Dawn, Trojan, Bloom, TradeWiz and BONKbot. What I would look at now, and why the recent wallet incidents matter as much as the trading features.

Most Telegram trading bots look fairly similar when you first open them. Fund a wallet, paste a contract address, choose an amount. The differences become more obvious when you start setting up copies, checking fees and working out who can actually sign from the wallet.

That last part deserves more attention after the Bloom and TradeWiz incidents. A good interface does not answer a custody question. Neither does a quick trade.

My preference is still Dawn for everyday use, with Trojan the alternative I would look at for a more involved Solana setup. Bloom and TradeWiz need a closer look at the incident reports before I would consider adding funds. BONKbot remains worth comparing, although it would not be my first choice for the way I want to trade.

What matters in this comparison

I would start with the wallet setup, then look at costs and the controls I would actually use. Speed matters, but a claim about fast execution is not the same thing as a measured comparison.

My earlier Dawn and Trojan comparison covered a small set of observations. This article adds product documentation and incident reporting. It is not a new live test of all five bots.

• Wallet access: who protects the key, what the bot is allowed to do, and how to withdraw.
• Actual costs: trading fees, minimum charges, routing, pool fees and execution costs.
• Useful controls: copy sizing, filters, limits and exit settings.
• Security reporting: what happened, which product was affected, and what has been explained.

1. Dawn: the one I would start with

The reason I prefer Dawn is straightforward. I do not want to keep moving money between trading setups whenever a wallet I follow buys on another supported chain.

Dawn uses one USDC balance across its supported networks, including Solana, Base and BNB Chain. You paste a supported contract address and it identifies the network. That removes some of the balance management that otherwise comes before the trade.

Its copy-trading controls include wallet addresses and Fomo handles, with filters for liquidity, market cap, volume, holders and token age. It also offers limit orders, DCA and position exits. Those are the things I would spend time setting up, rather than trying to follow every new token manually.

Fees: the published rate is 1% on buys and sells, with a $0.35 minimum. Cashback can reduce the effective rate, but the minimum matters on small trades. A $10 trade paying $0.35 is paying 3.5% before other costs.

Dawn covers network gas up to $5 per trade. Pool fees, token taxes and price impact still matter, and cross-chain routing costs are included in the quoted price. “Gasless” does not mean there are no trading costs.

Wallet setup: Dawn says Privy creates and protects wallet keys, with exports available and two-factor authentication for withdrawals, sends and key exports. That is worth understanding, although using a separate wallet provider does not make a trading application risk-free.

For my priorities, the attraction is fewer balances to manage and useful copy controls in the same place. Someone focused entirely on launch sniping may want a different setup.

2. Trojan: more control for a Solana setup

I would put Trojan next. If you already know its settings and stay on Solana, there is a good reason to compare it properly before changing anything.

The current copy-trading documentation covers fixed or percentage buy amounts, copied sells, automatic take-profit and stop-loss orders, market-cap ranges and minimum liquidity. It also lets you adjust priority fees, bribes, slippage and MEV protection separately.

That gives you plenty to configure. It also gives you more decisions to make before a copy is ready.

One useful detail in the guide is its explanation of what copying cannot do. Some custom-program wallets and pools are unsupported, and following a launch sniper can leave the copy several blocks behind. The trader getting a good entry does not mean your wallet will get it too.

Fees and wallets: Trojan's Terminal FAQ lists 1% per successful trade and cashback. It distinguishes basic swaps using a connected wallet from advanced features that require a created or imported wallet. I would check the exact Telegram or Terminal workflow being used rather than assume every interface has the same wallet arrangement.

My preference remains Dawn for a simpler everyday workflow. Trojan is the one I would compare when detailed Solana controls matter more than moving across chains.

3. Bloom: read the incident report first

Bloom's place in this comparison is now as much about wallet access as trading features.

In its October 26 investigation, Bitquery reports that 48 Bloom-linked wallets belonging to nine traders lost 9,408 SOL, approximately $953,000 at the time. It puts the full drain at 94 seconds.

The part that stands out to me is the older wallets. Bitquery found that five had not traded through Bloom since the first half of 2025. Stopping use of a bot had not removed the exposure.

The investigation says the transfers were signed by the wallets' own keys. It also links to Bloom's reimbursement commitment. Those findings establish the transactions and the promise; they do not establish that every refund has been completed or resolve every question about the underlying access.

I would want the technical explanation, remediation and reimbursement status checked before adding funds. A refund announcement is useful information. It is not, on its own, the answer to how the transfers became possible.

4. TradeWiz: separate the product from the affected wallet

TradeWiz needs a distinction that can get lost in a short headline. The disclosed issue concerned the SOL PVP private-key export feature. That should not automatically be described as every TradeWiz product suffering the same failure.

Bitquery's investigation reports 20,932 wallets touched across September 28 to October 1 and approximately $459,000 taken in SOL, tokens and account rent. Its report reproduces TradeWiz's September 30 disclosure about the key exposure and its compensation promise.

Another finding is worth remembering: trading through the bot stopped during the drain, but most of the SOL was taken afterward. Pausing an application does not revoke a private key that someone else already has.

If a wallet's key was exposed, importing it into another app does not give it a new identity. It remains the same address controlled by the same key.

That is why I would check which wallet was used, whether it was affected, and the latest official instructions before doing anything else. I would not treat an operational Telegram bot as proof that an old SOL PVP wallet is safe.

5. BONKbot: compare the current product

BONKbot is last on this list for my priorities, but I would not dismiss it simply because it is an older name.

Its current documentation describes integration with Telemetry, limit-order automation and security features including passkeys. The Telegram overview also describes cross-platform integration and preset trading amounts.

That matters when reading comparisons that call it a product which stopped developing. The current documentation gives a different picture. It is still necessary to distinguish the Telegram features from what is available in Telemetry.

I would compare the actual workflow, the fees shown before execution and the wallet permissions. I would not assume an old reputation makes it the best choice, or that a critical ranking proves its current execution is worse.

For me, Dawn's balance management is still the stronger reason to choose a bot. Someone who already uses BONKbot and wants its connected terminal may reach a different conclusion.

Which would I choose?

Dawn would be my starting point. Its supported-chain coverage and single balance fit the way I want to use copy trading. Trojan is the next comparison if I want a detailed Solana-focused setup.

With Bloom and TradeWiz, the immediate question is the affected wallet and the latest incident information. I would settle that before comparing convenience. BONKbot stays on the comparison list, with its current integrations checked rather than judged from an old feature list.

Whichever tool you use, keep trading funds separate from longer-term holdings, understand what can sign transactions, and check the full cost of buying and selling. A planned stop loss is not a guaranteed execution price.

The bot can make the trade easier to place. Choosing the token, choosing the size and understanding the wallet are still your decisions.