Guests: Haseeb Qureshi, Managing Partner at Dragonfly
Joe McCann, Founder and CEO, Chief Investment Officer at Asymmetric
Host: Laura Shin
Podcast Source: https://x.com/laurashin/status/1945260654434083086
Compiled and Edited by: ChainCatcher
ChainCatcher Editor's Summary
Haseeb Qureshi, as a managing partner at Dragonfly Capital, is a leader in the field of cryptocurrency infrastructure investment, with his modular blockchain theory profoundly influencing industry evaluation standards. Joe McCann's Asymmetric has achieved counter-cyclical profits in a bear market through quantitative models, and its research on MemeCoin liquidity stratification is changing market valuation logic.
This episode of the podcast brings together industry experts to delve into hot topics surrounding the innovative platform Pump.fun. You will hear unique insights into Pump.fun's rapid rise, its fierce competition with rival Bonk, and its grand future strategy. In this episode, Haseeb emphasizes that the stablecoin liquidity index has reached levels indicative of a bull market, while Joe reveals a historic turning point where retail spot buying has surpassed institutional buying for the first time.
ChainCatcher has compiled and edited the content (with omissions).
Key Points Summary
- Pump.fun's ICO unexpectedly sold out in 12 minutes, demonstrating its strong market appeal despite complex market sentiment.
- Let's Bonk has rapidly emerged as a competitor, at one point surpassing Pump.fun in weekly revenue and token issuance, especially gaining widespread community support, while Pump.fun is viewed by some as a "predatory" platform.
- The differing stances of Coinbase and Kraken on participating in the Pump.fun ICO reflect their respective regulatory considerations and market positioning differences.
- Meme coins are not a passing fad but are entering a new development stage as an iteration of "software."
- Pump.fun's acquisition of Kolscan aims to vertically integrate its business, optimizing revenue streams by controlling user experience.
- Pump.fun has ambitions to challenge Twitch and TikTok, planning to build a comprehensive platform that integrates streaming, trading, analytics, and portfolio management, targeting younger audiences and streamers.
- Despite some negative views on Meme coins in the market, their continued activity and the success of the Pump.fun ICO suggest that the altcoin market may be entering a new, more active cycle.
1. Pump.fun ICO: Valuation Controversy and On-Chain Financing Wave
Laura Shin: As we all know, Pump.fun officially announced its ICO last week. They claim they want to beat Facebook, TikTok, and Twitch on Solana. However, the market response is quite complex. Some say it is "predatory," while others question the high valuation. Joe and Haseeb, what are your thoughts on the financing data, valuation, pricing, and token distribution of this ICO?
Joe McCann: I’ve mentioned in other shows that the crypto industry has redefined the word "revenue" to mean "predatory." Pump.fun is a clearly profitable company; they have developed a killer app and generated actual revenue. Of course, some may misuse it, which has led to the "predatory" narrative. But no one calls it predatory when meme coin prices skyrocket; it’s only when they crash to zero that people say that. So I think Pump.fun is a model for building a successful company. While people online may be unhappy about the lack of airdrops or distribution ratios, you can never please everyone on the internet.
Haseeb Qureshi: I also noticed a few particularly interesting points. First, as Joe mentioned, the online reaction to this financing has been very negative, calling it predatory. Second, although there is a lot of criticism on social media, the actual financing was oversubscribed, indicating strong demand. Third, this may mark the return of ICOs, especially in the context of Trump’s administration and the SEC relaxing regulations; this method of on-chain capital formation may become popular again. Of course, this ICO did KYC, unlike the old-style ICOs from 2017 where you just "send money to a wallet," but it does feel more like a CoinList on steroids.
Laura Shin: That’s right, I remember some ICOs in 2017 also did KYC, like Civic.
Haseeb Qureshi: Yes.
Laura Shin: I want to ask about the fact that they have $750 million in revenue. I can think of some reasons why they might need more funding, but I’m just curious, as a venture capitalist, I believe Dragonfly must have had the opportunity to invest. I’ve heard Rob Haddick say that they usually don’t invest in companies at that stage, but from a venture capital perspective, do you think this is reasonable? Do you think the valuation is reasonable? What are your thoughts on these numbers?
