Time to play devil's advocate and present the other side of the coin. I do think these points should be mentioned and considered, and I do think they will have an effect on the TGE, so it's just interesting to consider all around.
Disclaimer: either way, I will be bidding.
1. Let's be real, the optics are bad. I mean, there's no denying it. It's popular to criticize pumpfun, and honestly, even I've done it plenty. Their practices are seen as mad extractive, they've ran over essentially every partner on their rise to success (Jup, Ray, to name some), the tokenomics that were released earlier today aren't exactly... exciting, and the enormous fundraising figures, especially when paired with the massive revenue "extracted" from the ecosystem, simply scream GREED.
2. Many who have tried to own the entire stack have failed. The startups graveyard is riddled with companies that bit off more than they could chew, and many think this case is no exception. I mean, a launchpad, that's also a DEX, that's also a mobile application, but also a social network? with livestreaming? Taking down Facebook, TikTok??? Not to mention other things on the roadmap. (wallet, stable.. hearing thingz, sauces and all that)
And why streaming exactly? That one tech subsector that many tried to conquer and failed, and even the market leader (twitch) has never been profitable? Will throwing money at the problem really change things?
3. Constant declining revenue figures and other key metrics are no joke, even if you try to brush them off as periodic. It's hard to sell people on "real yield coming from real revenue" when that revenue is cut by 75% from peak, the business model is negative sum, and the competition is taking up more mindshare, attention, users, and traders by the day.
4. (Perceived) lack of appetite. $750m in revenue in 18 months $1.3 billion raise... Like, why would the team even care about the token's performance? They've basically cashed out many times over. They can try and grow the business, sure, and chuck obscene amounts of money at high profile streamers or insane integrations, but the token could still underperform, and why should the team care? Yeah, they get tokens, but they also have enough money to pay the team great salaries, bonuses, etc. It's not like they're reliant on
$PUMP going to $100 billion to feed their children, right?
5. People aren't loyal to a single platform. I mention graveyards on a previous point, so allow me to borrow the same example: the protocols graveyard is riddled with protocols that thought their brand and user loyalty is a defensible moat. It's not. Especially not in web3.
I argued that if
$PUMP fails, the entire trenches/launchpad meta will fail. Well, who's to say, really? Will the trenches really be cooked forever if
$PUMP fails? Will degens not continue to trench? Will trenchers not continue to seek those elusive 10x/50x/100x plays? People care about making money, not about being loyal to a platform. (btw this goes both ways, looking at you, bonk bulls)
6.
$PUMP could do very well, and that still won't mean people will flock back to using
pump.fun. I mean, you use bridges all the time, no? Do you own bridge tokens? You use DEX aggregators, but do you own
$COW or $1inch? I don't think so. Unless there's a direct link, people can opt to buy the token thinking they want exposure to
$PUMP while never touching the app again.
7. Lack of a clear 'main character' aura. Pasternak is... well, Pasternak lol. Bonk and its eco have
@theunipcs. Pump... doesn't really have a 'main character' aura. Alon isn't really it, and people mostly are just being racist towards him. Pumpfun is still kind of living off the hype of its main success: Fartcoin. In essence, Fartcoin is the 'main character' for
pump.fun. And that doesn't really the troops, now, is it?
8. Airdrop is a fragment of the airdrop say
@HyperliquidX handed out, and it (most likely) won't be available on day one, which is admittedly kind of devious. I get that it's ridiculous to bitch and moan over free money raining from the sky, but this is CT after all. This is a valid point that is often brought up in the negative context around
pump.fun.
9. The launchpad experience itself, the core feature, has seen practically zero improvements. Other competitors have since shown up, with their own unique take on tokenomics, parameters and features and kind of... Left
pump.fun behind. Even marginal improvements seen on bonk are considered quality-of-life improvements that signify an overall desire to improve the core product that many think
pump.fun is lacking.
10. Raising $1.3 billion leaves exactly... who to buy? US and UK entities that couldn't somehow bypass geo restrictions? Is that really enough to pump the price when everybody and their mother are 'just itching for that liquid 2x at size babyyyy'? I mean ideally you'd want to create some fomo, some pent-up demand. When was the last time a large pre-sale did well?
