Meanwhile, twitter AI is convinced that this animal meme everyone’s obsessing over must be porn
And I mean, yeah, can see why it would think that
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
And I mean, yeah, can see why it would think that
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
🤣7
Why is $MOODENG not quite a BOME-level success?
Other than that $BOME hit $1B+ in just 3 days,
Biggest difference is that —
$MOODENG has very thin liquidity = $300M market cap but just ~$1.8M in SOL liquidity
= ~150x cap-to-reserves-ratio at $300M cap = thinner, harder to cash out without crashing the price
Whereas $BOME had an unusually thick cap-to-reserves-ratio
= ~30x cap-to-reserves-ratio at $300M cap = thicker, can cash out far bigger without crashing the price
How does a coin increase the thickness of this ratio?
Two ways, which anyone can do:
(A) Adding more SOL liquidity at the creation of the pool
(B) Adding more liquidity via addLiquidity, to make it thicker, or do a removeLiquidity to make it thinner.
But there’s a shocking thing you find when you analyze the onchain history of these charts
— Virtually no one does (B), it’s ~100% about (A)!
And it makes sense, incentives-wise, why no one does an addLiquidity post-launch — because on today’s coins it’s considered “bad” for the liquidity not to be “locked” and LP tokens burnt — So no one is incentivized to add more liquidity!
So whatever SOL vs tokens ratio is put in by the creator at the start, is basically the amount the coin is stuck with, especially if LP tokens are burnt, which is almost always the case.
I.e. Locking liquidity, as is usually done, makes it impossible to make the ratio thinner, and though technically anyone could make the pool thicker, doing so effectively means the SOL you deposit is are gone forever, unless you own a massive percentage of tokens = coin stuck at the ratio it starts with.
= biggest difference between $MOODENG and $BOME is that many people could actually hugely cash out of $BOME without dropping the price much,
and this illustrates something very interesting about coin creation that AFAIK no one ever really analyzed in public before.
I.e. $MOODENG reaching $1B means less for crypto than $BOME did, because far less can be cashed out and fed into other memecoins.
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
Other than that $BOME hit $1B+ in just 3 days,
Biggest difference is that —
$MOODENG has very thin liquidity = $300M market cap but just ~$1.8M in SOL liquidity
= ~150x cap-to-reserves-ratio at $300M cap = thinner, harder to cash out without crashing the price
Whereas $BOME had an unusually thick cap-to-reserves-ratio
= ~30x cap-to-reserves-ratio at $300M cap = thicker, can cash out far bigger without crashing the price
How does a coin increase the thickness of this ratio?
Two ways, which anyone can do:
(A) Adding more SOL liquidity at the creation of the pool
(B) Adding more liquidity via addLiquidity, to make it thicker, or do a removeLiquidity to make it thinner.
But there’s a shocking thing you find when you analyze the onchain history of these charts
— Virtually no one does (B), it’s ~100% about (A)!
And it makes sense, incentives-wise, why no one does an addLiquidity post-launch — because on today’s coins it’s considered “bad” for the liquidity not to be “locked” and LP tokens burnt — So no one is incentivized to add more liquidity!
So whatever SOL vs tokens ratio is put in by the creator at the start, is basically the amount the coin is stuck with, especially if LP tokens are burnt, which is almost always the case.
I.e. Locking liquidity, as is usually done, makes it impossible to make the ratio thinner, and though technically anyone could make the pool thicker, doing so effectively means the SOL you deposit is are gone forever, unless you own a massive percentage of tokens = coin stuck at the ratio it starts with.
= biggest difference between $MOODENG and $BOME is that many people could actually hugely cash out of $BOME without dropping the price much,
and this illustrates something very interesting about coin creation that AFAIK no one ever really analyzed in public before.
I.e. $MOODENG reaching $1B means less for crypto than $BOME did, because far less can be cashed out and fed into other memecoins.
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
👏4
$BOME case study of how liquidity thickness basically set-in-stone from the start:
+ Reducing liquidity = extremely disincentivized, since removing liquidity is seen as a scam signal, so it usually remains locked.
+ Increasing liquidity = extremely disincentivized, because the person who ads the liquidity ends up
= Liquidity thickness basically set-in-stone once a coin launches
(Created this chart myself.)
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
+ Reducing liquidity = extremely disincentivized, since removing liquidity is seen as a scam signal, so it usually remains locked.
+ Increasing liquidity = extremely disincentivized, because the person who ads the liquidity ends up
= Liquidity thickness basically set-in-stone once a coin launches
(Created this chart myself.)
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
👏5
Illustration of the cap-to-liquidity ratios for different liquidity thicknesses
The top line is the usual, easy-to-pump & easy-to-crash curve that all pumpfun coins, $MOODENG, and many others use.
BUT, see how the coins with less steep, thicker curves
— Are the ones that achieved far higher market caps.
Was a major reason $BOME was listed on Binance was because of its unusually thick liquidity curve?
Maybe.
(Created this chart myself.)
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
The top line is the usual, easy-to-pump & easy-to-crash curve that all pumpfun coins, $MOODENG, and many others use.
BUT, see how the coins with less steep, thicker curves
— Are the ones that achieved far higher market caps.
Was a major reason $BOME was listed on Binance was because of its unusually thick liquidity curve?
Maybe.
(Created this chart myself.)
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
👏3
But,
— Not all that is thick should be longed
…despite that it’s clear that top coins ARE usually the ones with thicker liquidity
(Perhaps this is showing a survivorship effect? Thicker liquidity = greater longevity?)
E.g. $NAP, launched just after $BOME,
Which has an incredibly thick cap-to-liquidity ratio:
$8.3 cap vs $6M SOL = 1.38x
So, cap-to-liquidity ratio is very important, in enabling pumps and preventing dumps
— But coins are totally handicapped from adjusting this liquidity thickness ratio post-launch, due to extreme disincentives against it.
Is this something that needs to be fixed? If so, could it be fixed, incentives-wise?
This remains an open problem, that AFAIK no one has ever publicly addressed.
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
— Not all that is thick should be longed
…despite that it’s clear that top coins ARE usually the ones with thicker liquidity
(Perhaps this is showing a survivorship effect? Thicker liquidity = greater longevity?)
E.g. $NAP, launched just after $BOME,
Which has an incredibly thick cap-to-liquidity ratio:
$8.3 cap vs $6M SOL = 1.38x
So, cap-to-liquidity ratio is very important, in enabling pumps and preventing dumps
— But coins are totally handicapped from adjusting this liquidity thickness ratio post-launch, due to extreme disincentives against it.
Is this something that needs to be fixed? If so, could it be fixed, incentives-wise?
This remains an open problem, that AFAIK no one has ever publicly addressed.
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
👏5👀3🗿1
Guy bought $MOODENG at $143k, and dumped it all at $5k, for a 96% loss,
Today, a few weeks later, $MOODENG is now at $300M
Which sounds crazy when you look at $MOODENG’s almost perfectly up-only chart,
But if you zoom way into the first few hours post-launch, you can see exactly what happened
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
Today, a few weeks later, $MOODENG is now at $300M
Which sounds crazy when you look at $MOODENG’s almost perfectly up-only chart,
But if you zoom way into the first few hours post-launch, you can see exactly what happened
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
🤣5🫡2