Haseeb Qureshi: The token is currently trading at about $0.052. I think as people gradually receive their tokens and with the exchange listings, the price will see significant fluctuations. So it’s clear that this pricing is reasonable. In fact, I think they did a great job with the pricing, like a fantastic IPO premium. You make 25%, leaving little profit margin, while making everyone involved feel good. Simply put, if you participated in the ICO, you’re probably up about 25% now. I think this pricing is smart; you want to see everyone making money, with a certain safety cushion and room for growth.
In my view, the price of Pump's token is unlikely to fall significantly below the issue price, so their pricing approach is friendly to retail investors. However, the market environment has changed significantly from when they initially announced the price to now; the token market is rising, and Bitcoin has also hit new highs, while the market was quite sluggish when they initially priced it. If you look at the presale market on Aevo and Hyperliquid's performance after listing yesterday, prices are generally around $5 to $6. The overall market view is quite consistent, with everyone believing that the project should trade at a market cap of $5 billion to $6 billion.
Joe McCann: There are two points worth expanding on regarding his perspective. First, the most special aspect of this ICO is that the vast majority of the fundraising was done on-chain. 75% of the token allocation went to wallets that invested at least $1 million, which are typically not retail investors but rather some form of "smart money," and very familiar with on-chain infrastructure. This is completely different from traditional fundraising methods.
Second, this fundraising adopted a model of on-chain Solana capital formation + Hyperliquid price discovery. This concept is very interesting. For example, I am a Circle investor; look at their IPO process: many criticized them for pricing too low or repeatedly adjusting the listing price, and it was a hassle to match orders when trading officially began. For us crypto natives, this method seems particularly outdated. In contrast, Hyperliquid's price discovery mechanism is very efficient. Even though the token hasn’t officially launched, trading volume has already surged to around $500 million, which is simply incredible. And the opening price closely matched the presale price. In my view, this combination of on-chain fundraising + off-chain price discovery does not exist in traditional finance, which is what makes it so appealing.
2. Multi-Exchange Coordination and On-Chain Price Discovery Mechanism
Laura Shin: We just talked about the issue of price reasonableness, but I want to delve deeper into the design of this ICO. We see that this is not the traditional "send funds to a contract address" issuance model, but rather conducted through multiple centralized exchanges. This structure is quite rare in the crypto space. Haseeb, can you talk about the details in this regard? What newness does this mechanism bring, and what issues does it present?
Haseeb Qureshi: This ICO indeed has many noteworthy design points. The main difference is that it was not conducted through a unified issuance platform but used six centralized exchanges like Bybit, Gate.io, and Kraken. Each exchange received a portion of the token inventory to sell to its own users. These exchanges connected through an API built by the Pump team, and when an exchange received user orders, it needed to request quota confirmation from the API in real-time, which would then return whether it could continue selling. Essentially, this is a coordinated inventory system.
The problem is that the Pump team completely underestimated the heat of this issuance. The API was almost immediately overwhelmed after the opening, responding very slowly, and even completely failing. Some exchanges, like Kraken, mistakenly thought they hadn’t received any quotas, so they oversubscribed user orders and later had to compensate users through airdrops. Bybit also experienced a similar situation, choosing to give users $20 in trading credits as compensation.
Joe McCann: I heard that some users, in order to successfully subscribe on Bybit, hedged short on Hyperliquid, but due to subscription failure, they ended up with only naked short positions and lost quite a bit. This structure inherently carries many technical and game-theoretic risks.
Haseeb Qureshi: Indeed, this design was prepared for the "worst-case scenario." The Pump team, at the design stage, was worried that the project wouldn’t sell out and originally planned to sell it slowly over three days. They even consulted many VCs on how to design the fundraising structure, as everyone was concerned about the possibility of a failed auction, so the entire system was designed to ensure that exchanges could catch the project. The result was completely unexpected; demand far exceeded expectations, and on-chain bidding volume surged in an instant, overwhelming the API. This directly led to oversubscription by exchanges, allocation chaos, and system confusion. However, in the long run, this distribution structure may be emulated by other projects, as these exchanges have already built the necessary infrastructure and may continue to use it in the future.
Laura Shin: It sounds like a new type of token issuance logic. I want to ask, is this mechanism more reliable than decentralized issuance methods? From the perspective of participant experience, what insights does this event bring?
Joe McCann: This reminds me of Hyperliquid's role. Although the token hasn't officially launched yet, their price discovery before the launch was very successful, with trading volume reaching $500 million. In contrast, companies like Circle have to constantly adjust their issuance prices and struggle to match orders during their IPOs, which seems very outdated. Hyperliquid's performance indicates that on-chain capital formation + off-chain price discovery is a new collaborative mechanism. We have never seen this model in traditional finance, and this structure will be a significant breakthrough in the crypto financing market.
