Author: Frank, PANews Pump.fun, serving as the "meme minting factory" within the Solana ecosystem, has accumulated astonishing revenue and wealth. However, the price of its platform token, PUMP, has struggled under persistent selling pressure. To reverse this trend, Pump.fun is attempting a two-pronged approach: aggressive token buybacks and the experimental introduction of a new AI agent feature called "Mayhem Mode." Faced with a complex market environment and internal challenges, can this Meme carrier really make a comeback? The data showed a significant decline, but remained relatively strong compared to the industry average. To understand the dilemma of Pump.fun, one must look at its complex data. As of November 14, Pump.fun's average daily revenue remained above $1 million, ranking among the top five of all protocols. However, this figure represents a significant decline compared to the $4 million daily revenue it generated at the beginning of the year. Meanwhile, the number of new tokens issued daily on Pump.fun has decreased from a peak of 70,000 to less than 20,000. The number of daily active wallets has also declined, although it has remained above 100,000 for the past three months, so the decline is not severe. The token graduation rate is currently significantly lower; since February of this year, the graduation rate of tokens on Pump.fun has consistently been below 1%, even dropping to 0.58% in September. This indirectly reflects the decreasing success rate of meme market speculation. However, a large part of this decline is due to the overall industry downturn; compared to its peers, Pump.fun's market share has actually increased. For example, on November 12th, Pump.fun issued 14,800 tokens on Solana's meme launch platform, accounting for approximately 93.4%. Previously, during the meme launch platform wars, its share had dropped as low as 16.8%. Looking at the overall data performance, Pump.fun's data performance has indeed declined significantly compared to its peak period, but it appears to be more resilient compared to its peers. "Buybacks" and "Pullbacks": Ineffective Token Business Strategies Faced with slowing platform growth and a continued decline in the price of the PUMP token, the Pump.fun team is attempting to revitalize the market through "cash power" buybacks and the launch of "Mayhem Mode". Since launching its token PUMP in July, Pump.fun has used approximately 98% of its platform revenue to buy back over $173.7 million worth of PUMP tokens, representing 11.19% of the total circulating supply. This repurchase effort ranks second among all repurchase agreements, with daily repurchase volume second only to Hyperliquid. However, PUMP's price performance and the extent of the buybacks seem disproportionate. The token has fallen from its September high, dropping as low as $0.0015, a maximum decline of over 83%. The current pullback is approximately 60%, while Bitcoin's maximum pullback during the same period was approximately 23%, and HYPE's was approximately 40%. With the "power of money" failing, the team attempted to create a new narrative through product innovation. On November 12th, the platform launched an experimental "Chaos Mode." This feature aims to automatically participate in the trading of new tokens by introducing AI agents. According to the documentation, these AI agents will mint an additional 1 billion tokens for selected tokens (doubling the total supply to 2 billion), then conduct "random trading" within 24 hours to increase early liquidity, and finally burn any unsold portions. However, this highly anticipated update encountered "chaos" as soon as it went live. Community feedback indicated that the new features were not user-friendly and instead contained numerous bugs, including "minting excessive token supply," "depleting creator funds," and "locking user funds." Pepe Boost, a KOL in the meme field, bluntly stated: "In actual observation, there is no more trading volume than ordinary tokens." He added, "I thought there would be a big one, but it turns out that it's just some experimental AI playing around on Pump." The market is dumping shares in the "Meme" sector, not Pump.fun. Why can't daily buybacks of millions of dollars support the price? Highly anticipated new features have become a laughing stock. The fundamental reason for the market's lack of response may not lie with Pump.fun alone, but rather with a broader narrative, structural flaws, and the power of cycles. First, it's an inevitable trend, and no one can escape it. Recently, the market correction has intensified, with almost all tokens experiencing declines. In this environment, buybacks can only "slow down the decline" rather than "reverse the trend." As mentioned earlier, Hyperliquid has a similarly robust revenue and buyback mechanism, but its token also experienced a significant 40% correction. This demonstrates that in a bear market, relying solely on protocol revenue