DoomPosting
The guy is a supposed African billionaire, with 2.2 million twitter followers π³πΎπΎπΌπΏπΎπ
π
πΈπ½πΆ
Tweet link
Argument for it being real? β Trump did it, now so can the other rich dudes too
Continuing to research deeper
π³πΎπΎπΌπΏπΎπ π πΈπ½πΆ
Argument for it being real? β Trump did it, now so can the other rich dudes too
Continuing to research deeper
π³πΎπΎπΌπΏπΎπ π πΈπ½πΆ
π3
DoomPosting
Tweet link Argument for it being real? β Trump did it, now so can the other rich dudes too Continuing to research deeper π³πΎπΎπΌπΏπΎπ
π
πΈπ½πΆ
Basic forensic error analysis comes back clean,
Unlike in some of the recent hacks
π³πΎπΎπΌπΏπΎπ π πΈπ½πΆ
Unlike in some of the recent hacks
π³πΎπΎπΌπΏπΎπ π πΈπ½πΆ
π4
DoomPosting
Chat is this real β Or another hack π³πΎπΎπΌπΏπΎπ
π
πΈπ½πΆ
Continuing upward, currently 3x - 4x
Rediculous time to launch a coin, but letβs see what happens
π³πΎπΎπΌπΏπΎπ π πΈπ½πΆ
Rediculous time to launch a coin, but letβs see what happens
π³πΎπΎπΌπΏπΎπ π πΈπ½πΆ
π5
Heβs got a spaces scheduled for 9 min from now
Letβs see if that pumps it or dumps it
Spaces link
π³πΎπΎπΌπΏπΎπ π πΈπ½πΆ
Letβs see if that pumps it or dumps it
Spaces link
π³πΎπΎπΌπΏπΎπ π πΈπ½πΆ
π―2π2
DoomPosting
9gag CEO on $PAIN presale Letβs see what happensβ¦ π³πΎπΎπΌπΏπΎπ
π
πΈπ½πΆ
$PAIN presale update 2 hours ago
Apparently theyβre saying that the liquidity would be too thick if they used all $40M that was raised,
and so theyβre refunding 80%?
= Refunding $32M and using the remaining $8M for liquidity?
Will run the calculations myself next, butβ¦
β¦Maybe that is legit reasoning?
$BOME was already one of the thickest launches ever, with just $1.6M of SOL & 50% of the token supply put into the pool at launch
And a strange artifact of these constant-product pools is that the thickness of the token at launch is kinda set in stone once created, incentives wise β long story, but, essentially
And indeed the thicker the liquidity, the more money needed to pump the price
For comparison, pumpfun pools are configured to have WAY TOO THIN liquidity, which is why IMO even the hottest pumpfun coins like $PNUT have crashed down much harder than e.g. $BOME did β all about that thickness. Easy rise easy fall.
So,
Bull case:
(1) They want the liquidity a little thinner than the insane thickness that adding $40M would do, giving it a little more pumpfun-like pop, just a little
(2) But, even with $8M, it would still be among the thickest liquidity pools ever, if they put it all in a raydium constant product pool, like most do β so still would be plenty thick
(3) BIG ONE: theyβve proven huge demand, and that huge amount of refunded money might be highly likely to go right back into buying $PAIN?
(4) But they donβt want to manage easy-to-screw-up task of doing all those post-launch buys with the funds themselves, so given the massive demand and likelihood of refunded buyers buying β they expect it to be easier to just refund 80% to the users and let them do the buys?
(5) Oh, also theyβre refunding $SOL that was sent late. Very non-scammy nice thing for them to do β plenty of βlegitβ projects have just pocketed that late money as a donation.
Bear case:
You tell me?
At least so far, and if things continue to go according to this plan, $PAIN is starting to look great af?
Tweet link
π³πΎπΎπΌπΏπΎπ π πΈπ½πΆ
Apparently theyβre saying that the liquidity would be too thick if they used all $40M that was raised,
and so theyβre refunding 80%?
= Refunding $32M and using the remaining $8M for liquidity?
Will run the calculations myself next, butβ¦
β¦Maybe that is legit reasoning?
$BOME was already one of the thickest launches ever, with just $1.6M of SOL & 50% of the token supply put into the pool at launch
And a strange artifact of these constant-product pools is that the thickness of the token at launch is kinda set in stone once created, incentives wise β long story, but, essentially
And indeed the thicker the liquidity, the more money needed to pump the price
For comparison, pumpfun pools are configured to have WAY TOO THIN liquidity, which is why IMO even the hottest pumpfun coins like $PNUT have crashed down much harder than e.g. $BOME did β all about that thickness. Easy rise easy fall.
So,
Bull case:
(1) They want the liquidity a little thinner than the insane thickness that adding $40M would do, giving it a little more pumpfun-like pop, just a little
(2) But, even with $8M, it would still be among the thickest liquidity pools ever, if they put it all in a raydium constant product pool, like most do β so still would be plenty thick
(3) BIG ONE: theyβve proven huge demand, and that huge amount of refunded money might be highly likely to go right back into buying $PAIN?
