Bubblemaps Denies Alleged $45, 000 Proxima Contract as Rival Sends Legal Notice
Bubblemaps says it had no consulting deal with crypto-trading tools provider Proxima and calls a document posted by an X account named JuJudog a forgery. A disputed company address, a rival’s pre-lawsuit notice and competing claims about token analysis have yet to establish who prepared the document or whether any deal existed.
- The purported contract claims payments of $45, 000 a month, plus consulting fees of $1, 800 per hour.
- Bubblemaps disputes the document’s authenticity and JuJudog’s claim of having worked for the company.
- Company records show an address change after the contract’s stated date, but do not establish who created the document.
- Trap Map says it sent a legal notice. No court complaint or class certification has been identified.
What the disputed document alleges
On November 3, 2025, Bubblemaps rejected allegations from JuJudog, an X account that described itself as a former employee. JuJudog had posted what it called an agreement dated April 11, 2025, between Bubblemaps and Proxima, a provider of tools for cryptocurrency traders.
The purported agreement allegedly offered Bubblemaps $45, 000 per month, plus consulting fees of $1, 800 per hour. The work reportedly included private evaluations of wallet-clustering parameters, transaction bundles and methods for identifying connected trading accounts.
Wallet clustering means grouping blockchain addresses that appear to be linked or controlled by the same entity. Analysts may use these patterns to investigate coordinated activity, but a cluster alone does not prove who controls an address or why it was used.
JuJudog said it left Bubblemaps after discovering the alleged relationship. The account argued that a paid arrangement with Proxima could compromise Bubblemaps’ analytics work. That alleged conflict hinges on the central claim, a Proxima contract, which Bubblemaps denies.
Bubblemaps challenges the document and its address
Bubblemaps called the disputed document “a pitiful attempt at forgery.” The company also challenged the email address attributed to CEO Nicolas Vaiman and disputed JuJudog’s claim that it had worked there.
French business records show Bubblemaps was registered at 7 Rue Pablo Neruda in Levallois-Perret when the agreement was dated April 11, 2025. Its registered address changed to 9 Rue des Colonnes in Paris on June 20, 2025. Bubblemaps says the address on the purported agreement was incorrect for that date.
The discrepancy merits scrutiny, but it does not prove forgery. A registered office is not necessarily the only address a company might use on a contract. The records confirm an address change, not who prepared the document or whether it is authentic.
Bubblemaps’ denial also does not independently rule out a relationship with Proxima outside the disputed paperwork. The available information does not establish whether such a relationship existed.
Trap Map’s notice is not a court ruling
Trap Map, a competing analytics platform, said it had privately sent Bubblemaps and Vaiman a formal pre-lawsuit notice. It demanded a response within 14 days and set November 16, 2025, as the deadline. Trap Map also encouraged traders who believed they had lost money because token bundles went undetected to register potential claims.
Here, “token bundles” refers to groups of transactions examined together for signs of coordinated trading. A pre-lawsuit notice is a warning or demand sent before possible legal proceedings. It is not itself a lawsuit. No court complaint or class certification has been identified.
Trap Map also said its analysis of the GATO token identified linked wallet groups and developer concentration that Bubblemaps had not flagged. Developer concentration refers here to the alleged concentration of token holdings or activity among developer-linked wallets. JuJudog cited the comparison in its criticism of Bubblemaps.
The competing analyses have not been independently assessed using the same data and methods. A useful comparison would need to account for the data each platform used, its wallet-clustering rules and the thresholds it applied. Without that, the claims do not show which platform reached stronger conclusions.
What remains unverified
Blockchain analytics can help investigators spot patterns in public transaction data, but those patterns depend on the methods and assumptions behind them. A cluster can point to a need for further investigation. It cannot, by itself, establish who controls a wallet or whether misconduct occurred.
Several parties have interests in this dispute: JuJudog is making the allegation, while Trap Map is a rival promoting its own analysis and publicizing its notice. That does not make either party’s claims false. It does make independent corroboration, verifiable documents and transparent analytical methods especially important.
The key questions remain unresolved: who prepared the disputed agreement, whether JuJudog worked for Bubblemaps, whether Bubblemaps received Trap Map’s notice, and how the GATO analyses compare under a common methodology. Until evidence answers those questions, the contract claim remains an allegation, not a proven scandal or a cleared case.
Key questions and answers
-
Did Bubblemaps confirm a paid agreement with Proxima?
No. Bubblemaps denied the purported agreement and challenged the document’s authenticity. The available information does not independently establish whether the document is genuine or whether another relationship existed.
-
Does the address discrepancy prove the document is forged?
No. Records show Bubblemaps’ registered address changed after the agreement’s stated date, but they do not identify who prepared the document or establish whether the address shown was its only relevant business address.
-
Has Trap Map filed a lawsuit?
Trap Map said it sent a pre-lawsuit notice and set a November 16, 2025, response deadline. No court complaint or class certification has been identified.
-
Do the GATO analyses show that Bubblemaps missed suspicious wallets?
That has not been established. JuJudog said Trap Map identified linked wallets and developer concentration that Bubblemaps missed, but the analyses have not been independently compared using common data and methods.