for buybacks is insufficient to counteract macroeconomic selling pressure. Secondly, there has always been a skepticism in the market that Pump.fun's high revenue and high trading volume are due to a huge "bubble," meaning they are generated by high-frequency trading bots rather than by real users. Once this bubble bursts, the corresponding price will be difficult to sustain. PANews conducted a specific survey, randomly selecting several hundred recent transactions from 10 tokens that had not yet graduated for behavioral analysis. They found that bot trading volume currently accounts for approximately 54.7% of these tokens' trading volume, with each bot contributing an average of 22 transactions per token, compared to only 1.8 transactions from real users. In terms of transaction value contribution, each bot contributed $68 per transaction, with bots contributing approximately 45.6% of the total transaction value. However, this percentage is actually lower than previous surveys. Therefore, from this perspective, the "bot bubble" is a long-standing structural problem for Pump.fun, but it hasn't worsened recently and shouldn't be the main factor driving the token's decline. Third, after excluding macroeconomic and robotic factors, the core reason may not be that Pump.fun is failing, but rather that the meme market itself is failing. The fundamental reason for the market's lack of response is that investors have lost confidence in the "Meme Coin" sector as a whole. Pump.fun, as the infrastructure of this sector, reflects future expectations for the entire sector in terms of its token price. Currently, those expectations are pessimistic. This is evident in the performance of the Solana ecosystem, where overall activity is declining. Data shows that the number of active wallets on the Solana chain recently hit a 12-month low. As the main battleground for Meme coins, Solana's "fuel" is running out. It's not just Pump.fun; the data from other meme launch platforms is even more dismal. LetsBonk.fun, which once threatened Pump.fun's position in July, saw its activity rapidly collapse after August, and currently only around 200 new tokens are issued daily. In this industry-wide downturn, Pump.fun is actually the most resilient one. Therefore, we can seemingly conclude that the decline in PUMP tokens is not due to the market selling off Pump.fun, but rather the Meme sector. Pump.fun is simply the most luxurious first-class cabin on the sinking Titanic.Author: Frank, PANews Pump.fun, serving as the "meme minting factory" within the Solana ecosystem, has accumulated astonishing revenue and wealth. However, the price of its platform token, PUMP, has struggled under persistent selling pressure. To reverse this trend, Pump.fun is attempting a two-pronged approach: aggressive token buybacks and the experimental introduction of a new AI agent feature called "Mayhem Mode." Faced with a complex market environment and internal challenges, can this Meme carrier really make a comeback? The data showed a significant decline, but remained relatively strong compared to the industry average. To understand the dilemma of Pump.fun, one must look at its complex data. As of November 14, Pump.fun's average daily revenue remained above $1 million, ranking among the top five of all protocols. However, this figure represents a significant decline compared to the $4 million daily revenue it generated at the beginning of the year. Meanwhile, the number of new tokens issued daily on Pump.fun has decreased from a peak of 70,000 to less than 20,000. The number of daily active wallets has also declined, although it has remained above 100,000 for the past three months, so the decline is not severe. The token graduation rate is currently significantly lower; since February of this year, the graduation rate of tokens on Pump.fun has consistently been below 1%, even dropping to 0.58% in September. This indirectly reflects the decreasing success rate of meme market speculation. However, a large part of this decline is due to the overall industry downturn; compared to its peers, Pump.fun's market share has actually increased. For example, on November 12th, Pump.fun issued 14,800 tokens on Solana's meme launch platform, accounting for approximately 93.4%. Previously, during the meme launch platform wars, its share had dropped as low as 16.8%. Looking at the overall data performance, Pump.fun's data performance has indeed declined significantly compared to its peak period, but it appears to be more resilient compared to its peers. "Buybacks" and "Pullbacks": Ineffective Token Business Strategies Faced with slowing platform growth and a continued decline in the price of the PUMP token, the Pump.fun team is attempting to revitalize the market through "cash power" buybacks and the launch of "Mayhem Mode". Since launching its token PUMP in July, Pump.fun has used approximately 98% of its platform revenue to buy back over $173.7 