(4) But they donβt want to manage easy-to-screw-up task of doing all those post-launch buys with the funds themselves, so given the massive demand and likelihood of refunded buyers buying β they expect it to be easier to just refund 80% to the users and let them do the buys?
(5) Oh, also theyβre refunding $SOL that was sent late. Very non-scammy nice thing for them to do β plenty of βlegitβ projects have just pocketed that late money as a donation.
Bear case:
You tell me?
At least so far, and if things continue to go according to this plan, $PAIN is starting to look great af?
Tweet link
π³πΎπΎπΌπΏπΎπ π πΈπ½πΆ
π4π―2
Forwarded from DoomPosting
$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.)
π³πΎπΎπΌπΏπΎπ π πΈπ½πΆ
+ 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.)
π³πΎπΎπΌπΏπΎπ π πΈπ½πΆ
π―2π1
Forwarded from DoomPosting
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
β 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.)
π³πΎπΎπΌπΏπΎπ π πΈπ½πΆ
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
β 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.)
π³πΎπΎπΌπΏπΎπ π πΈπ½πΆ
π3π―2
^ Some of my previous research on Constant Product pools, the most commonly-used form of on-chain liquidity pool
Have a more complete version of this chart somewhere, but basically,
+ $BOME was among the thickest pools ever launched, putting in $1.6M and 50% of the supply at the start, putting it on a very thick thickness curve β and it immediately 250xβd, in large part due to that
+ Memecoins tend to basically never change this thickness curve after the start
+ And now $PAIN is set to have a pool FIVE TIMES THICKER, even after the refunds
Gonna be wild
Worth noting that thereβs some chance of absolutely retarded screwups
β¦like $SLERF which was set to have a similarly massive success to $BOME, but then the retarded dev accidentally burnt the $10M of $SOL that was raisedβ¦ and then it went on to just have a moderate success
Weβll see
π³πΎπΎπΌπΏπΎπ π πΈπ½πΆ
Have a more complete version of this chart somewhere, but basically,
+ $BOME was among the thickest pools ever launched, putting in $1.6M and 50% of the supply at the start, putting it on a very thick thickness curve β and it immediately 250xβd, in large part due to that
+ Memecoins tend to basically never change this thickness curve after the start
+ And now $PAIN is set to have a pool FIVE TIMES THICKER, even after the refunds
Gonna be wild
Worth noting that thereβs some chance of absolutely retarded screwups
β¦like $SLERF which was set to have a similarly massive success to $BOME, but then the retarded dev accidentally burnt the $10M of $SOL that was raisedβ¦ and then it went on to just have a moderate success
Weβll see
π³πΎπΎπΌπΏπΎπ π πΈπ½πΆ
π―1π1
DoomPosting
$PAIN presale update 2 hours ago Apparently theyβre saying that the liquidity would be too thick if they used all $40M that was raised, and so theyβre refunding 80%? = Refunding $32M and using the remaining $8M for liquidity? Will run the calculationsβ¦
Whether $PAIN turns out a huge success or not, it does bring to mind one classic piece of tradfi VC wisdom
β Canβt just go looking for something thatβs wrong and then immediately write off a prospective investment,
must also look for what what could go right,
because sometimes whatβs right is so huge that it can overpower the massive things that are wrong.
(And this is why e.g. whiny UK losers will always be failures at VC, they canβt overlook negatives.)
Canonical example in tradfi was Twitter β which was well known to be run by absolute moron clowns from the start.
Canonical example in crypto is Bitcoin β whose loudest chief promoters in the early days were literal convicted fraudsters, who most definitely did not even actually believe that Bitcoin was the real deal.
So yeah, $PAIN had some major bad signs from the start β but also some massively positive signs too,
making it one of the most⦠painful⦠ones to judge in recent memory
No pain no gain
π³πΎπΎπΌπΏπΎπ π πΈπ½πΆ
β Canβt just go looking for something thatβs wrong and then immediately write off a prospective investment,
must also look for what what could go right,
because sometimes whatβs right is so huge that it can overpower the massive things that are wrong.
(And this is why e.g. whiny UK losers will always be failures at VC, they canβt overlook negatives.)
Canonical example in tradfi was Twitter β which was well known to be run by absolute moron clowns from the start.
Canonical example in crypto is Bitcoin β whose loudest chief promoters in the early days were literal convicted fraudsters, who most definitely did not even actually believe that Bitcoin was the real deal.
So yeah, $PAIN had some major bad signs from the start β but also some massively positive signs too,
making it one of the most⦠painful⦠ones to judge in recent memory
No pain no gain
π³πΎπΎπΌπΏπΎπ π πΈπ½πΆ
π―2π2
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Galaxy researcher β Ethereum hasnβt changed, Ethereum is f&cked
π³πΎπΎπΌπΏπΎπ π πΈπ½πΆ
π³πΎπΎπΌπΏπΎπ π πΈπ½πΆ
π―5π₯3π2π«‘1