Even tokens that initially appear in a pure form may ultimately spiral out of control as people continuously test the limits.

Organized & Compiled by: Deep Tide TechFlow

Guest: Alon, Co-Founder of Pump.Fun

Host: David Hoffman

Podcast Source: Bankless

Original Title: The Next Chapter for Pump.Fun with Co-Founder Alon

Broadcast Date: March 25, 2025

Key Points Summary

Alon, the co-founder of Pump.Fun, joins us to discuss the rapid development of their token launch platform, the controversies and impacts of Memecoins in the crypto space, and the vision for their latest product, PumpSwap.

This episode provides Alon with a fair opportunity to explain his views on Memecoins, while also acknowledging Pump.Fun's central role in one of the most controversial capital operations in the industry. What began as harmless speculation has gradually evolved into a structured, systematic capital extraction, ultimately concentrating wealth in the hands of a few and leading to significant capital losses.

Memecoins may inherently have negative effects similar to the impact of tobacco on public health. I believe the Pump.Fun team may not agree with this perspective, as their interests are contrary to it. However, we are still in the early stages of the crypto space, as well as the early stages of Memecoins' development. The future remains uncertain. Memecoins might have a more positive future ahead. After all, Memecoins are simply a natural result of the capabilities brought by crypto technology—empowering people to create financial assets without permission. Therefore, whether we like them or not, whether they are a threat to the public good or a first step toward a fairer future, the outcome will be shaped by the leaders of the Memecoins industry.

Highlights

• The essence of Memecoins is a "tradeable unit of attention," with their value closely tied to the attention users give.

• I strongly disagree with statements like "Pump.Fun killed the market cycle."

• I believe Memecoins will continue to exist in some form because they do provide certain value to users, which will take time to prove.

• I hope the narrative around Memecoins can shift, so that people no longer view on-chain transactions of these tokens as worthless or nihilistic acts. I have never agreed with the so-called "financial nihilism," which is merely an excuse used on Crypto Twitter to rationalize the current market situation.

• Twitter is not an ideal platform, as its mechanisms often exacerbate emotions and conflicts among users. As a result, many people's perceptions of other ecosystems often deviate significantly from reality.

• The cryptocurrency space inherently possesses strong social attributes, which permeate the entire ecosystem.

• I do not want Pump.Fun to be a short-term product that exists for just a year or two.

• The success of Pump.Fun primarily stems from the advantages of our product. We always listen to user feedback, continuously iterate, and launch features that truly meet user needs.

• Every day, my sole goal upon waking is to think about how to make this product more sustainable and how to ensure users genuinely feel value when interacting with the protocol or application; this is what we always strive for.

• Directly engaging with users is a great way to gather their feedback on market perceptions, helping us build a deep understanding of the market conditions at the time.

• Many people invest too much time and energy into building infrastructure. But if no one uses that infrastructure, its existence is meaningless.

• I believe that anything with cultural significance, especially controversial content, is always exploring the boundaries of acceptance and non-acceptance. But we will ensure that a clear boundary is drawn to prevent anyone from crossing it.

Founding of Pump.Fun

David:

Perhaps you could briefly introduce your origins, your background, and your experiences before Pump.Fun, and then start talking about the conception and founding of Pump.Fun.

Alon:

About myself and my two co-founders, we have been in this space for a while. We all entered the field as retail traders, buying BTC, ETH, and Doge, among others.

Over time, our interest in the industry grew, and we participated in several different projects. Personally, I was deeply involved in a project called NFT perp, which was a futures exchange focused on NFTs.

At that time, we were very active in DeFi, and we saw the potential of this market. For example, with NFT perp, we recognized the product market fit for collectibles trading. However, after the events of Terra Luna and FTX, we realized the market was declining, and the prospects for NFTs might not be as long-lasting as we had imagined.

So, we wanted to try some new ideas. I resigned from that position and began experimenting with various ideas in this field alongside my two co-founders. In fact, we were primarily developing on Ethereum and its L2s, which many people might not know. We came from the Ethereum ecosystem, initially starting with NFTs, and later developed some things in SocialFi, almost starting from scratch and going through a tough process.

I would say we spent at least a year in a "glass-eating" state. One of my co-founders would even say it was probably longer, over two years, just iterating, releasing MVPs (Minimum Viable Products), and striving for what we thought people would need. To be honest, when we started, we were not good at this work; what we built was what we thought was cool or what we believed would be a trend in the market, but we did not really build for today's users. We did not truly engage deeply with users or create products that could solve their current problems.

As we continued to iterate and try more things, our skills gradually improved. But the problem was that we did not understand the problem areas we were building for. I think at that time we tried to build a fundraising market for creators, but we were not content creators. The reason we entered crypto was for on-chain trading, NFT trading, buying NFTs, and so on. Eventually, when we saw people starting to trade Memecoins on Solana, we found it interesting. To be honest, we were a bit hesitant to switch to Solana because we had never used it before, and we were developing very smoothly on Ethereum. I think our last project was before we switched to Solana, and at that time, developing on Solana was painful; we did not expect it. But at that time, we were very eager to attract users, and users were indeed on Solana. So we decided to go there.

From my perspective, or from the perspective of my co-founders, they would definitely say, if users were on Cardano, we would also go build products on Cardano, doing everything possible to acquire users. We saw users on Solana, so we started experimenting with products there, and there was a lot of excitement in the market; we felt we were at the beginning of a new trend. The trading process was very smooth and fast. We enjoyed using the Phantom wallet, on-chain trading, like trading on Jupiter, etc. But we noticed that there were some major issues with the market structure, the way people explored coins, the way they created coins, and ultimately what they traded. At that time, it was very popular for people to conduct presales for Memecoins. They would post wallet addresses on Twitter or elsewhere, and people would send funds there. We saw many people sending their SOL to these presales, and half the time, the coins did not successfully launch; it was completely a farce. There was no standardization, and no one knew what to expect. Even if everything went smoothly, the people creating these coins would use 50% of the funds raised for marketing, which is completely absurd. You do not need to spend millions of dollars to promote your Memecoins; it is all meaningless. At the same time, trading on AMMs or DEXs was very painful, withdrawing liquidity from liquidity pools, buying honey pots, purchasing coins that would drain your entire wallet; it was a very brutal experience.