million worth of PUMP tokens, representing 11.19% of the total circulating supply. This repurchase effort ranks second among all repurchase agreements, with daily repurchase volume second only to Hyperliquid. However, PUMP's price performance and the extent of the buybacks seem disproportionate. The token has fallen from its September high, dropping as low as $0.0015, a maximum decline of over 83%. The current pullback is approximately 60%, while Bitcoin's maximum pullback during the same period was approximately 23%, and HYPE's was approximately 40%. With the "power of money" failing, the team attempted to create a new narrative through product innovation. On November 12th, the platform launched an experimental "Chaos Mode." This feature aims to automatically participate in the trading of new tokens by introducing AI agents. According to the documentation, these AI agents will mint an additional 1 billion tokens for selected tokens (doubling the total supply to 2 billion), then conduct "random trading" within 24 hours to increase early liquidity, and finally burn any unsold portions. However, this highly anticipated update encountered "chaos" as soon as it went live. Community feedback indicated that the new features were not user-friendly and instead contained numerous bugs, including "minting excessive token supply," "depleting creator funds," and "locking user funds." Pepe Boost, a KOL in the meme field, bluntly stated: "In actual observation, there is no more trading volume than ordinary tokens." He added, "I thought there would be a big one, but it turns out that it's just some experimental AI playing around on Pump." The market is dumping shares in the "Meme" sector, not Pump.fun. Why can't daily buybacks of millions of dollars support the price? Highly anticipated new features have become a laughing stock. The fundamental reason for the market's lack of response may not lie with Pump.fun alone, but rather with a broader narrative, structural flaws, and the power of cycles. First, it's an inevitable trend, and no one can escape it. Recently, the market correction has intensified, with almost all tokens experiencing declines. In this environment, buybacks can only "slow down the decline" rather than "reverse the trend." As mentioned earlier, Hyperliquid has a similarly robust revenue and buyback mechanism, but its token also experienced a significant 40% correction. This demonstrates that in a bear market, relying solely on protocol revenue for buybacks is insufficient to counteract macroeconomic selling pressure. Secondly, there has always been a skepticism in the market that Pump.fun's high revenue and high trading volume are due to a huge "bubble," meaning they are generated by high-frequency trading bots rather than by real users. Once this bubble bursts, the corresponding price will be difficult to sustain. PANews conducted a specific survey, randomly selecting several hundred recent transactions from 10 tokens that had not yet graduated for behavioral analysis. They found that bot trading volume currently accounts for approximately 54.7% of these tokens' trading volume, with each bot contributing an average of 22 transactions per token, compared to only 1.8 transactions from real users. In terms of transaction value contribution, each bot contributed $68 per transaction, with bots contributing approximately 45.6% of the total transaction value. However, this percentage is actually lower than previous surveys. Therefore, from this perspective, the "bot bubble" is a long-standing structural problem for Pump.fun, but it hasn't worsened recently and shouldn't be the main factor driving the token's decline. Third, after excluding macroeconomic and robotic factors, the core reason may not be that Pump.fun is failing, but rather that the meme market itself is failing. The fundamental reason for the market's lack of response is that investors have lost confidence in the "Meme Coin" sector as a whole. Pump.fun, as the infrastructure of this sector, reflects future expectations for the entire sector in terms of its token price. Currently, those expectations are pessimistic. This is evident in the performance of the Solana ecosystem, where overall activity is declining. Data shows that the number of active wallets on the Solana chain recently hit a 12-month low. As the main battleground for Meme coins, Solana's "fuel" is running out. It's not just Pump.fun; the data from other meme launch platforms is even more dismal. LetsBonk.fun, which once threatened Pump.fun's position in July, saw its activity rapidly collapse after August, and currently only around 200 new tokens are issued daily. In this industry-wide downturn, Pump.fun is actually the most resilient one. Therefore, we can seemingly conclude that the decline in PUMP tokens is not due to the market selling off Pump.fun, but rather the Meme sector. Pump.fun is simply the most luxurious first-class cabin on the sinking Titanic.

