Recently, PumpFun announced financing and issuing tokens, with a valuation reaching 4 billion USD, causing quite a controversy.

In theory, a project financing and issuing tokens should be aimed at promoting product development—such as using early financing to improve functionality, or later financing to expand the ecosystem. However, PumpFun's situation is somewhat special: its product is already quite mature and may even be starting to decline.

Currently, there are quite a few similar products on the market, such as @virtuals_io, @believeapp, and PumpFun has limited innovative space left. At this point, financing and issuing tokens feel more like a 'last grab' rather than for long-term development.

What’s even more suspicious is that its valuation is outrageously high. Compared to other DEX and DeFi protocols, PumpFun's FDV/annual earnings ratio is significantly higher. Moreover, the Solana meme ecosystem has recently shown weak performance, with continuous fund outflows and declining enthusiasm for new meme coins on exchanges.

This means that PumpFun's future earnings may shrink, but its valuation remains strong at 4 billion USD. Is this reasonable?

Some market veterans directly predicted the script for $PUMP: "Launch, draw a wave, trap a batch of retail investors, then decline slowly, and finally consolidate." Does that sound familiar?

Financing and issuing tokens usually come with two attitudes:

"We grow together"—for example, airdrops to reward early users.

"You are just fuel"—after financing, users can do whatever they want.

PumpFun's current performance is more akin to the latter.

Comparing it to @deBridgeFinance ($DBR), which airdropped 600 million tokens last year and another 23 million tokens this year, the total value of the two rounds exceeds 11 million USD, which is even higher than its annual revenue. Although the token price is under pressure as a result, users at least feel the sincerity.

But what about PumpFun? There is no mention of airdrops.

It should be known that PumpFun's rise relies on countless retail traders' transactions and fees. Now, the project team is financing with a high valuation but shows no intention of giving back, which inevitably leaves people feeling cold.

"Airdrops cannot make up for losses, but at least they can soothe emotions." Unfortunately, PumpFun seems unwilling to even give this bit of dignity.

Normal financing logic: "Money comes in, the ecosystem grows, and users benefit."
PumpFun's financing logic: "Money comes in, valuation goes up, and retail investors take over."

Very few projects choose to finance and issue tokens during a mature or even declining phase; PumpFun's motivation for doing so is indeed questionable.

With high valuations, silence on airdrops, and weak ecosystem growth, this financing looks like a meticulously designed 'exit strategy' from any angle.

So, if you are considering whether to participate in $PUMP, you might want to ask yourself first:
"Am I here to invest, or am I here to be the fuel?"

#PUMP $DBR