In the Ethereum ecosystem, I think there are more aspects worth exploring behind this project, such as its ultimate performance and whether there are management issues. But I really appreciate the idea that you can create a small token community without needing to invest funds upfront. By using a bonding curve, you can launch liquidity based solely on an idea.

So, the model we ultimately proposed is that you do not need to invest funds upfront to create a coin. When enough people participate, or the market indicates success, a liquidity pool will be created and destroyed. All permissions and related content of the created coin will be reclaimed from the coin creator. Therefore, once created, it is truly permissionless and immutable. When we released this model to the market, we quickly noticed its effectiveness. Although it took us some time to get it to work properly, we were very optimistic about some prospects of the product.

Performance After the Launch of Pump.Fun

David:

This reminds me of the era before Pump. Perhaps the most typical example is this Slurf, where we had a Solana developer who publicly stated he would conduct a presale for his Memecoins, but at that time, there was no Pump.Fun. So, he just sent the money to this trusted person to manage it, and then launched the Memecoins, adding SOL to the liquidity pool; that was how Memecoins were launched. Then, in the Slurf incident, he accidentally burned the liquidity tokens because he did not know what he was doing. And there was that famous tweet that said, "Guys, I think I accidentally burned the liquidity tokens, I'm sorry."

I think this illustrates the chaotic state of the Memecoins market before Pump emerged. Pump provided a commoditized platform that allows users to launch Memecoins in a more regulated environment without the need for oversight. This way, users no longer need to trust a particular influencer or individual but can directly issue tokens through the pump.fun platform.

In January 2024, how long did it take you to attract users? Was it immediate? When did you realize, "Oh, we just created something amazing"? How long did this recognition take within the Pump ecosystem?

Alon:

I think from the moment we first conceived this idea, even before it was launched, we were very confident about the project. Unlike other products we had developed before, this time we truly integrated into the ecosystem. We understood the importance of lowering the entry barrier. Previously, a token needed thousands of dollars in liquidity to be considered valuable. You could certainly see some liquidity pools with only $50, but no one would buy them, right? Therefore, we were very confident about this idea from the start and quickly launched a Minimum Viable Product (MVP).

To be honest, the product at that time was very rough and clunky. We just wanted to quickly validate whether this idea was worth continuing to develop. After the product was launched, although the number of users was small, their response was very enthusiastic. This made us realize that the project had the potential to continue growing, and we received a lot of feedback that helped us identify areas for improvement on the platform. So, we began to iterate on the product rapidly.

At the same time, we faced the challenge that Pump.Fun is a marketplace connecting token creators and buyers. At that time, it was mainly focused on Memecoins but also supported other types of tokens. The cold start problem refers to how to attract early users, as most people were trading on other markets or exchanges. Getting them to switch to our platform was a huge challenge. We needed to attract both token creators and buyers. Buyers wanted to see a certain level of trading volume and activity; otherwise, the platform would not be attractive to them.

In fact, we never paid any influencers, nor did we have enough funds to do so. Our initial funding was only about $100,000, which was not enough to cover promotional costs. So we took a different approach—directly engaging with users. I personally messaged over 3,000 people to introduce our idea. This was not simple copy-paste spam; it was real communication with users, greeting them and understanding their thoughts. We did not complicate the process. We talked to them directly, asking what they were trading and why they were doing it, which was a great way to gather their feedback on market perceptions and helped us build a deep understanding of the market conditions at the time.

Eventually, after establishing such a rapport, we could say, "Hey, I'm building this thing." Initially, I had only 200 followers, and people thought I was a bot, but after a while, people began to listen to our voice. Ultimately, after two months of iteration, we even launched a Pump.Fun on Ethereum L2, but it did not succeed. We tried many things in terms of the product, but what was ultimately needed was to optimize the product to make it good enough while showcasing it to enough people.

About a year ago, we truly realized the product-market fit. At that time, two micro-influencers launched their own tokens on our platform. It is worth mentioning that we did not pay them, nor did we know they would do this. They just found the product interesting and spontaneously used it. Since then, more and more people began to experience our platform.

That feeling was amazing; it was perhaps one of the most exciting moments I have experienced in the past few years. Waking up every day to see trading volumes hitting new highs, the feeling of effort being rewarded is unparalleled. Even later, when Pump.Fun achieved great success, the joy of initially finding product-market fit remains one of my most cherished memories.

Impact of Pump.Fun on Memecoins

David:

The trajectory of Pump.Fun remains impressive. By March 2025, the Memecoins sector had made quite an impact on the entire crypto industry. Overall, Memecoins have become a common phenomenon, similar to the Monkey craze of 2021. However, due to the launch of some large Memecoins, the reputation of cryptocurrencies in mainstream society may have dropped to its lowest point since the FTX collapse. This structured and systematic extraction of interests has severely damaged the industry's image, undermining the seriousness and trust in the crypto industry.

While Pump.Fun is not the creator of Memecoins, the emergence of Memecoins existed long before it. For example, Dogecoin was the first Memecoin. However, Pump.Fun has played a crucial role in expanding the Memecoins space, transforming it from a niche market in cryptocurrency to a mainstream use case in the crypto field today. Can you talk about Pump.Fun's role and impact during this phase of cryptocurrency history?

Alon:

As you mentioned, the market for Memecoins has existed for a long time. I believe the history of Memecoins can be traced back over a decade and has evolved in various forms during that time. Many ICOs can actually be seen as Memecoins, and many "food coins" in DeFi projects also share characteristics similar to Memecoins. Even NFTs can essentially be viewed as Memecoins, as they represent a trade of cultural value, and communities have been built around these ideas. This phenomenon exists not only on Ethereum but also on other blockchains like Binance Smart Chain and Solana.

I agree that Pump.Fun has played an important role in expanding the Memecoins ecosystem. It has lowered the barriers to entry and provided the necessary foundational security. However, I believe that Memecoins themselves are not the main reason cryptocurrencies have been able to exist for over 15 years. Many people feel the market lacks appeal because it does not provide enough real value, rather than simply because people enjoy trading these "meaningless" Memecoins. This reflects the market's demand for use cases that lack attractiveness.

I strongly disagree with statements like "Pump.Fun killed the market cycle." If a few years ago you created an L2 or L1 but failed to gain any users or product-market fit, and your token's market cap reached $5 billion or $2 billion, you go to conferences and promise to build the future of finance; obviously, when people suffer heavy losses, they will feel frustrated.

We should have anticipated that these things would happen. The crypto industry has developed for 15 years, and it is time to see some substantial results. The projects that ultimately succeed are very commendable. For example, Hyperliquid is a great case. They developed an excellent product that attracted a large number of users, and the token distribution was also very fair. People came together to promote the project, ultimately achieving great success, with token prices increasing 10x or even 15x after launch. This indicates a huge demand in the market for projects with real application value, whether those use cases are speculative or non-speculative. However, such projects are still few and far between.

I believe the root of the problem is that many people invest too much time and energy into building infrastructure. But if no one uses that infrastructure, its existence is meaningless. We need more application developers than infrastructure developers, possibly 10 times or more. I know this has been a point emphasized by many thought leaders for years, but Pump.Fun is a great example. It shows how to build a product that attracts users, allowing them to truly test your infrastructure in practice. Just like the significant improvements in Solana over the past year, this approach can drive the development of the entire ecosystem.

Making Memecoins More Sustainable

David:

I think there is a recurring pattern in the development of cryptocurrencies that can even be traced back to 2017. Why did the ICO (Initial Coin Offering) craze of 2017 occur? It was because Ethereum's ICOs were very successful, followed by Augur's ICO, both of which were legitimate and had real value. However, as the number of ICO projects surged, some absurd and worthless virtual currency ICOs emerged, even just some memes. This phenomenon is similar to the classic "euthanasia coaster" metaphor: a project with real value initiated a cycle, such as DeFi summer launching the Compound governance token, which then triggered a chain reaction that ultimately evolved into mining yields offering 10,000% APY. The NFT space also went through a similar process. I think Memecoins are the same: initially, some original and fair Memecoins were launched, but later it evolved into a highly speculative and interest-extracting model.

I believe the Memecoins craze is one of the most captivating phenomena in cryptocurrency history. If you could go back to the early stages of Pump.Fun, would you consider making any changes in design or construction to encourage more sustainable development? Or do you think this phenomenon was completely beyond your control?

Alon:

There are a few points to discuss. I do feel that the market is a powerful entity. Ultimately, if the essence of cryptocurrency is such, then when market sentiment becomes euphoric, there is very little you can do. These phenomena tend to repeat over time in similar patterns. But I do agree that there is still room for improvement in the mechanisms. For example, we just launched PumpSwap yesterday, precisely to optimize the existing mechanisms.

I believe a major improvement point is the alignment of incentives between token creators, holders, and traders. Although creator revenue sharing has not yet been implemented on PumpSwap, when it does, it will allow creators to earn from the trading volume on PumpSwap. This way, when their tokens succeed, they will have a strong incentive to maintain the token's value, rather than simply dumping the tokens for cash, but rather keeping their tokens relevant and active for as long as possible. I think this is a more sustainable model.

During the NFT craze, I was concerned about the issue of copyright fees. At that time, the copyright fees were very high, even to the point where users had to find ways to evade them. But this model then swung to another extreme, becoming a mechanism of excessive extraction. I believe we need to find a balance in the middle, which is also one of the reasons we created PumpSwap. We hope to address these issues through better mechanisms.

However, I want to emphasize again that the nature of cryptocurrency often means it is closely associated with speculative behavior. Even tokens that initially appear in a pure form can ultimately spiral out of control as people continuously push the limits. For example, Libra is a typical case. Libra was a cryptocurrency project launched by Facebook, and although it is not a true Memecoin, its failure revealed a problem: the absurdity of the fact that token issuance requires intermediaries. If you simply want to create some kind of token around a simple idea, there is no need to rely on these intermediaries.

This is one of the motivations that led us to create Pump.Fun. If Memecoins can open a new chapter, and the mechanisms can improve to achieve more sustainable development, we fully support this transition. Because I do not want Pump.Fun to be a short-term product that exists for only a year or two, ultimately failing or disappearing. Although we have achieved some success, if Pump.Fun cannot continue to exist in the next market cycle or in the coming years, that would mean failure. Every day, my only goal upon waking is to think about how to make this product more sustainable, how to ensure users truly feel value when interacting with the protocol or application; this is the goal we always pursue.

The 4Chan Aesthetic of Pump.Fun

David:

My initial attitude towards Memecoins was one of resistance, mainly because they exhibited a sense of indifference. They seemed to convey an attitude: "We are not here to create any value. We are just here to trade cartoon characters, contributing nothing to GDP growth and not attempting to build anything real. We are simply providing a meaningless, nihilistic speculative asset."

However, my perspective has changed now. While I do not fully embrace this nihilistic asset trading, I believe additional incentive mechanisms can be incorporated into Memecoins to genuinely steer them towards more sustainable development. I want to discuss this issue, particularly the PumpSwap feature you recently announced. I feel this feature could make Memecoins more productive and meaningful in the long run.

One huge advantage of cryptocurrency is that it allows ordinary people to access financial assets. Before the birth of Bitcoin, it was nearly impossible for individuals to create financial assets. Bitcoin was the first asset created outside of the state system. Since then, the trend in cryptocurrency development has been to continuously lower the barriers to asset creation. I believe Pump.Fun is a logical continuation of this trend, especially when you see it creating 9 million tokens in just one year, which means 9 million financial assets.

My next question is, how can we transform these seemingly indifferent financial assets into sustainable business models? How can we truly integrate them into economic growth? What is the cultural development trajectory of Pump.Fun? Going back to the initial design, Pump.Fun seems to have a 4Chan-style aesthetic and atmosphere. Why did you choose this design style?