A $170 million buyback and AI features are insufficient to mask Pump.fun's downward trend, hampered by the meme cycle.

2025/11/16 09:57

Author: Frank, PANews

Pump.fun, serving as the "meme minting factory" within the Solana ecosystem, has accumulated astonishing revenue and wealth. However, the price of its platform token, PUMP, has struggled under persistent selling pressure. To reverse this trend, Pump.fun is attempting a two-pronged approach: aggressive token buybacks and the experimental introduction of a new AI agent feature called "Mayhem Mode."

Faced with a complex market environment and internal challenges, can this Meme carrier really make a comeback?

The data showed a significant decline, but remained relatively strong compared to the industry average.

To understand the dilemma of Pump.fun, one must look at its complex data.

As of November 14, Pump.fun's average daily revenue remained above $1 million, ranking among the top five of all protocols. However, this figure represents a significant decline compared to the $4 million daily revenue it generated at the beginning of the year.

Meanwhile, the number of new tokens issued daily on Pump.fun has decreased from a peak of 70,000 to less than 20,000. The number of daily active wallets has also declined, although it has remained above 100,000 for the past three months, so the decline is not severe. The token graduation rate is currently significantly lower; since February of this year, the graduation rate of tokens on Pump.fun has consistently been below 1%, even dropping to 0.58% in September. This indirectly reflects the decreasing success rate of meme market speculation.

However, a large part of this decline is due to the overall industry downturn; compared to its peers, Pump.fun's market share has actually increased. For example, on November 12th, Pump.fun issued 14,800 tokens on Solana's meme launch platform, accounting for approximately 93.4%. Previously, during the meme launch platform wars, its share had dropped as low as 16.8%.

Looking at the overall data performance, Pump.fun's data performance has indeed declined significantly compared to its peak period, but it appears to be more resilient compared to its peers.

"Buybacks" and "Pullbacks": Ineffective Token Business Strategies

Faced with slowing platform growth and a continued decline in the price of the PUMP token, the Pump.fun team is attempting to revitalize the market through "cash power" buybacks and the launch of "Mayhem Mode".

Since launching its token PUMP in July, Pump.fun has used approximately 98% of its platform revenue to buy back over $173.7 million worth of PUMP tokens, representing 11.19% of the total circulating supply.

This repurchase effort ranks second among all repurchase agreements, with daily repurchase volume second only to Hyperliquid.

However, PUMP's price performance and the extent of the buybacks seem disproportionate. The token has fallen from its September high, dropping as low as $0.0015, a maximum decline of over 83%. The current pullback is approximately 60%, while Bitcoin's maximum pullback during the same period was approximately 23%, and HYPE's was approximately 40%.

With the "power of money" failing, the team attempted to create a new narrative through product innovation. On November 12th, the platform launched an experimental "Chaos Mode." This feature aims to automatically participate in the trading of new tokens by introducing AI agents. According to the documentation, these AI agents will mint an additional 1 billion tokens for selected tokens (doubling the total supply to 2 billion), then conduct "random trading" within 24 hours to increase early liquidity, and finally burn any unsold portions.

However, this highly anticipated update encountered "chaos" as soon as it went live. Community feedback indicated that the new features were not user-friendly and instead contained numerous bugs, including "minting excessive token supply," "depleting creator funds," and "locking user funds."

Pepe Boost, a KOL in the meme field, bluntly stated: "In actual observation, there is no more trading volume than ordinary tokens." He added, "I thought there would be a big one, but it turns out that it's just some experimental AI playing around on Pump."

The market is dumping shares in the "Meme" sector, not Pump.fun.

Why can't daily buybacks of millions of dollars support the price? Highly anticipated new features have become a laughing stock. The fundamental reason for the market's lack of response may not lie with Pump.fun alone, but rather with a broader narrative, structural flaws, and the power of cycles.

First, it's an inevitable trend, and no one can escape it.

Recently, the market correction has intensified, with almost all tokens experiencing declines. In this environment, buybacks can only "slow down the decline" rather than "reverse the trend." As mentioned earlier, Hyperliquid has a similarly robust revenue and buyback mechanism, but its token also experienced a significant 40% correction. This demonstrates that in a bear market, relying solely on protocol revenue for buybacks is insufficient to counteract macroeconomic selling pressure.

Secondly, there has always been a skepticism in the market that Pump.fun's high revenue and high trading volume are due to a huge "bubble," meaning they are generated by high-frequency trading bots rather than by real users.

