On April Fools' Day, people tend to doubt fake news and far-fetched stories at least once. But in the cryptocurrency market, that wariness may be necessary not just on one day, but all the time. In recent years, projects that started like jokes have repeatedly turned real, drawing hundreds of millions, and at times billions, of dollars. They may look like pranks on the surface, but behind them the market's structural features and investor psychology are laid bare.

In connection with that, on April 1 BeInCrypto, a blockchain media outlet, introduced four meme coin cases that sounded like April Fools jokes but actually happened, and underscored the need for careful judgment before investing.

A fart joke turned into Fartcoin (FARTCOIN) One representative case is Fartcoin (FARTCOIN), the so-called "fart coin". Launched on Solana in October 2024, the token began with a simple joke made by an artificial intelligence chatbot. The community turned it into an actual asset, and its market capitalisation topped $1 billion in just three months. That was far faster than Dogecoin (DOGE), a leading meme coin. It then peaked in January 2025, surging to about $2.5 billion. As of April 2026, however, its price is down more than 90%. Even so, it still remains among the top-ranked cryptocurrencies, a stark example of the market's irrational flow.

Accidentally burned, but the price surged: Slerf (SLERF) A more absurd incident unfolded with Slerf (SLERF). The project raised about $10 million in a presale right after launch, but an accident occurred when the developer mistakenly burned all of those funds and the liquidity tokens. Normally, a project collapses immediately in such a case, but the market reacted very differently. Speculative demand poured in, trading volume surged and the market capitalisation rose to $450 million. The price ultimately evaporated for the most part, but the case showed starkly that even failure can become material for investment in the market.

A 13-year-old developer cashes out: Quant (QUANT) In November that same year, an even more dramatic event took place. A 13-year-old boy issued the Quant (QUANT) token on Pump.fun during a live broadcast, made about $30,000 in profit and sold immediately. As the scene spread in real time, the community bought the token in large amounts in a kind of revenge psychology, and its market capitalisation soared to $35 million within hours. Ironically, it is estimated that if the developer had kept his holdings, the value of his stake would have exceeded $1 million. The boy later suffered serious backlash, including exposure of his personal information and threats, and trading in the token has effectively come to a halt.

"There is nothing," and interest grows: Useless (USELESS) A token named Useless (USELESS) surprised the market in another way. Launched in 2025, the project declared from the start that there was "nothing". It began as a simple structure with no roadmap, no utility and no investors, but that extreme transparency instead drew investor interest. Its market capitalisation at one point rose to $450 million, and it was listed on major exchanges. The price later fell, but it still maintains a certain scale. In particular, unlike other meme coins, it has held up without a large-scale rug pull or collapse, prompting even an assessment of it as "the most honest project."

What these cases have in common is that money flowed in even when the basis beyond speculation was weak. They showed that capital can pour in even without an actual product or technology or clear use case. Data show that among countless tokens, most ultimately lose value, but some draw enormous funds over a short time and shake the market. In the end, analysis says what influences investment decisions is closer to narrative, memes and crowd psychology than technical completeness.

Experts stress that in such an environment, investors must go through at least minimal verification procedures. Rather than concluding that all meme coins are scams, they say it is basic to check whether the project's founder and team can be verified, whether there is an actual working product, whether smart contract audits have been conducted and whether the token distribution structure is fair. They also point out that it is important to judge whether prices are moving based on atmosphere and trends rather than usability.