Alon:

When we initially developed the MVP (Minimum Viable Product), we chose this style primarily for practical reasons, as it was easier to implement. We just wanted to quickly launch a product. But on that basis, we continuously improved and decided to retain this style because we found it resonated with user behavior. Many of the initially successful Memecoins were launched on forums similar to 4Chan, and many users have a deep resonance with these platforms. Therefore, we have continued this style since then. Although there are many areas where the product still needs improvement, such as user experience, we believe that preserving this culture and paying homage to its origins is an important distinction between Pump.Fun and other projects that lack cultural depth. Even if our goal is to expand the product to reach 10 million daily active users, we still want to maintain this culture. If we lose that, Pump.Fun would become just another soulless Web 2 product, which is not what we want.

David:

However, some may question whether the culture of 4Chan can truly be considered "rich culture." While I am not an expert on 4Chan, from my understanding, it is the "sewer" of the internet, filled with racism and other undesirable behaviors. Of course, I do not want to generalize, but it does seem like a lawless zone akin to the "Wild West." In the cryptocurrency space of 2025, culture is often determined by the core leadership of these ecosystems. The culture of Ethereum is influenced by its leadership, and so is Solana, and Pump.Fun is no exception. Therefore, I believe some of Pump.Fun's behaviors are dictated by its design style and cultural choices.

If we hope Memecoins can open a new chapter that is more sustainable and equitable, I think the brand image of 4Chan could become a barrier. Do you agree with this view?

Alon:

Overall, I agree with this perspective, but I do not believe that the design style will hinder our efforts to improve the culture. I think content moderation is extremely important. In the past, especially within the Ethereum ecosystem, many people found the environment of Pump.Fun off-putting, partly due to some events that occurred in November 2024. I want to clarify that we have implemented content moderation from the very beginning. For example, we launched the live streaming feature in June 2024, when many users began live streaming their tokens. This behavior was harmless, and we thought it would be fun to support this feature internally.

However, six months later, users began to question why we were building these features, as the usage rate of the live streaming feature was very low at that time. But by October and November, as the market heated up, the live streaming feature suddenly became very popular. I remember that within just a few days, the number of live streams surged from 10 per day to thousands. Before that, Andrew Tate had traded tokens during a live stream, and the entire market was experiencing turbulence. When everything happened simultaneously, the level of craziness in cryptocurrency was indeed hard to believe. I regret that we did not achieve enough transparency in content moderation, leading many to mistakenly believe we had no regulatory standards. In reality, we have always enforced content moderation, but we may not have communicated this well.

As for the 4Chan aesthetic, I believe it will not hinder our healthy development. I believe that anything with cultural significance, especially those with controversial content, is always exploring the boundaries of acceptance and non-acceptance. But we will ensure that a clear boundary is drawn to ensure that no one crosses the line.

Content Review of Pump.Fun

David:

I was completely unaware that Pump.Fun had any form of content review. I always thought that with 60,000 tokens being launched daily, the volume was simply too large to review. Perhaps you could briefly explain how this review system works? How do you conduct reviews at such a large scale? I know not all 60,000 tokens have live streaming features, so could you share the specific process of the review system?

Alon:

Yes, in fact, the number of tokens launched daily may have exceeded 60,000, approaching 80,000, which is indeed crazy. But there are a few points to clarify.

First, once a token is launched on the blockchain, its metadata is immutable. This data mostly interacts with users through front-end interfaces like Pump.Fun or other similar websites. I am not sure if other websites conduct reviews, but Pump.Fun does attract a large amount of traffic from users who want to interact with these tokens.

The challenges of content review are similar to those faced by social media platforms. Managing such a large number of tokens going live every day is indeed not easy, but it is not impossible. Social media platforms generate a massive amount of content every second. Although this is different from text-based platforms like Twitter, we have adopted a similar approach: combining automated review systems with user reporting mechanisms, supplemented by manual reviews. For Pump.Fun, a unique challenge is that, especially in the Memecoins space, users are very eager to participate in new tokens as early as possible. Therefore, many users like to check out newly launched tokens, which means we have almost no time for thorough reviews. Given that tens of thousands of users are viewing new tokens in real-time, we must respond within milliseconds. Thus, we rely on automated review systems while also investing significant resources in manual reviews. Together, these form the review mechanism for the Pump.Fun front end. Of course, this is not perfect, as users can also access tokens through other front-end platforms. If those platforms do not conduct reviews, it could lead to issues.

David:

I find the mechanisms of Memecoins interesting because they can incentivize user behavior, whether good or bad. For example, the decision to remove the live streaming feature is a good example. When the live streaming feature was launched, some absurd things did happen, which were funny but also ridiculous. Later, it escalated to more extreme situations, such as developers using fentanyl during live streams and pretending to be dead, which could be the worst-case scenario. Ultimately, you decided to remove the live streaming feature, which effectively curbed these crazy behaviors. To me, this indicates that Pump.Fun has the ability to guide user behavior through mechanism design. This ability comes from your traffic, users, and brand influence.

Do you have any other mechanisms or methods that can guide users towards a more sustainable direction?

Alon:

In a permissionless system, it is indeed very difficult to completely suppress bad behavior. On-chain behavior is open and immutable, which means anyone can access these systems and try to exploit them. However, in many cases, the role of the social layer is to incentivize positive behavior. I believe we can achieve this by guiding users to focus on positive content and rewarding those behaviors. Ultimately, the essence of Memecoins is a "tradeable unit of attention," and their value is closely related to the attention users give. If we can guide users to focus their attention on positive things, we can incentivize more positive behavior rather than negative behavior. Of course, in a permissionless system, it is nearly impossible to completely eliminate bad behavior, but we can design mechanisms to focus attention in a more positive direction.

For example, many people hold negative views about AI-related tokens, thinking they are just chasing trends, but in reality, some projects are indeed building real products. For instance, Griffain is a very interesting project that is developing an application similar to ChatGPT that interacts with the Solana blockchain. When I spoke with the founder, I found that his intention was not to hype but to attract attention through token issuance and drive the actual development of the project. If such tokens can successfully attract users' attention, people will start using the product, and the subsequent development will follow naturally.