Haseeb Qureshi: One more point worth emphasizing is that the capital formation method for this ICO is also quite different. 75% of the funds were subscribed directly from on-chain wallets, many of which had investment amounts exceeding $1 million. These are clearly not ordinary retail investors but rather "smart money" that is very familiar with on-chain infrastructure and acts quickly. So, this is not the traditional retail subscription model seen in traditional finance, but more like a collective action of Web3 native capital.
3. Investor Composition, Token Distribution, and Community Game Theory
Laura Shin: The token distribution for this ICO has also sparked quite a bit of controversy. According to the official disclosure, 20% goes to the team, 13% to early investors, 33% to ICO participants, and the remaining 24% for the community ecosystem. However, many community members are dissatisfied with the low airdrop ratio, especially since the creator airdrop only amounts to 10 million tokens. Some comments point out that compared to Uniswap's 6.4 billion and Arbitrum's 12 billion, this number is too small. Joe, what do you think of these criticisms?
Joe McCann: In the crypto space, no matter how tokens are distributed, there will always be dissatisfaction. Founders have to face pressure from teams, investors, communities, and creators, and it's impossible to satisfy everyone. This is not an exact science; it's more of a dynamic game. However, token distribution is indeed key to a project's success. Bonk is a great example. They prioritized broad distribution and now have over a million wallet holders, along with many practical products, resulting in strong user retention.
I have always advised founders to optimize the distribution mechanism to allow as many people as possible to obtain tokens, and then push for utility development. Has Pump.fun achieved this? It's unclear at the moment, but the token is still above the ICO price, indicating that the market still recognizes it.
Haseeb Qureshi: I want to add that the biggest difference between Pump and other projects is that it made no airdrop promises from the start, nor did it imply any. Users participated because they liked the product and the community, not for the airdrop. In other words, there is no "invisible social contract" with Pump. Surprise airdrops like Uniswap's are indeed wonderful, but Pump did not have such expectation management. From this perspective, any airdrop they do now is an extra benefit. Of course, the community will still complain because there are incentives to do so in the crypto space. The cost is almost zero, and the potential gains can be huge. As long as you complain loudly enough, you might get a larger share of the airdrop. This has become a kind of game strategy.
Laura Shin: Indeed, many people use complaints to exert pressure. I also noticed that investors in this ICO do not have a lock-up period. Haseeb, does this mean that some institutions might sell off immediately?
Haseeb Qureshi: Yes. Strictly speaking, the institutions participating in this ICO cannot be fully called "venture capitalists." The team's initial plan was to focus on retail investors, with institutions as a supplement; this design was prepared for the "worst-case scenario." If retail demand was insufficient, institutions could fill the gap.
But the reality is that retail demand far exceeded expectations, and institutions became the ones scrambling to buy. Many of them could not participate directly on-chain or on exchanges and had to buy OTC from the team, with terms similar to retail investors. So you could say they participated "on the same terms," but because there is no lock-up, they have no holding obligation. There is indeed some selling pressure in the market.
Joe McCann: I agree. And going back to our previous discussion of "extreme capitalism vs. community idealism," if an institutional investor takes on risk and chooses to exit after a 25% gain, that is completely reasonable. This is very common in traditional finance. For example, PIPE investors buy at a low price and quickly cash out after the stock rises. This is not a problem unique to crypto; it's the investment logic itself.
Laura Shin: Let's talk about who actually bought these tokens. Statistics show that about 8,200 people invested less than $1,000, while 200 invested over $1 million, with a total participation of about 13,000 people. Some even suspect there was a "witch hunt" style of on-chain operation. At the same time, 24,000 people completed KYC. What does this indicate? Can we use this to infer the investor profile for this ICO?
Haseeb Qureshi: These data points indicate several things. First, on-chain funds dominate, with the tokens selling out in just 12 minutes. Many people thought they had three days to participate, perhaps planning to finish breakfast first, only to miss out. Furthermore, due to the strict KYC for this issuance, users from the U.S. and the U.K. were completely excluded, with participants primarily from Asia or other regions. This also explains why retail investors were active while centralized exchanges frequently experienced mismatches.
Laura Shin: This issuance took place on a Saturday, which was actually quite suitable for U.S. time. But because of KYC, it's not something that can be solved with a VPN.
