystem where every signal can tip the market, an Instagram story is enough to sow chaos. On May 8, the official ChatGPT account posted a link to a Pump.fun contract

In an ecosystem where every signal can tip the market, even an Instagram story has the power to sow chaos. On May 8, the official ChatGPT account shared a link to a Pump.fun crypto platform in its story, leading to immediate hacking suspicions and doubts about the intention behind this action.

ChatGPT's Instagram story sparks reactions and rumors

As the most influential AI of the moment seems to be pointing to a dubious project, trust cracks and questions multiply.

A Pump.fun contract shared from the official ChatGPT account

On May 8 at 7:52 PM (Paris time), CoinMarketCap briefly alerted on the X platform :

The official ChatGPT Instagram account posted a pump(.)fun contract address in its stories. The token in question was launched about an hour before the post.

This message, brief and to the point, states that the official ChatGPT account (belonging to OpenAI) relayed in its Instagram story a contract from the Pump.fun platform, just about an hour after the launch of the affected token.

This temporal coincidence—story broadcast and recent token creation—immediately caught attention. Several objective points are to be noted at this stage :

Faced with this silence, the crypto community is questioning. Internal leak, poorly controlled test, diverted access : the absence of denial as well as confirmation casts a shadow of doubt on the real intentions behind this story. Above all, it highlights the systemic risks caused today by the amplification of unchecked content on platforms with a wide audience.

Hacking, manipulation, or simple error : several scenarios on the table

For now, no clarification message has been published by OpenAI or by the ChatGPT teams. No official removal of the story has been mentioned by CoinMarketCap. The lack of communication fuels speculation, in a context where precedents abound.

In several similar cases, high-authority accounts have been hijacked to promote scams or worthless tokens. However, nothing currently confirms that a hack did take place. Hypotheses range from security failure to an unintentional post via a third-party tool.

If it is not hacking, then the question of editorial control arises. Is it possible that a third-party team had access to the account ? Or that internal tests were poorly supervised ? This uncertainty fuels distrust. Especially since the Pump.fun crypto platform is, itself, often criticized for its lack of transparency and its potential for rapid market manipulation.