Of course, most projects ultimately fail because they fail to find product-market fit. However, the ability to quickly validate whether an idea is viable through token issuance presents a significant opportunity. We hope to see more of this and will strive to reward projects that attract attention by building actual products. In the past, my co-founder and I also attempted to launch an MVP (Minimum Viable Product), so I fully understand this demand. If we can quickly test the feasibility of an idea by issuing a token, it would greatly enhance efficiency.

However, many people hesitate about this approach due to reputational concerns. I completely understand this. They do not want to be seen as profiting from tokens. This is also why we need to explore other monetization paths, such as designing the platform or protocol in a way that allows project teams to profit even without selling tokens. I believe this is crucial. Therefore, this discussion circles back to how to incentivize good behavior through social layers and how to optimize incentive mechanisms at the protocol level.

The Success of Pump.Fun

David:

After the success of Pump.Fun, several similar token launch platforms have emerged in the market, but none have achieved the level of success that Pump.Fun has or spread virally like it. Why do you think that is? What key factors does Pump.Fun possess that other platforms cannot replicate?

Alon:

I believe that this ultimately comes down to the very low switching costs of an open system. Compared to Web 2 or traditional financial systems, it is much easier for users to migrate between these platforms. Therefore, I think Pump.Fun's success is primarily due to the advantages of our product. We always listen to user feedback, continuously iterate, and launch features that truly meet user needs. We welcome competition because it is good for users. At the same time, we closely monitor market dynamics. I believe there are indeed some good competitors in the market; although their current appeal may not be as strong as ours, there are also some great ideas and exciting trends emerging. Ultimately, users will choose the best product. So we believe that as long as we continue to improve and optimize, market feedback will eventually be on our side. From the performance over the past year, the market has proven this. Therefore, I think the answer is actually quite simple.

David:

How each team uses their funds is their own business, but I think many people would expect me to ask this question. It is estimated that the Pump.Fun platform has accumulated around $600 million in funding for the team, investors, or a combination of both. $600 million in profitability should rank among the top in crypto projects, especially for a project launched in 2024. What is this money primarily used for?

Alon:

We are reinvesting all the funds with the goal of building a better product. For example, we are using this funding to expand our team. Currently, our team has about 45 to 50 people, whereas just six months ago, that number was less than 20. At that time, the team was primarily composed of engineers, and now we have also added data scientists, machine learning engineers, and security experts. Our team is continuously expanding with the aim of providing users with the best possible experience.

David:

Will you allocate funds to investors? I remember you had a seed round of financing, right?

Alon:

Pump.Fun did accept some investment in its early stages, but we are currently essentially fully self-funded. To some extent, I also believe that those who work hard should enjoy the fruits of their labor. But as I mentioned earlier, our goal has always been to look to the future and create a product that can withstand multiple market cycles. If we look back in a few years and find that this was just a flash in the pan, it would be very disappointing. I think that would suggest we did not truly achieve long-term value.

PumpSwap

David:

Next, let's talk about one of your new products, PumpSwap. This is the native DEX of Pump.Fun and your second product launch. Previously, Pump.Fun operated in a way that any Memecoins with a certain market cap would migrate to Radium. Radium is an automated market maker (AMM) on Solana, which can be considered the "Uniswap" of Solana. Once tokens migrate to Radium, they become part of the Radium ecosystem, which has accumulated a significant amount of fees as a result. Due to the success of Pump.Fun, Radium's trading volume has significantly increased, and its token price has performed well. It can be said that the success of Pump.Fun has not only driven the growth of Radium but also enhanced the overall activity of the Solana ecosystem, including the assets of Solana itself. For example, why are there celebrities like Donald Trump launching Memecoins on Solana? This is precisely because Pump.Fun has led the Memecoins craze.

Now, you have launched PumpSwap as the native decentralized exchange of Pump.Fun. This means you have replaced Radium with your own AMM, making the Pump ecosystem more vertical, which is my understanding of the current situation. At the same time, could you talk about the strategy and vision of PumpSwap?

Alon:

Your understanding is completely correct. PumpSwap is the native decentralized exchange of Pump.Fun. There are two main reasons we launched PumpSwap, which actually brings tremendous value to users.

First, the current trading process still seems overly complicated. We are committed to creating a simple on-chain trading experience that allows thousands or even millions of users to participate easily. Users do not need to understand the specifics of the migration process, bonding curves, or how AMMs work. We want users to focus only on the core questions of trading: Is this fun? Does this create value for me or others?

To achieve this, we have taken some measures to reduce friction in the trading process. For example, previously during the migration process, Pump.Fun would extract about 6 Solana from the bonding curve for liquidity pools, paying tips, etc., while the remaining portion would serve as protocol revenue. Now, this fee has been completely eliminated, reduced to zero. Through this adjustment, we hope to make the trading process smoother while aligning with user interests. By lowering trading fees, we can achieve stable revenue when tokens succeed without affecting user experience due to high fees.

Therefore, we hope to eliminate the need for these complex concepts. For example, previously during the migration process, Pump.Fun would extract about 6 Solana from the bonding curve for liquidity pools, paying tips, etc., while the remaining portion would serve as protocol revenue. Now, this fee has been completely eliminated, reduced to zero. Through this adjustment, we hope to make the trading process smoother while aligning with user interests. By lowering trading fees, we can achieve stable revenue when tokens succeed without affecting user experience due to high fees.

Another aspect of PumpSwap is the concept of aligning token creators and holders. In short, our goal is to incentivize higher-quality tokens and content, creating a product that can truly endure. To achieve this, you need to sustain growth, and the way to grow is to attract content creators from other areas of the internet. You need to make their participation simple and rewarding. They do not necessarily need to invest money or worry about reputational issues. Creator fees and revenue sharing play a crucial role in this process.

Another aspect is that we want market experimentation; we hope to provide users with other types of assets and tokens for trading. We are collaborating with about 15 to 20 partners, of which 10 partners are bridging their tokens from other blockchains to Solana for the first time and creating liquidity pools here.