Joe McCann: Exactly. For me, all of this brings back memories of that "lightbulb moment" during the first ICO boom: we can actually complete global capital formation in a matter of minutes. This model is redefining how companies raise funds. I do not agree with the notion that "centralized exchanges are dead"; CEX still has a strong distribution network, with platforms like Coinbase and Robinhood having tens of millions of KYC users. These networks will not disappear overnight, but we are indeed seeing an increase in on-chain participation, especially for projects like Pump that naturally embody the Web3 narrative.
4. Differences in Exchange Participation and Regulatory Trade-offs
Laura Shin: Another interesting point about this ICO is that Kraken participated in the token issuance, while Coinbase did not join at all. Why is there such a difference? What do you think of Kraken's decision and Coinbase's absence?
Haseeb Qureshi: Coinbase's absence is actually not surprising. They are a publicly traded company, deeply rooted in the U.S. market, and face greater regulatory constraints. In contrast, while Kraken is also regulated, its main market is in Europe, and it remains a private company, giving it more flexibility. This may not only be a regulatory factor but also a brand consideration. If Coinbase supports the Pump ICO but then has to inform U.S. users that they cannot participate, it might confuse or disappoint them even more. So they might feel, "Let's just not participate to avoid trouble."
Joe McCann: Kraken's decision indeed demonstrates leadership. They are willing to take risks proactively to secure participation opportunities for users, and they chose to airdrop compensation when there were issues with orders, which is quite impressive. In comparison, Bybit's offer of $20 in credits seems a bit perfunctory. I also noticed that some users who originally tried to buy on Bybit hedged short on Hyperliquid to maintain market neutrality. But because they ultimately failed to buy, they ended up with only naked short positions, leading to direct losses.
Haseeb Qureshi: This reflects the differences in infrastructure capabilities between exchanges. Established institutions like Kraken are more mature in handling emergencies; they realize that compensating customers is more important than saving money. Bybit, on the other hand, is more like a new platform focused on cost control.
However, at the end of the day, this is not a major business for exchanges. Even platforms like Kraken only sell a few tens of millions of dollars' worth of tokens at most. This money itself does not constitute a primary source of income. Their willingness to participate is largely for user retention and brand recognition.
Laura Shin: So you believe exchanges will not treat this issuance model as a main business line in the future?
Haseeb Qureshi: Yes, this will not become a primary source of income. It's more like a marketing event, similar to how FTX listed many "junk coins" back in the day, primarily to attract traffic. Token projects like Pump attract attention and bring users in, but the real money still comes from mainstream coins like BTC, ETH, and XRP.
Joe McCann: I agree. Moreover, Kraken's customer base leans more towards high-net-worth individuals, who actually care more about participating in these high-exposure new projects than retail investors. Even if they are fewer in number, they can bring in significant business volume, so Kraken is more willing to serve this segment. In contrast, Coinbase's customer base is primarily retail, making them more sensitive to compliance risks.
Haseeb Qureshi: And remember, Kraken is not yet publicly listed, which allows them to take on greater risks. Coinbase, on the other hand, must be accountable to shareholders and cannot easily get too involved with meme coins or controversial projects. They know that Wall Street analysts do not want to hear about the company participating in projects like Pump—that would only bring negative perceptions. For Coinbase, the risk of association may far outweigh the short-term revenue it could bring.
Laura Shin: But isn't Kraken also preparing for an IPO?
Haseeb Qureshi: Yes, but they are not yet listed, which makes a significant difference in operational flexibility.
Joe McCann: Another detail worth noting is that Coinbase has actually launched Pump's perpetual contracts through its international platform. However, this product is not accessible to U.S. users. In other words, Coinbase is not completely uninvolved; they just did not participate in the ICO itself and did not promote it on the main platform. But they clearly recognize that this token has attention and are trying to participate in price discovery through other means.
Laura Shin: It is indeed quite subtle. Coinbase is promoting the vision of a "on-chain future" through Base while deliberately avoiding the most high-profile on-chain events. Is this duality part of their strategy?
Haseeb Qureshi: I believe so. Coinbase has a positioning on Wall Street: they are the "decent representative of the crypto industry." They must maintain credibility in the traditional financial world, telling stories about Bitcoin as a macro asset, the tokenization of real assets, and ETF regulatory compliance. At the same time, they want to profit from retail trading, and these retail investors are indeed very interested in meme coins and on-chain activities. So they have to walk a tightrope, maintaining a traditional financial image on the surface while trying to engage with on-chain excitement behind the scenes.