Once this bubble bursts, the corresponding price will be difficult to sustain. PANews conducted a specific survey, randomly selecting several hundred recent transactions from 10 tokens that had not yet graduated for behavioral analysis. They found that bot trading volume currently accounts for approximately 54.7% of these tokens' trading volume, with each bot contributing an average of 22 transactions per token, compared to only 1.8 transactions from real users. In terms of transaction value contribution, each bot contributed $68 per transaction, with bots contributing approximately 45.6% of the total transaction value. However, this percentage is actually lower than previous surveys. Therefore, from this perspective, the "bot bubble" is a long-standing structural problem for Pump.fun, but it hasn't worsened recently and shouldn't be the main factor driving the token's decline.

Third, after excluding macroeconomic and robotic factors, the core reason may not be that Pump.fun is failing, but rather that the meme market itself is failing.

The fundamental reason for the market's lack of response is that investors have lost confidence in the "Meme Coin" sector as a whole. Pump.fun, as the infrastructure of this sector, reflects future expectations for the entire sector in terms of its token price. Currently, those expectations are pessimistic.

This is evident in the performance of the Solana ecosystem, where overall activity is declining. Data shows that the number of active wallets on the Solana chain recently hit a 12-month low. As the main battleground for Meme coins, Solana's "fuel" is running out.

It's not just Pump.fun; the data from other meme launch platforms is even more dismal. LetsBonk.fun, which once threatened Pump.fun's position in July, saw its activity rapidly collapse after August, and currently only around 200 new tokens are issued daily. In this industry-wide downturn, Pump.fun is actually the most resilient one.

Therefore, we can seemingly conclude that the decline in PUMP tokens is not due to the market selling off Pump.fun, but rather the Meme sector.

Pump.fun is simply the most luxurious first-class cabin on the sinking Titanic.

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

Zcash (ZEC) Rips While Bitcoin Dips — Can This Privacy Coin Run 49% Higher

Zcash (ZEC) Rips While Bitcoin Dips — Can This Privacy Coin Run 49% Higher

Zcash has seen a strong surge in recent weeks as demand for privacy coins grows across the market. ZEC’s rise stands out due to its limited correlation with Bitcoin, allowing it to perform independently during periods of volatility.  This unique behavior has fueled renewed interest and helped strengthen ZEC’s upward momentum. Zcash Is Independent Zcash’s correlation with Bitcoin currently sits at -0.78, signaling a strong negative relationship. This means ZEC is moving in the opposite direction of BTC, which is highly beneficial at a time when Bitcoin is trading near $90,000 after several days of decline. ZEC’s ability to decouple from BTC enables it to avoid broader market pullbacks. This negative correlation has remained intact since early November, reinforcing ZEC’s resilience. As long as the correlation stays below zero, Zcash will be less vulnerable to Bitcoin-driven sell-offs.  Want more token insights like this? Sign up for Editor Harsh Notariya’s Daily Crypto Newsletter here. ZEC Correlation With Bitcoin. Source: TradingView Macro indicators also suggest favorable conditions. Zcash’s liquidation map reveals that short sellers should approach the market with caution. If ZEC climbs to $788, roughly $51 million worth of short positions could be liquidated. This creates an additional incentive for traders to avoid bearish strategies. Large liquidation clusters often discourage short positions and can fuel further upside as forced liquidations amplify price movement. For ZEC, reaching these levels would disrupt bearish sentiment and provide additional support for continued appreciation. Zcash Liquidation Map. Source: Coinglass ZEC Price Has A Lot Of Room To Grow Zcash trades at $671, sitting just below the $700 resistance level. The altcoin has gained 65.5% since the start of the month. This reflects strong market participation and growing interest from both retail and institutional traders. If momentum continues, ZEC could rise toward $1,000, which sits 49% above current levels. Achieving this target within 10 days is possible if investor support remains consistent. To reach $1,000, ZEC must first break through and convert the $700, $800, and $900 levels into support. ZEC Price Analysis. Source: TradingView However, if selling pressure increases, ZEC could lose momentum and fall to $600. A deeper correction may push the price toward $520, invalidating the current bullish thesis, leaving the altcoin vulnerable to a crash.
Share
Coinstats2025/11/21 08:00
The $40 Million ‘Free Money’ Glitch in Crypto Prediction Markets