We hope that through these attempts, users will have the opportunity to explore more types of assets, not just limited to Memecoins. While this may not bring disruptive changes in the short term, I believe it is an experiment worth looking forward to.

We have maintained close communication with many users. I believe people do have a willingness to explore more things, but many users are not monitoring these changes daily. For the core members of the crypto community (Crypto Twitter), they may spend 16 hours a day immersed in this small circle, but in reality, many users of Pump.Fun do not even know what CT is, and they do not have accounts on centralized exchanges, so they naturally cannot access these new projects. Therefore, we hope to bring these assets to them in a simple and convenient way.

While I do not think this will bring disruptive changes in the short term, it is an experiment worth looking forward to. I believe many users will be interested in exploring these assets and take this opportunity to delve deeper into the crypto world, not just limited to Memecoins. This is precisely the core direction of PumpSwap.

David:

Currently, my understanding of PumpSwap is that it adopts a fixed x*y=k automated market maker (AMM) model similar to Uniswap V2. Uniswap V3, on the other hand, brought innovation through a concentrated liquidity model, but you chose a more basic fixed curve model and did not adopt concentrated liquidity. Could you talk about why you made this design choice? After all, there are many cutting-edge explorations in the current AMM design field, and you seem to prefer a more traditional approach. Please also share your considerations regarding AMM design for PumpSwap and potential future development directions.

Alon:

My view is that if a certain model has proven effective, there is no need to change it lightly. Clearly, the bonding curve model of Uniswap V2 is almost optimal for long-tail assets (like Memecoins).

Of course, there may be some innovative approaches in the future. When these tokens succeed, liquidity will gradually increase, and people may start using concentrated liquidity AMM models or even trade on order book exchanges (mainly off-chain, sometimes on-chain). So I think this is a direction worth exploring in the future.

But for now, we have already seen significant success for Memecoins under the Uniswap V2 model. I believe there is no need to be overly experimental with the AMM model. Instead, we prefer to try more in the incentive mechanisms to better align the interests of creators and users, rather than making significant adjustments to the AMM model.

Creator Revenue Sharing

David:

I want to talk again about the creator revenue sharing you mentioned. We have discussed this topic before, but I think it is very important and worth delving into again. If Memecoins can open a new chapter, I hope this chapter can revolve around this mechanism.

What I see here is that the core of creator revenue sharing is to allow token creators to earn income through trading volume rather than relying on selling tokens for profit. In the past, creators of Memecoins typically made money by selling tokens. However, this approach is completely misaligned with the interests of later investors who buy the tokens. Early holders often have a strong incentive to sell off their tokens, which can lead to some irresponsible creators engaging in rug pulls, where they suddenly sell all their tokens at a price peak or design scams to defraud investors. These actions directly lead to a plummet in token prices, and the project ends, leaving investors to seek other avenues.

Based on the concept of creator revenue sharing, theoretically, token creators could even hold no tokens at all. Their primary source of income would be the fees generated from trading volume, rather than relying on token appreciation. When creators are incentivized through trading volume, their interests become more aligned with those of token holders. As the value of the token rises, trading volume also increases, thereby boosting the income of the creators. This mechanism helps transform Memecoins from mere financial assets into projects with long-term growth potential.

For example, a creator can develop themselves into a business entity, even if it’s just through personal creation on the internet. I believe this aligns very well with the "creator economy" concept we heard about in 2021. Although this concept was still in the theoretical stage at that time, we now see it has the opportunity to become a reality. This mechanism could become a new tool for creators to achieve commercialization in the future. Of course, there hasn’t been a similar mechanism that has been proven effective yet, but I am optimistic about it. Do you agree with this view? If you have a different perspective, how would you adjust this mechanism?

Alon:

I completely agree with your view; you have summarized it very well. I think we are still in the experimental stage, exploring how to truly attract content creators, or any type of creators, into the crypto space and retain them in a sustainable way. This mechanism benefits not only creators but also token holders, traders, and the entire ecosystem.

Although this mechanism still needs time to be validated, I am very hopeful about it. It is a brand new attempt and an exciting experiment. Let’s wait and see if it can bring a win-win outcome for creators and investors.

Comparison of Pump.Fun and Radium

David:

I want to quote a tweet from a Radium contributor who mentioned that Pump.Fun plans to create its own AMM (Automated Market Maker) to replace Radium and build a complete vertical ecosystem. He tweeted twice in February, mentioning: “While the Pump platform itself is impressive, it remains to be seen whether a brand new and untested AMM can bring significant network effects. Radium will continue to support many teams in building protocols that would otherwise be impossible. I think it is a strategic misjudgment for Pump.Fun to completely replace Radium with its own AMM, underestimating the key role that Radium AMM plays in its liquidity launch functionality.” As a core contributor to Radium, what is your take on this?

Alon:

I do not agree with this viewpoint. If Pump.Fun wants to establish its own token launch platform or other functionalities, we fully welcome this attempt. We hope to see more people trying new models and features. Ultimately, I believe verticalization is an important aspect of this. So, what can verticalization bring? It allows us to experiment internally without relying on third parties.

I feel very happy every day because I believe our team is one of the best in this field. We can deliver products quickly and iterate rapidly based on user feedback. I have noticed that many other teams do not have the same focus and efficiency in user experience and product delivery. We do not want to rely on third parties because that would limit us in delivering products. Through PumpSwap, we can fully control our ecosystem while also taking on the corresponding responsibilities. Of course, this also means that if we fail, people will choose other platforms, which would be fatal for us. But I believe we are willing to take that risk.

David:

Recently, Radium announced that they will launch a token launch platform similar to Pump.Fun, which I remember they named Launch Lab.

Alon:

I have heard about it. I look forward to seeing what new ideas they will propose. Let’s wait and see. But in any case, we are not afraid of any form of competition.

David:

Does this mean that the competition between Pump.Fun and Radium will escalate into a "dispute"? Or do you think there is a possibility of finding a way to cooperate?

