Someone launched a token using Bitter's name.
In late May 2026, someone used Bankr to launch a token called Bitter ($BITTER) on Base and pointed its fee-recipient stream at my X handle, @ruemic.
I did not create the token.
I did not deploy it.
I did not approve it.
I have not claimed anything from it.
But the token exists, it trades, and the claimable fee stream is routed to a wallet only I can claim from. So I am putting the facts on record instead of letting the situation stay ambiguous.
This page is not an endorsement, not a promotion, and not a trading page. It is a static receipt.
current snapshot
The fee-recipient wallet is empty on-chain. That is expected. The accrued fees sit in the token's fee system until a claim executes. No claim has executed.
The BITTER amount is nominal. The pool is thin, and treating the BITTER balance as liquid value would be misleading.
Snapshot as of 2026-06-10. This page is a fixed public record, not a dashboard. For current figures, use the live sources below.
roles
Fee routing is not endorsement.
There are several different roles here, and they should not be collapsed.
I am the named fee recipient.
I am not the deployer.
I am not the creator.
I am not the admin.
I am not the market maker.
I am not telling anyone to buy, sell, hold, or trade this token.
The fee stream points at my identity. That does not mean the token represents me, Bitter, or anything I am building.
the fee mechanics
How the fees work.
Every trade pays a pool fee. Bankr advertises the named recipient as the beneficiary, but the fee stream has multiple layers — the trade fee tier and the claim split are different things.
0.7% per tradedecoded from this pool's on-chain swap events“95% / 5%”the split Bankr describes publicly at one layer — not the recipient's final share57% recipient · 36.1% Bankr · 1.9% Bankr ecosystem · 5% Doppler / protocolper Bankr's own fee docs — roughly 43% of every fee is the platform side'sSo when a dashboard shows a gross claimable number, that is not the same thing as “the named recipient receives 95% of every trading fee.” The actual recipient share is materially lower once the full split is applied.
So far, none of this has moved to anyone.
No recipient claim.
No platform claim.
No protocol claim.
No transfer out of the fee system.
Verified on-chain: zero transfers from this token's fee system to anyone — recipient, platform, or protocol — over its entire life.
The meter exists, but it has not been started by me.
the bigger picture
The question this raises.
This situation is bigger than one token.
A permissionless launchpad let a stranger attach my project's name and my public identity to a tradable asset. The token got a market. The platform got a fee meter. Traders got something to speculate on. I got an unsolicited fee stream attached to my name, plus the reputational risk of people assuming I had something to do with it.
On a launch the creator actually chose, the platform cut is easy to understand. The platform provides launch tooling, fee routing, liquidity plumbing, and distribution.
On a launch the named beneficiary never requested, the situation is stranger. The platform may still have provided infrastructure, but the identity used to create attention and legitimacy belonged to someone who did not opt in.
When a platform monetizes a market attached to a person or project that did not request the launch, what exactly is the platform's cut buying — and from whom was permission obtained?
I have not claimed anything because claiming would make this less theoretical. It would start the fee machine. It would turn an unsolicited attachment into an active relationship.
Bankr: I am genuinely open to hearing the case.
the name they borrowed
What Bitter actually is.
The token borrowed the name of a real project.
Bitter is the operating layer for AI-built software.
AI agents can now generate working software, but most of that work still evaporates: it lives in chat logs, local folders, one-off scripts, temporary deployments, forgotten prompts, and brittle handoffs. The model may get better, but the work itself does not compound unless someone preserves the context, authority, evidence, deployment state, and next action.
Bitter is built around that missing layer.
It gives AI-built projects a home: a real workspace where agents can run, use scoped credentials, ship software, leave receipts, remember what happened, and pick up the thread again later. The goal is not just to make software once. The goal is to make the next run smarter because the previous run happened.
That is why this page exists in this form. The same discipline Bitter applies to agent work applies here: separate claims from evidence, preserve the record, make the state inspectable, and do not let ambiguity do the work.
The real Bitter lives at bitter.sh.
live sources
This receipt does not update. These do: