Guest: Haseeb Qureshi, Managing Partner of Dragonfly
Joe McCann, Founder and CEO, Chief Investment Officer, Asymmetric
Moderator: Laura Shin
Podcast source: https://x.com/laurashin/status/1945260654434083086
Compiled and edited by: ChainCatcher
ChainCatcher Editor's Summary
As a managing partner of Dragonfly Capital, Haseeb Qureshi is a leader in crypto infrastructure investment, and his modular blockchain theory has profoundly influenced industry evaluation standards. Asymmetric, founded by Joe McCann , has made profits against the trend in the bear market with its quantitative model, and its MemeCoin liquidity stratification research is changing the market valuation logic.
This podcast brings together industry experts to dive into the hot topics surrounding the innovative platform Pump.fun. You'll hear unique insights into Pump.fun's rapid rise, its fierce competition with competitor Bonk, and its grand future strategy. In this podcast, Haseeb highlights that the stablecoin liquidity index has reached a bull market precursor level, while Joe reveals the historic turning point that retail spot purchases have surpassed institutional purchases for the first time.
ChainCatcher collated and compiled the content (abridged).
Summary of key ideas
- Pump.fun ’s ICO unexpectedly sold out in 12 minutes, demonstrating its strong market appeal despite mixed sentiment.
- Let's Bonk quickly emerged as a competitor, surpassing Pump.fun in weekly revenue and token issuance , and was particularly supported by the community, while Pump.fun was regarded by some as a "predatory" platform.
- Coinbase and Kraken ’s different positions on participating in the Pump.fun ICO reflect their respective regulatory considerations and market positioning differences.
- Meme coin is not a flash in the pan, but as an iteration of "software", it is entering a new stage of development.
- Pump.fun’s acquisition of Kolscan aims to vertically integrate the business and optimize revenue streams by controlling the user experience.
- Pump.fun has ambitions to challenge Twitch and TikTok , and plans to build a comprehensive platform integrating streaming, trading, analysis and portfolio management, targeting young groups and streaming audiences.
- Despite the negative perception of Memecoin in some parts of the market, its 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 you all know, Pump.fun officially announced its ICO last week . They said they wanted to beat Facebook , TikTok , and Twitch on Solana . But at the same time, the market reaction was very mixed. Some people said it was " predatory , " while others questioned the overvaluation. Joe and Haseeb , what do you think of the financing data, valuation, pricing, and token distribution of this ICO ?
Joe McCann : I've said this before on other shows, the crypto industry has redefined the word " income " to " plunder " . Pump.fun is a clearly profitable company, they've developed a killer app, and they've created real income. Of course, some people might use it for something inappropriate, which is what triggers the term " plunder " . But when the meme coin price skyrocketed, no one said plunder, only when it went to zero. So I think Pump.fun is a model of building a successful company. Although people are dissatisfied online because there are no airdrops or distribution ratios, you can never satisfy everyone on the Internet.
Haseeb Qureshi : I also noticed a few interesting points. First, as Joe said, the online reaction to this financing was very negative, saying it was predatory. Second, despite the criticism on social media, the actual financing was oversubscribed, indicating strong demand. Third, it may mark the return of ICOs , especially in the context of Trump's administration and the SEC's deregulation, this method of on-chain capital formation may become popular again. Of course, this ICO did KYC , and it was not the old-fashioned ICO of the 2017 era " pay money to your wallet " , but it did feel more like CoinList on steroids .
Laura Shin : Well said. I remember that some ICOs also did KYC in 2017 , such as Civic .
Haseeb Qureshi : Yes.
Laura Shin : I want to ask about the fact that they have $750 million in revenue. I can think of a few reasons why they would need more money, but I'm just curious, as a venture capitalist, I believe there must be an opportunity for Dragonfly to invest. I've heard Rob Haddick say that they don't usually invest in companies at that stage, but from a venture capitalist's perspective, do you think that makes sense? Do you think the valuation is reasonable? What do you think of these numbers?
Haseeb Qureshi : The token is currently trading at about $0.052. I think there will be a lot of volatility as people get their tokens and exchanges list it. So obviously the pricing is fair. In fact, I think they did a very good job with the pricing, like a great IPO premium. You make 25% without leaving a lot of margin and making everyone feel good about it. Basically, if you participated in the ICO , you probably made 25% now . I think the pricing is smart, you want to see everyone make money, have a certain safety cushion, and still have room for upside.
In my opinion, it is unlikely that the Pump token price will drop significantly below the offering price, so their pricing method is very friendly to retail investors. However, the market environment has changed a lot since they first announced the price. Now the token market is rising and Bitcoin has reached a new high, while the market was still sluggish when they first priced. If you look at the pre-sale market on Aevo and the performance of Hyperliquid after its listing yesterday, the price is basically around $ 5 to $ 6 . The entire market is quite consistent in that everyone thinks that the market value of this project should be traded between $ 5 billion and $ 6 billion.
Joe McCann : There are two points worth elaborating on his point. First, the most special thing about this ICO is that most of the funds raised were completed on the chain. 75% of the tokens were allocated to wallets that invested at least $ 1 million. These are usually not retail investors, but " smart money " in a sense , and they are smart money that is very familiar with the on-chain infrastructure. This is completely different from the fundraising method of traditional finance.
Second, this fundraising adopts the model of on-chain Solana capital formation + Hyperliquid price discovery. This concept is very interesting. For example, I am an investor in Circle . Look at its IPO process: at that time, many people criticized them for pricing too low, or repeatedly adjusting the listing price, and they had to match orders when they officially traded. For us crypto natives, this method seems particularly outdated. On the other hand , Hyperliquid 's price discovery mechanism is very efficient. Although the token has not been officially issued, the trading volume has reached about 500 million US dollars, which is incredible. And the final opening price is highly consistent with the pre-sale price. In my opinion, this combination of on-chain fundraising + off-chain price discovery does not exist in traditional finance at all, which is the most attractive part.
2. Multi-exchange collaboration and on-chain price discovery mechanism
Laura Shin : We just talked about the issue of reasonable price, but I want to ask more about the design of this ICO. We see that this is not a traditional " send funds to a contract address " issuance model, but is carried out through multiple centralized exchanges. This is a very rare structure in the crypto field. Haseeb , can you talk about this in detail? What is new about this mechanism and what are the problems?
Haseeb Qureshi : There are indeed many design points worth mentioning in this ICO. The main difference is that it is not conducted through a unified issuance platform, but rather uses six centralized exchanges such as Bybit , Gate.io , and Kraken . Each exchange obtains a portion of the token inventory to sell to its own users. These exchanges are connected through an API built by the Pump team . When the exchange receives a user order, it needs to request quota confirmation from the API in real time, and then the API returns whether it can continue to sell. This is essentially a system of collaborative inventory.
The problem is that the Pump team completely underestimated the popularity of this offering. The API was overwhelmed almost immediately after the opening, responding extremely slowly or even completely failing. Some exchanges, such as Kraken , mistakenly believed that they did not get any quota, so they over-accepted user orders and had to compensate users through airdrops afterwards. A similar situation happened to Bybit , which chose to give users $ 20 trading points as compensation.
Joe McCann : I heard that some users tried to successfully purchase on Bybit and short-sell on Hyperliquid at the same time . As a result, the purchase failed, leaving them with only a naked short position and losing a lot of money. This structure itself has many technical and gaming risks.
Haseeb Qureshi : Indeed, this design is prepared for the " worst case scenario " . At the beginning of the design, the Pump team was worried that the project would not be sold, and originally planned to sell out slowly within three days. They even asked many venture capitalists how to design the fundraising structure. Everyone was also worried that the project would fail to sell, so the whole system was to ensure that an exchange would take over the project. The result was completely beyond their expectations. The demand far exceeded expectations, and the on-chain bidding volume suddenly poured in, and the API could not bear it at all. This directly led to oversubscription of exchanges, out-of-control allocation, and system chaos. However, in the long run, this distribution structure may be imitated by other projects, because these exchanges have already built the corresponding infrastructure and may continue to use it in the future.
Laura Shin : It sounds like a new type of token issuance logic. I would like to ask, is this mechanism more reliable than decentralized issuance? From the perspective of participant experience, what insights does this incident bring?
Joe McCann : This reminds me of the role of Hyperliquid. Although the token has not been officially issued, their pre-launch price discovery was very successful, with a trading volume of up to $ 500 million. In contrast, companies like Circle have to constantly adjust the issuance price and struggle to match orders in their IPOs , which seems very outdated. Hyperliquid 's performance shows 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 major breakthrough in the crypto financing market.
Haseeb Qureshi : Another point worth emphasizing is that the capital formation method of this ICO is also very different. 75% of the funds were subscribed directly from on-chain wallets, many of which invested more than $ 1 million. These are obviously not ordinary retail investors, but " smart money " who are very familiar with on-chain infrastructure and act quickly . So this is not the kind of retail subscription model in traditional finance, but more like a collective action of Web3 native capital.
3. Investor composition, token distribution and community game
Laura Shin : The token distribution of this ICO has also caused a lot of controversy. In the official distribution, 20% went to the team, 13% to early investors, 33% to ICO participants, and the remaining 24% was used for the community ecosystem. But many community members are dissatisfied with the low airdrop ratio, especially the creators only airdropped 10 million tokens. Some comments pointed out that compared with 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 people who are dissatisfied. Founders need to face pressure from the team, investors, community, creators, etc., and it is impossible to satisfy everyone. This is not an exact science, but more of a dynamic game. But it is true that token distribution is the key to the success of a project. Bonk is a good example. They prioritized wide distribution and now have more than 1 million wallets holding coins. They have also launched many practical products, and their user stickiness is very strong.
I have always advised founders to optimize the distribution mechanism so that as many people as possible can get the tokens, and then promote the construction of practicality. Has Pump.fun done this? It is not clear at the moment, but the token is still above the ICO price, which shows that the market still recognizes it.
Haseeb Qureshi : I would like to add that the biggest difference between Pump and other projects is that it did not promise or hint at any airdrops at the beginning. Users participate because they like the product and the community, not for the airdrops. In other words, there is no " invisible social contract " for Pump . Surprise airdrops like Uniswap are indeed beautiful, but Pump does not have such expectation management. From this perspective, any airdrops they do now are additional benefits. Of course, the community will still complain, because complaining is incentivized in the crypto field. The cost is almost zero and the benefits can be huge. As long as you complain loudly enough, you may get more airdrops. This has become a kind of game.
Laura Shin : Indeed, many people are putting pressure on investors by complaining. I also noticed that there is no lock-up period for ICO investors this time. Haseeb , does this mean that some institutions may sell immediately?
Haseeb Qureshi : Yes. Strictly speaking, the institutions participating in this ICO cannot be completely called " venture capitalists " . The team's initial plan was to focus on retail investors and institutions as a supplement . This design is to prepare for the " worst case scenario " . If retail investors do not have enough demand, institutions can make up for it.
But the reality is that retail demand far exceeds expectations, and institutions have become the buyers. Many of them cannot participate directly on the chain or on exchanges, and can only buy from the team OTC, and the terms are the same as retail investors. So you can say they are " participating on the same terms " , but because there is no lock-up, there is no obligation to hold. 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 the risk and chooses to exit after making a 25% return, 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 price rises. This is not a problem unique to crypto, but the investment logic itself.
Laura Shin : Let's talk about who actually bought these tokens. According to statistics, about 8,200 people invested less than $ 1,000 , 200 people invested more than $ 1 million, and the total number of participants was about 13,000 . Some people even suspected that there was a " Witch attack " -style on-chain operation. At the same time, 24,000 people completed KYC . What does this mean? Can we use this to judge the investor portrait of this ICO ?
Haseeb Qureshi : These data indicate several issues. First, on-chain funds are absolutely dominant, and the tokens were almost sold out in just 12 minutes. Many people thought they had three days to participate, and they might have planned to come after breakfast, but they missed it. In addition, due to the strict KYC of this issuance , users from the United States and the United Kingdom were completely excluded, and participants were basically from Asia or other regions. This also explains why retail investors are active, while centralized exchanges frequently have mismatches.