These are not all the negative points, but I've said plenty. And again, I will be bidding. I just thought it'd be the intellectually honest thing to do to present the counterargument too.
The TLDR: REALLY bad optics lukewarm tokenomics airdrop shenanigans high valuation no clarity around who the bidder at TGE is everybody just gunning for that 2x short term trade questionable vertical and horizontal expansion plans
My honest take on the
$pump token launch:
1. It is utterly moronic to separate @pumpdotfun from other competitors. It is even more moronic to assume that competitors will do well, if
$PUMP were to fail. In other words, if
$PUMP fails, so do all the others. If you're in launchcoin or bonk or whatever, you should WANT
$PUMP to succeed.
2.
Pump.fun is a for-profit business. Shocking, I know. It identified a problem, positioned itself to solve it, showcased a unique ability to both deliver and grow, and that made them a lot of money. I'm confused as to how that's a bad thing? Are we not in the business of wanting to own the best assets? I, for one, would love to own a remarkably profitable company with historic revenue and growth figures. What's preferable, another overvalued L1 with no real users? Another lending & borrowing copycat? DEX copycat?
3. 'Pumpfun is extractive. They made $750m, sold
$SOL to stables, they're greedy bastards that want to max extract even more from the ecosystem'. What is this childish outlook? Would you operate a unicorn business by holding the revenue generated in such a volatile asset? Would you not periodically sell it to a currency you can use to pay salaries and providers? If they held
$SOL and drewdown 50% you would call them names. Being financially logical is not a dig.
4. 'But if they made so much money, why even raise more? Is that not extraction? Again with these asinine takes.
Do profitable companies never raise more money? Do they not have growing capex, aspirations to grow even bigger, expand vertically and horizontally? Why would you not raise more money if you're able to, and allocate that money towards growing even bigger and more rapidly? Did OpenAI not close a $40 billion raise despite their revenue numbers growing at an insane pace? The same goes for every other company. You raise money because you want to leverage the capital to GROW EVEN MORE. It's not such a bizarre notion.
Well, maybe for CT it is.
5. 'This is a liquidity blackhole type event, it's bad for memes, bad for Solana, bad for the ecosystem'. So the argument here is that it's such a desirable asset, that just its imminent launch is enough to cause people to sell the assets they're less convicted to hold for now, that *it's a bad thing*? Are you people fucking mental?
6. 'Memes are dead. This will be the last hurrah. Pump's revenue numbers and KPIs are all in decline, and this is their last chance to extract before they become irrelevant'. I'm dying to see how quickly the timeline will do a 180 once they get airdropped heaps of free money, or when pump announces their new product suite, vertical and horizontal expansions, and revenue accrual to token holders. Memes are dead until everybody gets a fat stimmy, the underlying token pumps and creates a wealth-generation effect, people get % of the revenue just for holding the token, and new users come through new products like mobile integrations, live streaming and partnerships with the largest names in the world. (Which, you guess it, is made possible by RAISING A FUCKING LARGE AMOUNT OF MONEY)
At the end of the day, it's very simple. Ask yourself, 'what tokens would I, in theory, like to own?'.
For me, the answer is simple: not many. I don't hold many tokens at all. What I do decide to hold, I hold based on two things:
1. Does it have a strong narrative, and will others buy into that narrative? (more short-term, momentum-driven. Think fartcoin)
2. Is it an actual growing business, with real revenue numbers, that might sustain and grow over time, with proper value accrual mechanisms to token holders?
The tokens that fit #2 are few and far between. The likes of
$HYPE,
$AAVE,
$JUP, etc. Even
$RAY and
$CAKE can be considered. Tokens that represent the next real stage of this not-so-nascent-anymore industry: the growth stage.
Not the early stage, 'let's all do super low-float-high-FDV venture deals in hopes of 1000x and selling promises'. The growth stage, where you assess which tokens will be crypto's SP500, or the 'Magnificent 7'. Which you might want to own for a year, two, perhaps more.
To me,
$PUMP fits the bill way more than 99.999% of tokens out there. And I think it's fairly priced, if not cheap, at $4 billion fully-diluted.