There are already dozens of homogeneous Launchpads on Solana, and new ones are being added every day.
This article aims to provide a simple framework to help clarify industry chaos and provoke thought. We start from core issues:
Why would users choose a new Launchpad instead of Pump.Fun (or today's Bonk)?
Users can be divided into two categories: bidders and deployers. Although these two groups are highly correlated, since funds are a scarce resource, bidders are the core group we focus on initially.
To analyze why buyers choose new platforms instead of leading platforms, the answer is simple: they believe new platforms offer more opportunities to make money. However, many of these factors are beyond the platform's control, so this article focuses on the two driving factors that the platform can control:
Assets (Assets): Can the platform create assets with significantly differentiated value?
Traffic (Flows): Does the platform have a differentiated deployer process?
Let's dive deeper.
Assets (Assets)
The reasons people buy tokens mainly fall into two categories: speculation (believing the token will appreciate) and practicality (the token has actual uses).
Speculation level: There are many driving factors for speculation, mainly including memes (like Meme coins) and fundamentals (such as value from capital reserves, cash flow, etc.).
However, Launchpads cannot create differentiation at the speculation level. Memes are spontaneous and depend on the market, while fundamental factors such as returns are ultimately determined by the project or product.
Practicality level: Practicality is relatively flexible, which is 'Besides speculation, why do people buy tokens?' (Of course, practicality is closely related to speculation, as practicality can drive speculation). For example, token access permissions, fee discounts, governance rights, etc., all fall under the category of practicality.
Launchpads can gain practical advantages by providing differentiated supporting infrastructure and tools, allowing deployers to connect from day one. This kind of support can take many forms, but competition may focus on platforms that are more targeted in vertical fields. It should be noted that supporting facilities must not only provide unique utility for tokens but also create 'valuable utility', giving users a compelling reason to purchase.
Social token cases: Ego vs Time.Fun
Both attempt to tokenize social influence, and each creator can only issue one 'soulbound token' bound to their Twitter account.
Ego's tokens are owned by the creators, but lack direct utility. This 'flexibility' leads creators to lack motivation to build utility, ultimately making its tokens not fundamentally different from those of Pump platforms.
Time.Fun is different. It has embedded practical functions in its tokens, allowing creators to quickly create value and profit through tokens, thus achieving sustained user activity.
(Note: I acknowledge the Ego team, and I chose this case because I believe they will continue to optimize.)
Moreover, 'providing utility' does not equate to 'creating value'. For example, many tweet-based tokenization platforms integrate tweets into supporting facilities, forming 'value-based curated social streams'. While this provides utility, if no one uses that social stream, its value becomes zero. These platforms often struggle to create real value.
It is worth noting that creating value is not easy; it is necessary to carefully assess whether supporting facilities or designs are truly valuable. At the same time, differentiation is relative. Current industry trends such as 'token buyback tools' and 'project economy linked with token flywheel' may have value in the short term but will quickly become standardized technology. Once differentiation is lost, it no longer has appeal.
In summary, when assessing new platforms from the perspective of 'assets', it is necessary to consider: Where does the differentiation of tokens lie? Does this differentiation add value to the token?
The fields I am currently focusing on include: incentive-based distributed training, next-generation decision markets (with some interesting mechanisms), niche real-world assets (with some novel designs), and initial token issuance mechanisms (ICM, in early stages with great potential).
Traffic (Flows)
Next, let's explore another differentiation factor: exclusive deployer 'traffic'. This is similar to venture capital 'deal flow', with the core being whether the platform can attract the hottest projects to launch.
From the perspective of limited partners (LPs), one of the key criteria for evaluating venture capital firms is whether they have high-quality exclusive deal flow. This logic also applies to Launchpads. The return structures of both are similar (leading projects contribute most of the trading volume/revenue), and the essence is 'to let those who create value choose you over homogeneous competitors.'
For example, one contrary view believes that Believe's initial success did not stem from mechanism design (in fact, I disagree with this design), but rather because its founder Pasternak can attract Web2 entrepreneurs who wouldn't normally issue tokens — this is the value of traffic.
Large platforms inherently have a traffic advantage: they have users, ecosystem integration capabilities, and distribution channels. However, user attention is a scarce resource, and new platforms must rely on tangible differentiation to attract traffic.
Here are several common factors of traffic differentiation:
Founder influence: The crypto industry is small, and connections are crucial. Does the platform's founder have enough social resources to attract deployers? Can they secure social support for the token after the project goes live? (e.g., Pasternak)
Development momentum: Does the platform have successful launch case studies? For example, Bonk's Launchpad incentivized more people to issue and auction tokens due to the success of token issuance, creating a 'social flywheel effect'. Early platforms should filter quality projects to provide in-depth support; several failed launches can destroy a platform, as the flywheel effect is bidirectional.
Specialized positioning: If a platform focuses on a specific niche, having a specialized community can enhance project visibility. For example, in the fields of AI agents and virtual assets (despite the tokens themselves being homogeneous), especially when targeting non-crypto native users, the specialized advantage is more pronounced.
Capital formation ability: For projects with a commercial nature, the ability to raise funds in the early stages may impact ultimate success or failure. Does the platform's issuance mechanism and coverage help achieve higher levels of capital formation?
Practicality: As mentioned earlier, the practicality of assets can directly attract traffic.
In summary, when assessing new platforms from the perspective of 'traffic', it is necessary to consider: Why do deployers choose this platform? What are the current reasons for their choices? Is this differentiation sticky and scalable?
Market perspective
Here is my analysis of the trends of mainstream Launchpads in the market (noting the chains they belong to):
BonkFun: Industry leader with significant meme advantages. Its leading position is more stable than imagined, and unless a completely new incentive mechanism platform appears, it will be difficult to shake.
Raydium, Jup, Orca (coming soon): Assets lack differentiation, technology has been standardized, but they can still maintain traffic due to brand and capital advantages. The focus of competition lies in business expansion; whoever can attract more platform partnerships and better support popular tokens will win.
Pump.fun: Lacks differentiation before launching more streaming features, and traffic is dwindling. Unless incentive measures are initiated or new products are released, it will be difficult to regain its peak in the short term. Aggressive acquisitions or capital operations may become variables.
Block: Has differentiation at the asset level due to its partnership with WLFI.
Zora: (deployed on Base chain) It has become a leading platform relying on the traffic of the Base ecosystem, but due to asset homogeneity, its market share may decline as more platforms enter (though support from the Base camp may reverse this trend).
Doppler: As the 'Launchpad of Launchpad', it has high industry recognition and good development prospects.
MetaDAO: Asset creation is differentiated, but needs to prove the value of its governance mechanism.
Vertigo: Assets lack differentiation (anti-sniping technology has been standardized), but there are still opportunities to attract deployers.
Believe: (deployed on BNB Smart Chain) The core advantage lies in traffic, but currently there is a loss of deployers and market sentiment is unclear. I still have expectations for this project and need to assess its health through newly launched projects.
heaven: (deployed on BNB Smart Chain) The design is excellent, but the core issue is how to attract high-quality deployers, and its investors may provide support.
The Metagame (deployed on BNB Smart Chain), Trends: Details are unknown, but the team consists of seasoned crypto-native players (this is crucial), and there is hope for a breakthrough in the social field.
Summary
Verticalization is an important opportunity, but actual value must be created.
Early positioning is easier to yield returns than betting on 'defensive' or market growth.
Novelty should be valued.