Joe McCann: I actually appreciate this strategy. We need people like Coinbase, who wear suits to lobby in Washington D.C., but we also need teams that experiment on-chain and drive technological innovation. Both forces are essential for the industry's progress.
Laura Shin: Indeed, I also noticed that the a16z team is actively promoting policies in Washington. But projects like Pump, which are more "trench-style," clearly represent another path. Do you think these two routes can coexist?
Haseeb Qureshi: I believe they absolutely can. Coinbase and Base themselves embody this dual-track structure: one side is a serious, compliant public company, while the other is a chaotic on-chain experimental ground. If they can capture both worlds, it would be the best scenario for the entire industry.
5. Market Reaction and Competition: The Rise of Bonk and Community Diversion
Laura Shin: We are looking forward to what will emerge on Base, but personally, I think Pump's ICO might trigger a new wave of ICO enthusiasm on Solana. Joe, you have previously shared similar views. Now I want to bring the topic back to trading performance: how do you see Pump's market capitalization or price trends in the coming months?
Haseeb Qureshi: First, let me state that this is not investment advice; I am neither an investor nor holding Pump. We are still in the early stages of price discovery, as not all tokens have been distributed yet, and the exchange listings are not comprehensive. Currently, the token is trading on a few platforms: I saw it trading on Bybit, KuCoin, and Pump's own Pump Swap today; among them, Pump Swap has the highest trading volume because most of the on-chain allocations are trading there. Typically, mainstream price discovery occurs on Binance, but it has not yet listed. Once Binance or other large exchanges go live, retail participation will increase.
On another note, some institutional investors who bought in the ICO phase have not yet received their tokens, and many cannot use DEX. If they want to take profits (for example, locking in ~25% initial gains), they need to wait for trading channels to open. Therefore, as more listings and token unlocks occur, short-term price volatility may be significant in the near term (over the next week or two) until positions are reallocated.
Joe McCann: I don't like to give specific price targets; that's a Wall Street sales tactic. But I want to emphasize two points.
First, many people will try to backtrack token value using traditional fundamental models, which often doesn't work in crypto. You will see some protocols priced like cabbage on fundamentals, yet their prices remain stagnant.
Second, the core focus is on attention. The token itself is a product, and whether people participate, discuss, trade, or speculate often drives the price more than cash flow models. Pump claims to challenge platforms at the level of Twitch and TikTok and plans to integrate the creator economy with crypto trading. If they can truly attract streamers, creators, and traders to interact, the attention will persist, and the token may benefit.
By the way, if Pump's fully diluted valuation (FDV) reaches the $5 billion to $10 billion range, it will be necessary to reassess its relative valuation against competitors like Bonk, which has actually done a lot in terms of product, token distribution, and on-chain activity and may be undervalued.
Laura Shin: Speaking of Bonk, we see a phenomenon: the launch platform for the Bonk team, "Let’s Bonk," also known as Bonk Fund, had several days where its 24-hour revenue exceeded that of Pump.fun. As of earlier today, it is still leading. According to community data: over 1,200 tokens have graduated from Bonk Fund, while Pump.fun has slightly over 600; the total number of tokens launched by Bonk Fund is about 130,000, while Pump.fun has about 77,000. Joe, why do you think this shift is occurring?
Joe McCann: I think the reason lies in sentiment and community positioning. People like Pump's product, but there has been a lot of negative narrative surrounding Pump recently: predatory practices, scams, and exit scams, even though these are often external behaviors. Bonk has a good reputation in the Solana community, seen as friendly, actively developed, and genuinely reinvesting protocol revenue back into the ecosystem, buying back and burning Bonk, etc. So when Pump sparks controversy, users naturally try to issue or trade on the Bonk platform, leading to visible market share movement.
This is not necessarily a permanent migration; it could reverse next week. But we may be witnessing a competition between "community trust vs. profit platforms." Pump has substantial cash flow; Bonk has deep community recognition. This will be healthy competition, but ultimately it may be a winner-takes-all scenario.
Laura Shin: I visited Let’s Bonk, and I felt that the visual style of the meme coins there is not as refined and Western as Pump's. Subjectively, it feels more Asian, with varying quality, while Pump seems more "neat." Do you think this cultural difference will affect users?