Alon:

I do not think this is a dispute. I think this is just part of businesses striving to provide the best products for end users. It’s not just Radium; there are many other platforms, regardless of what they are called. In fact, many innovative platforms in the Ethereum ecosystem and other areas have borrowed some ideas from Pump.Fun and iterated on them.

Ultimately, I believe Pump.Fun has designed a very clever token launch mechanism. But it must be acknowledged that many of these ideas actually come from existing protocols and projects. If Memecoins can open a new chapter, I believe the potential for on-chain token generation will become even richer.

There is still much to be done in the future. I think multiple different niches will inevitably emerge, and these markets will need their own mechanisms to meet their demands. This is an inevitable trend in the industry’s development. As a protocol, Pump.Fun hopes to be as universal as possible while covering more niches. But we also understand that we cannot cover all markets. Therefore, I look forward to seeing the new mechanisms proposed by other teams. If any of them achieve great success, we would be happy to explore the possibility of cooperation.

The Social Element of Pump.Fun

David:

The cryptocurrency space inherently has a strong social attribute, which runs throughout the entire ecosystem. We exist in the form of "tribes," gathering on Crypto Twitter to chat, discuss, and even create some dramatic events. Almost everything related to cryptocurrency contains some social element. I have noticed that the live streaming feature of Pump.Fun has already reflected this well, and the social component performs exceptionally in the crypto space. So, can you talk about the social elements that will soon be added to the Pump.Fun tech stack? How do you plan to integrate these social features into the future development of Pump.Fun?

Alon:

I think this is precisely what sets Pump.Fun apart from the very beginning. We place great emphasis on the design of social attributes rather than simply replicating financialized platforms like Deck Screener (a platform that presents token information from a financial perspective) that list tokens. From the start, we believed that the direction of project development should be to create a social experience rather than just a financial tool.

Social interaction is so important because it not only brings entertainment but also provides value to users. I believe many people have misconceptions about Memecoins. If you communicate with users, especially ordinary users who do not spend 16 hours a day immersed in Crypto Twitter, you will find that many of them are not participating just to make money. They care more about “this looks fun, and I want to try it with my friends.” It’s that simple. I know some people may not believe this and might even find it incredible, but if you really get to know the users, you will find that this mindset is very common.

Therefore, we want to further strengthen this point and create a better and more entertaining experience. This is precisely why we call Pump.Fun "the largest social network in the crypto space." We believe that starting with some basic, simple features, if we can continuously focus on social attributes, we can develop the platform into a great project that brings more possibilities.

I also want to emphasize that as the user base of Pump.Fun continues to grow, there may be thousands or even millions of users using it daily in the future. These users will gradually explore more features, such as DeFi (Decentralized Finance), advanced trading features, stablecoins, etc. This is an inevitable trend and also our way of nurturing the future "crypto natives" (people who fully adapt to the crypto ecosystem and make it their primary economic activity).

This is also why we will continue to focus on the needs of creators and develop more social products. Recently, we launched a direct messaging feature and plan to iterate on it continuously. While we usually keep our future feature plans somewhat confidential, I can say that there are many exciting things to look forward to in the future of Pump.Fun.

Content, Attention, and the Market

David:

I think there are some interesting intersections in the content market, news, and the vertical field of tokens. In some cases, the market and tokens can even merge into one. For example, on Polymarket, you can see a direct connection between news events and markets—news reports drive the formation of related markets. On Polymarket, there are corresponding markets for many potential events, and this mechanism is very complex, while I notice that Pump.Fun also seems to be moving in this direction.

However, I believe the final form of this combination has not yet fully emerged. There are some vague but shared value connections between news events, markets, content, and attention. I feel that Pump.Fun is currently one of the platforms closest to this core of value. I would like to hear your thoughts on this; when you observe the combination of news content, attention, and the market, where do you see its potential?

Alon:

I’m glad you mentioned Polymarket. I think Polymarket is a "market seeking truth," predicting or verifying the authenticity of events through market mechanisms. In contrast, Pump.Fun is more like a "market seeking attention," and it is an excellent tool for measuring attention. Because here, you have a clear metric for measuring the popularity and trends of certain topics for the first time.

For example, when a political event occurs, you can not only predict the probability of it happening through the market but also intuitively understand its impact and relevance through the trading volume, market cap, and charts of the tokens related to that event. This provides a whole new perspective, which is very interesting.

What’s unique about Pump.Fun is that whenever a significant news event occurs, there will always be someone creating tokens based on those events. You could say that these news events are almost "unfolding in real-time" on the blockchain. This phenomenon is very captivating. While I cannot fully predict how it will develop in the future, I believe it has great potential.

It is important to note that not all news events or social media content can be converted into economic value, as people’s attention resources are limited globally. However, for those events that can successfully attract a large amount of attention, we can quantify their value through token trading and market performance. There is significant potential behind this mechanism, and I believe there are important opportunities hidden within it.

The Future of Memecoins

David:

What do you hope the future of Memecoins will look like? What specific expectations do you have for it? How do you think its actual development will unfold?

Alon:

That's a very good question, and I need to answer it cautiously to avoid being overly idealistic. We have always aimed to be grounded, focusing on the realities and what might happen.

I hope the narrative around Memecoins can shift so that people no longer view on-chain trading of these tokens as a worthless or nihilistic activity. I have never subscribed to the so-called "financial nihilism." I believe this notion is merely an excuse used on Crypto Twitter to rationalize the current state of the market. Ultimately, the reason people trade and create these tokens is clearly because they have financial value. However, this financial value often exists because they also have value in other aspects, such as providing entertainment or attracting attention to a new product. I hope to see more positive cases like this in the future while reducing the negative events that disappoint people, promoting more responsible behavior. I believe that Pump.Fun needs to take a more proactive role in this regard.

This actually involves shaping community culture from the top down. I think this is crucial. At the same time, we also need to moderate and guide the content on the platform to create a more sustainable user experience that encourages people to return repeatedly. Perhaps this experience won't be as frenzied as it was in November last year or January this year, but if we can create a product that a large number of users are willing to log into daily and feel satisfied with, that would be a success. I believe this is the goal we are striving to achieve in the long term.