The $40 Million ‘Free Money’ Glitch in Crypto Prediction Markets

The post The $40 Million ‘Free Money’ Glitch in Crypto Prediction Markets appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. In brief Researchers found $40 million in “risk-free” profits from mispriced markets on Polymarket in one year. Prices on some markets didn’t add up to 100%, letting traders lock in guaranteed gains. The same inefficiencies likely exist on other platforms like Myriad and Kalshi, though arbitrageurs help correct them. A new academic paper suggests there’s been a steady stream of “free money” lying around on Polymarket—and smart traders have been scooping it up. The paper, Unravelling the Probabilistic Forest: Arbitrage in Prediction Markets, is the most detailed look yet at how mispricing creeps into crypto’s most popular prediction platform. The researchers combed through a year of data, from April 2024 to April 2025, and found thousands of instances where market prices simply didn’t add up. In some cases, the prices of “Yes” and “No” shares in a single market didn’t sum to one dollar as they theoretically should, creating a risk-free profit for anyone quick enough to pounce.  In other cases, the mispricing was more subtle, involving logically related markets. For example, a market on “Trump wins the presidency” might trade at very different odds than “Republican wins the presidency,” even though those outcomes are tightly linked. By buying and selling combinations of these contracts, a savvy trader could lock in a profit no matter what happens. The researchers estimate more than $40 million in profits have already been pulled from the system by arbitrageurs, traders who specialize in sniffing out and exploiting these kinds of inconsistencies. Far from being a theoretical curiosity, this is a live and lucrative business model. Is this pattern true across all prediction markets? What’s striking is how common these opportunities are. The study found more than 7,000 markets with measurable mispricing, many in highly liquid, closely watched contracts. “Prediction markets are often treated…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 14:34
ETH's "Zhou Tianzi" Dilemma and SOL's "Entrepreneurship Blog" Rise

ETH's "Zhou Tianzi" Dilemma and SOL's "Entrepreneurship Blog" Rise

First, it should be clarified that both I and my organization hold both ETH and SOL, so holding SOL doesn't give me the right to criticize ETH. ETH's problems are long-standing and won't be ignored by the market simply because of previous hype. Ethereum resembles a feudal, international NGO—bureaucratic, decentralized, and focused on procedural justice. Vitalik Buterin is like the Zhou emperor, prematurely losing centralized power, turning L2 into feudal lords, with very limited proportions of their finances being remitted to the central government. It's even somewhat similar to the Commonwealth of Independent States after the collapse of the Soviet Union, or the Commonwealth of Nations after the fall of the British Empire, though even that connection is barely tenuous. Furthermore, will ETH become like IBM? Microsoft, Amazon, and Nvidia are all worth trillions, while IBM is still sitting there: it's a very branded company, exporting technology and empowering others everywhere, but ultimately its business isn't about taking the entire market (the tax model is the strongest business, like Amazon taxing merchant transactions, and Google taxing global merchants' advertising spending), but rather becoming an organization that licenses tech licenses (and ETH licenses are free, so everyone can use EVM). Another recurring issue is the developer culture where those who are close to the foundation and can flaunt their relationship with it are considered to have "legitimacy" and can enjoy more favor from investors and the community. This centripetal, sycophantic culture runs counter to Ethereum's original mission. Furthermore, I overheard some private conversations among major Wall Street institutions that Wall Street players are coming to ETH for two reasons. Firstly, it's the oldest, most reliable, and reputable public blockchain. Secondly, many of them want to launch permission chains, and ETH's technology in this area has been proven over many years. This approach is essentially using ETH like IBM; it seems that the thinking of Wall Street institutions is remarkably similar to that of Chinese financial institutions. In contrast, Solana exhibits a typical startup team culture—focused, efficient, and with strong execution. Its business model is a unified, integrated system, with a single coin supporting the entire system. Its developer culture resembles Burning Man: young, passionate, and highly experimental, closer to campus hacker culture. From a team and culture perspective, I still feel Solana is more like a multinational tech startup team. Regardless, in the end, everyone is working together to put global assets on the blockchain. Competition is a good thing for all of us.
Share
PANews2025/11/21 09:00