Laura Shin : The launch took place on Saturday, which is quite suitable for the US time. But because of KYC , it is not a problem that VPN can solve.
Joe McCann : Exactly. For me, this all reminds me of the “ aha moment ” of the first ICO boom : we can actually complete global capital formation in minutes. This model is redefining how companies raise funds. I don’t agree with the saying that “ centralized exchanges are dead ” . CEX still has a strong distribution network, and companies like Coinbase and Robinhood have tens of millions of KYC users. These networks will not disappear immediately, but we do see an increase in on-chain participation, especially projects like Pump that naturally have a 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 participate 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 not surprising. They are a public company with deep roots in the US market and are subject to greater regulatory restrictions. In contrast, although Kraken is also regulated, its main market is in Europe and it is still a private company, so it has greater flexibility. This may not only be a regulatory factor, but also a brand consideration. If Coinbase supports Pump ICO and tells US users that they cannot participate, it may make them more confused or disappointed. So they may think, " Just don't participate and avoid trouble . "
Joe McCann : Kraken 's decision really shows leadership. They are willing to take the initiative to take risks, strive for users to participate, and choose to airdrop compensation when there is a problem with the order. This gesture is impressive. In comparison, Bybit 's $ 20 credits seem a bit perfunctory. And I noticed that some users who originally tried to buy on Bybit hedged by shorting on Hyperliquid in order to maintain market neutrality . But because they did not succeed in the end, they were left with only naked short positions, resulting in direct losses.
Haseeb Qureshi : This incident reflects the differences in infrastructure capabilities between exchanges. Established institutions like Kraken are more mature in dealing with emergencies, and they realize that compensating customers is more important than saving money. Bybit is more like an emerging platform that focuses on cost control.
But in the end, this is not a big business for exchanges. Even for platforms like Kraken, each company only sells a few tens of millions of dollars in token shares at most. This money itself does not constitute a major source of income. They are willing to participate largely for user stickiness and brand recognition.
Laura Shin : So you think that exchanges will not use this issuance model as their main business line in the future?
Haseeb Qureshi ： Yes, it will not be the main source of income. It is more like a marketing event, just like FTX in the past, they listed a lot of " shit coin " just to attract traffic. Token projects like Pump attract attention and bring users in, but the real money-making ones are still mainstream coins such as BTC , ETH , and XRP .
Joe McCann : I agree. Moreover, Kraken ’s customer base is more inclined towards high-net-worth users . These whale users actually value whether they can participate in such a high-exposure new project more than retail investors. Even if they are not many in number, they can bring huge business volume, so Kraken is more willing to provide services to this group of people. Coinbase ’s customers are mainly retail investors, which makes them more sensitive to compliance risks.
Haseeb Qureshi : And remember, Kraken is not public yet, which allows them to take on more risk. Coinbase , on the other hand , has to answer to shareholders and can’t easily get involved in meme coins or controversial projects. They know that Wall Street analysts don’t want to hear about the company’s involvement in projects like Pump — it only creates a negative perception. For Coinbase , the risk of this association may be far greater than the short-term revenue it brings.
Laura Shin : But isn’t Kraken also preparing for an IPO ?
Haseeb Qureshi : Yes, but they are not listed yet, which makes a big difference in the operating space.
Joe McCann : There is another detail worth noting: Coinbase actually launched Pump 's perpetual contract through its own international platform. It's just that this product is not accessible to US users. In other words, Coinbase is not completely uninvolved, just not participating in the ICO itself, nor promoting it on the main platform. But they obviously know that this token has attention and try to participate in price discovery through other means.
Laura Shin : It is indeed very subtle. Coinbase promotes the vision of " on-chain future " through Base , while deliberately avoiding the most watched on-chain events. Is this duality part of their strategy?
Haseeb Qureshi : I think so. Coinbase has a position on Wall Street: they are the " face of the crypto industry " . They have to maintain credibility in the traditional financial world, telling stories about Bitcoin as a macro asset, tokenization of real assets, ETF regulatory compliance, etc. But 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 the image of traditional finance on the surface, and trying to participate in the heat of the chain behind the scenes.