Are Memecoins Evil?

David:

Currently, some listeners may have a resistant or even hostile attitude towards the concept of Memecoins. Especially in the current market environment, they believe that Memecoins essentially cannot create value and are merely a speculative casino. The market performance seems to support this view.

According to data from Roadblock Changes since January 14, 2024, Pump.Fun has launched over 8.7 million tokens, with total revenue reaching $600 million. Currently, only four tokens released by Pump.Fun have a market cap exceeding $100 million. Therefore, I think people feel a discrepancy when they see Pump.Fun's $600 million revenue and the total market cap of all Pump.Fun tokens (which is between $400 million and $600 million).

If someone believes that Memecoins are inherently worthless and just a speculative casino, then this viewpoint seems reasonable at the current market stage. How do you respond to this perspective? Or how do you view those who think Memecoins are merely short-term speculative tools?

Alon:

First of all, when the overall market has fallen by more than 50%, many viewpoints seem to be validated. For example, Solana's price has dropped by over 50%, and the prices of Ethereum and Bitcoin have also significantly retreated from their historical highs. Therefore, whether it’s Memecoins, NFTs, DeFi, or other altcoins, they all fall under the category of risk assets. If the entire market is crashing, then Memecoins are unlikely to escape unscathed.

But interestingly, few people mention another fact: last November, the cumulative market cap of Pump.Fun tokens was about $8 billion, and the market environment at that time was completely different from now. Clearly, this discrepancy is significant. Because these tokens themselves are high-risk assets, no one denies that. But I believe that those who criticize Memecoins now overlook an important aspect: the behavior and experience of the current user base are actually quite sticky.

If you are a crypto user today, your likelihood of trading Memecoins on Pump.Fun is the same as it was a few months ago. The only difference is that the number of crypto users has decreased, but those who remain are still repeating the behavior patterns from a few months ago. I don't think this situation will change easily.

This is actually part of the natural evolution of Memecoins. Memecoins must continuously evolve to meet market demands, and we hope to participate in this evolutionary process. But ultimately, the market will provide the answer. It may be Pump.Fun, or it may not be, but I believe Memecoins will continue to exist in some form because they do provide certain value to users. This will take time to prove.

Even if you look at NFTs, although their prices have significantly dropped compared to the last bull market, many NFT collectibles still hold high value, such as Pudgy Penguins, which still have a market cap in the hundreds of millions or even billions. Therefore, it is inaccurate to say that these assets are worthless just because the bubble has burst. Even if they haven't reached historical highs, they still provide actual value to users.

Even if you look at NFTs, of course, they have dropped significantly compared to the last cycle, but many NFT collectibles are still very valuable, with market caps still in the hundreds of millions or even billions. So, it is not necessarily true that they have become worthless due to the bubble bursting. For example, Pudgy Penguins, isn't that valuable? That would be crazy. Moreover, even if it may not have reached historical highs, it still provides a lot of value.

So, let’s wait and see. I’m not sure if Memecoins can exist for ten years, but I hope the audience will think about one question: why would things suddenly change after years of consistent user behavior? At the same time, I also want to invite everyone who has not yet tried Pump.Fun, especially users from the Ethereum community. I suggest you spend an hour experiencing it. I believe many people will change their views on it. The perspectives on Crypto Twitter are often too one-sided, and the reality is much more complex than they describe.

The Mission of Pump.Fun

David:

What do you think the mission of Pump.Fun is? Is it to promote the issuance of more tokens, increase trading volume, or help users achieve wealth growth? How would you define this mission? What is the core guiding direction for you?

Alon:

I believe these goals are actually closely interconnected. Trading volume is clearly a very important metric, and I think it can serve as our core guiding direction because it directly reflects the platform's activity and user engagement.

Like other blockchains, determining the core metrics to focus on is indeed not easy. But in recent years, people have increasingly focused on revenue (Rev) because it represents the real economic value created. I think we should also pay attention to the economic value that users bring to the platform in the long term, which may be a more profound metric. Besides that, I believe these different goals are highly related. While many people think that an increase in the number of tokens is a bad thing, I have always believed that more tokens are essentially a good thing.

We need to design mechanisms to incentivize users to generate high-quality content and adhere to positive behavioral norms. I think this is a part that is still relatively lacking at the moment, and some future features will focus on addressing this issue. If we can lower the barriers to market participation, allowing more people, especially those who have not yet entered the ecosystem, to participate easily, we can significantly increase positive market activity. For example, if the cost of creating a token is reduced from 20 Solana to 10 Solana, it will undoubtedly attract more projects and users.

I believe that the ease and low cost of token creation are very important. User wealth growth is equally crucial. According to data, when the market is hottest, trading volume peaks, user participation enthusiasm is highest, and everyone’s evaluation of Memecoins is most positive.

Ultimately, Memecoins are a market-based system, so when the prices of risk assets fall, our capabilities are limited. But we can focus on building a product that can maintain stability and achieve sustainable growth in the long term, ensuring it provides value to users in the next one to five years.

Therefore, we should not get too caught up in the daily market fluctuations but rather look at the bigger picture, observing user behavior, analyzing whether their core habits have changed, and continuously optimizing and iterating our products based on these observations.

Why Choose Pump.Fun x Bankless

David:

Alon, I think most listeners might be thinking, "Wow, Pump.Fun and Bankless, what a strange combination." Can you share why you chose Bankless?

Alon:

First of all, I personally haven't done Spaces for 4 to 6 months and haven't done a podcast in a long time; the last time was a conversation with Thread Guy last summer. This time, I hope to return in a striking way, even if it may spark some controversy.

I think this is a good attempt because I want everyone to hear my voice as an advocate, supporting on-chain social experiences, Memecoins, and so on. At the same time, I also want to make some of the biggest critics in the Ethereum ecosystem aware that we actually have many commonalities. Many times, we misunderstand each other over some easily distracting secondary issues. Twitter is not an ideal platform because its mechanisms often exacerbate emotions and conflicts between users. Therefore, many people's perceptions of other ecosystems (like Solana or Pump.Fun) often have a significant gap from reality.

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。