Joe McCann: Bonk has been deeply rooted in Southeast Asia for years, which may bring about visual or cultural differences. But honestly, most meme traders do not care about image quality; they are looking for the next hundredfold coin. Not to mention that a lot of funds participate through bot strategies, not even looking at the front-end interface.
Haseeb Qureshi: From a venture capital perspective, this is not surprising: when a dominant platform (like Pump) cools in sentiment and new creators struggle to break through, it opens up space for competitive networks. Let’s Bonk provides a new entry point and a different market atmosphere, naturally attracting some momentum. Additionally, it receives cross-subsidies from ecosystems like Raydium, which, while not necessarily decisive in scale, does provide a boost.
I wouldn't be bearish on Pump because of this. Don't forget they just completed a massive financing round: they not only have hundreds of millions in cash on hand but also a large inventory of Solana assets and tokens. They can completely launch a market offensive using incentives, subsidies, buybacks, creator funds, etc., just like launching T-shirt cannons. I actually expect them to adopt a very aggressive counter-strategy.
6. The Leap from Meme Coins to On-Chain Entertainment Financial Platforms
Laura Shin: I also noticed an interesting dynamic: Pump recently acquired Kolscan. This is a trading data analysis platform that can track addresses, hedging strategies, opening and closing operations on Hyperliquid in real-time. Does this mean Pump is building a closed-loop ecosystem? Are they not just trying to be a meme platform but have deeper ambitions?
Haseeb Qureshi: I think this is a very smart acquisition. Pump does not want to be just a meme platform; their goal is more like to become the Twitch of the crypto space: integrating content creation, audience interaction, and financial speculation. Through Kolscan, they can analyze in real-time which on-chain traders have influence, who the hot topics are, and which tokens are surging. This helps Pump better incentivize creators and traders, pushing the most explosive content to the forefront. It is not just a front-end product but a combination of a "trading engine + ranking recommendation system + incentive distribution system." You can think of it as a "financial version of TikTok + Twitch," but with a crypto-native narrative. This represents a completely new paradigm for the industry.
Joe McCann: I completely agree. Many people are still viewing Pump through the lens of traditional social platforms, thinking it is just a meme coin incubator. But in reality, what Pump wants to create is an "attention-driven financial platform" that not only incubates tokens but also controls trading flow, user perspectives, and community narratives. For example, Kolscan allows them to know who the KOL behind a token is, whether there are bots manipulating trades, and who is driving buying pressure; if Pump can use this data to adjust hot lists, rankings, and profit distribution, they can "financially allocate" traffic. This is much more complex and powerful than the recommendation algorithms of ordinary social platforms.
Moreover, we see that traditional content platforms cannot establish a solid mechanism between user attention and content monetization. But crypto provides Pump with a native incentive mechanism. You can not only view content and interact but also place orders, buy in, and share profits. This model of trading as content is something traditional Web2 platforms cannot achieve.
Laura Shin: Do you think this direction will be the next stage of development for meme coins? Will they evolve from the original "image memes + community hype" into a hybrid of "financial games + native content + investment behavior"?
Haseeb Qureshi: Indeed, I believe the next stage for meme coins will see more financially structured forms. Pump is just the first step; it proves that it is possible to bring tens of millions of dollars in trading onto a platform with a low barrier to entry and high fun factor. Next, we may see more systems like Pump, but perhaps not meme coins; they could be on-chain entertainment, on-chain gambling, AI-generated content markets, etc. Their commonality is that they arrange incentive structures using "attention + speculation" as resources. This is not merely about trading coins, nor is it purely about Web2 creation; it is a hybrid.
Joe McCann: To add a point: Pump also represents a return to a "founder culture." In previous years, the meme craze on Solana leaned more towards an anonymous culture, while Pump is clearly different; it has a very strong team that dares to advertise, take the stage, and play a quirky, humorous style, while also managing to raise $500 million in funding and acquire tools to design complex incentive models. This operation resembles a high-growth Web2 startup rather than a "DAO + community slowly governing."
I believe this route will attract more entrepreneurs to engage in meme projects because you can quickly iterate using Web2 methods while gaining significant leverage through token models. This founder-driven meme project will become a new species.
Laura Shin: A very brilliant conclusion. Thank you for your analysis. Today, we discussed a complete PUMP from financing structure, on-chain innovation, investor behavior, exchange games, to strategic future. Perhaps this is the beginning of "meme 2.0."
免责声明:本文章仅代表作者个人观点,不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享,不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议,与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权,请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com,本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。