Joe McCann : I actually appreciate this strategy. We need people like Coinbase who go to Washington DC in suits to lobby, but we also need teams that experiment on the chain and promote technological innovation. Both forces are necessary for the industry to move forward.
Laura Shin : Indeed, I have also noticed that the a16z team is also actively promoting policies in Washington. But " trench-type " projects like Pump obviously represent another path. Do you think these two routes can coexist?
Haseeb Qureshi : I think it is absolutely possible. Coinbase and Base themselves embody this dual-track structure: on one side is a serious and compliant listed company, and on the other side is a chaotic on-chain experimental field. If they can capture both worlds, it will be the best situation for the entire industry.
5. Market reaction and competition: The rise of Bonk and community diversion
Laura Shin : We'll see what happens on Base, but I personally think Pump 's ICO could spark a new wave of ICOs on Solana . Joe , you've retweeted similar ideas before. Now I want to bring the topic back to trading performance: What do you think of Pump 's market value or price trend in the next few months?
Haseeb Qureshi : First of all , this is not investment advice. I am not an investor and do not hold Pump . It is still in the early stages of price discovery because not all tokens have been issued and exchange listings are not comprehensive. The token is currently traded on a few platforms: I saw it trading on Bybit , KuCoin , and Pump 's own Pump Swap today; Pump Swap has the largest volume because most people who allocated on the chain trade there. Usually mainstream price discovery will happen on Binance , but it is not yet listed. Once Binance or other large exchanges are listed, retail participation will increase.
There is another side: some institutional investors who bought in the ICO phase have not received the tokens yet, and many of them cannot use DEX . If they want to take profits (for example, lock in ~25% of the initial gains), they need to wait for the tradable channels to open up. So as more listings and tokens are unlocked, the price fluctuations in the short term (next one to two weeks) may be very large until the position reconfiguration is completed.
Joe McCann : I don’t like to give specific price targets , that’s a Wall Street sales pitch. But I want to emphasize two points.
First, many people will try to use traditional fundamental models to infer the value of tokens, which often does not work in crypto. You will see some protocols that are cheap in fundamentals, but the price does not move .
Second, the core is attention. The token itself is a product. Whether there are people participating, discussing, trading, and speculating often drives prices better 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 transactions . If they can really attract anchors, creators, and traders to interact, attention will continue, and the token may also benefit.
By the way, if Pump ’s fully diluted valuation ( FTV ) reaches the $ 5 billion or $ 10 billion range, we will have to re-examine its relative valuation compared to its competitors, such as Bonk , which has actually done a lot in terms of products, token distribution, and on-chain activities and may be underestimated.
Laura Shin : Speaking of Bonk , we've seen a phenomenon: the Bonk team's launch platform "Let's Bonk" , also known as Bonk Fund , has surpassed Pump.fun in 24-hour revenue for a few days . As of earlier today, it is still leading. According to community data: Bonk Fund has graduated more than 1,200 tokens , and Pump.fun has slightly more than 600 ; the total number of Bonk Fund launch tokens is about 130,000 , and Pump.fun is about 77,000 . Joe , why do you think this transfer occurred?
Joe McCann : I think the reason is emotion plus community positioning. Everyone likes Pump 's products, but there are a lot of negative narratives around Pump recently : predatory, fraudulent, runaway projects, etc. , even though these are often external behaviors of the platform. Bonk has a good reputation in the Solana community and is seen as friendly, actively developed, and truly returns protocol revenue to the ecosystem , buying back and destroying Bonk , etc. So when Pump caused controversy, users took the opportunity to try to issue or trade on the Bonk platform, which brought visible market share flow.
This is not necessarily a permanent migration , and it may be reversed next week. But we may be witnessing a competition between " community trust vs. profitable platform " . Pump has a lot of cash flow; Bonk has deep community recognition. This will be a healthy competition, but in the end it may be a winner-takes-all situation.
Laura Shin : I went to Let's Bonk and I felt that the visual style of the meme coins there was not as refined and European as Pump. Subjectively, it felt more Asian, and the quality was mixed, but it seemed more " neat " on Pump . Will this cultural difference affect users?
Joe McCann : Bonk has been deeply involved in Southeast Asia for many years, which may bring visual or cultural differences. But to be honest, most meme traders don’t care about image quality; they want the next 100x coin. Not to mention that many funds participate through robot strategies and don’t even look at the front-end interface.
Haseeb Qureshi : From a venture capital perspective, this is not surprising: when a dominant platform (such as Pump ) becomes less popular and new creators find it difficult to break through, it will make room for competing networks. Let's Bonk provides a new entry and a different style of market atmosphere, which naturally absorbs some of the momentum. In addition, it also receives cross-subsidies from ecosystems such as Raydium . Although scale is not necessarily decisive, it does provide a boost.
I would not be bearish on Pump because of this . Don't forget that it just completed a huge financing: not only does it have hundreds of millions of dollars in cash on its books, but it also has a large inventory of Solana assets and tokens. They can completely launch a market offensive like the T -shirt airdrop, using incentives, subsidies, buybacks, creator funds, etc. to regain market share. On the contrary, I expect them to adopt a very aggressive counterattack strategy.
6. Transition from Meme Coin to On-chain Entertainment Finance Platform
Laura Shin : I also saw an interesting development: Pump recently acquired Kolscan . This is a trading data analysis platform that can track addresses, hedging strategies, opening and closing positions on Hyperliquid in real time . Does this mean that Pump is building a closed-loop ecosystem? Do they want to be more than just a meme platform, but have a deeper plot?
Haseeb Qureshi : I think this is a very smart acquisition. Pump doesn't want to be just a meme platform. Their goal is more like 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 are influential, who is hot, and which currencies are exploding. This helps Pump better motivate creators and traders and bring the most explosive content to the forefront. It is not only a front-end product, but also a combination of " trading engine + ranking recommendation system + incentive distribution system " . You can think of it as a " financial version of TikTok + Twitch" , but a crypto-native narrative. This is a brand new paradigm for the industry.
Joe McCann : I agree very much. Many people still view Pump from the perspective of traditional social platforms , thinking that it is just a meme coin incubator. But in fact, Pump wants to be an " attention-driven financial platform " . It not only incubates currencies, but also controls transaction flow, user perspective, and community narrative. For example: Kolscan lets them know who the KOL behind a certain currency is, whether there are robots brushing orders, and who is driving the buying; if Pump can use this data to regulate the hot list, ranking, and profit distribution, it can " financialize " the traffic . This is much more complex and powerful than the recommendation algorithm of ordinary social platforms.
And we have seen that traditional content platforms cannot establish a solid mechanism between user attention and content monetization. But encryption gives Pump a native incentive method . Not only can you watch content and interact, but you can also place orders, buy, and share. This transaction-as-content model cannot be achieved by traditional Web2 platforms.
Laura Shin : Do you think this will be the next phase of meme coins’ development? Will they evolve from “ image memes + community hype ” to a hybrid of “ financial games + native content + investment behavior ” ?
Haseeb Qureshi : Indeed, I think the next stage of meme coins will see more financial structured forms. Pump is just the first step, which proves that it is possible to introduce tens of millions of dollars of transactions into a platform in a low-threshold and high-interest form. Next, we may see more Pump- like systems, but perhaps not meme coins , but on-chain entertainment, on-chain gambling, AI- generated content markets, etc. Their commonality is: using " attention + speculation " as resources to arrange incentive structures. This is not just speculation, nor is it just Web2 creation, but a mixture.
Joe McCann : One more thing to add: Pump also represents the return of a " founder culture " . In the past few years, Solana 's meme craze was more anonymous, but Pump is obviously different. It has a team with a strong style, dares to advertise, stand on the stage, play a paranoid and funny style, and can get $ 500 million in financing in one go, acquire tools, and design complex incentive models. This operation is more like a Web2 high-growth startup, rather than "DAO + community governance " .
I believe this route will attract more entrepreneurs to join meme projects, because you can use Web2 to quickly try and fail, and you can get huge leverage through the token model. This founder-driven meme project will become a new species.
Laura Shin : A very wonderful ending. Thank you for your analysis. Today we talked about a complete PUMP from financing structure, on-chain innovation, investor behavior, exchange game, to strategic future . Maybe this is the beginning of "meme2.0" .
