$PONS

CF

@cfm_solx:cfm_sol · X / Twitter

QuoteSep 11, 08:45 AM

A more straightforward way to look at it is through application revenue. 24H: $PONS: $1.11M solana:6GmAFSYs4gk3FDao5FzzySQpPZaWsa4rUJHacpMpUNgx: $759.293K 7D: PONS: $10.46M STONK: $5.88M The gap is actually narrowing. And with the Solana ecosystem continuing to interact with STONK, the main difference right now is basically the buyback ratio. But once the ecosystem really starts to flourish, I think that difference could become relatively negligible.

CF

@cfm_solx:cfm_sol · X / Twitter

QuoteSep 10, 08:32 AM

Recently, a lot of people have been DMing me asking how I view $PONS, so I want to share my personal thoughts here. 0x39dbed3a2bd333467115de45665cc57f813c4571 PONS has fallen from nearly a $1B market cap to $620M. I think this is more like a valuation reset and profit-taking after an extreme rally, rather than a significant deterioration in PONS’ fundamentals. In fact, I think the fundamentals are still getting stronger. That said, I’m still cautious in the short term, but remain bullish on PONS in the medium to long term. The reason is that I think the opportunities in crypto are no longer centered around a single narrative. We are starting to see multiple narratives developing in parallel, and Attention is becoming an increasingly important one. PONS, HOOD, and PUMP are all representative projects in this category. So in my view, PONS’ positioning is changing. It is no longer just a Launchpad, but is gradually becoming an important infrastructure layer on RH Chain for capturing user attention, trading activity, and Meme flow — similar to what Pump is on Solana. But PONS and PUMP have taken different paths. PUMP relies on capital, users, and network effects, while PONS’ core model is: Permissionless Launch → Trading Volume → Revenue → Buyback → Burn And PONS is already generating real economic activity. Token creators have now earned $93M on Pons, while a large number of tokens continue to be launched and traded on the platform. So I think there are several reasons why PONS fell from $990M to $620M: First, the price moved up too quickly, accumulating a large amount of profit-taking pressure. Second, as PONS approached a $1B market cap, the market started shifting from “Can it keep going up?” to “How much is PONS actually worth?”, which naturally creates more valuation pressure. Third, the market is now trying to determine whether PONS’ current high revenue and trading volume represent a long-term trend, or simply a temporary peak driven by the RH Chain Meme boom. But the reasons I remain bullish are also clear. The most important things have not broken: RH Chain hasn’t broken — it is still growing. Pons hasn’t broken — it remains a core source of flow. Revenue hasn’t broken — previous revenue levels have already reached a very high level. Buyback/Burn hasn’t broken — more than 30% of the supply has already been burned, and it remains a real value-capture m…

CF

@cfm_solx:cfm_sol · X / Twitter

QuoteSep 10, 06:13 AM

$STONK revenue yesterday: $1,355,566, buybacks: $814,028, and 4.55M STONK burned. What’s worth noting is that this revenue is already getting close to $PONS. According to the latest data, over the past 24 hours, PONS generated $1.09M in revenue, while STONK generated $968,297. The only difference may be that one uses 80% of its revenue for buybacks, while the other uses 60%.

CF

@cfm_solx:cfm_sol · X / Twitter

QuoteSep 09, 08:02 AM

$Pons already has a large enough trading volume base to continuously generate protocol revenue.

CF

@cfm_solx:cfm_sol · X / Twitter

QuoteSep 08, 11:15 AM

A few days ago, I interviewed the founder of $PONS, @MEADGod , and asked him some questions that many people were interested in. Before this, I never expected him to agree to a written interview with me. I’d like to once again thank OZZY here.🫡

CF

@cfm_solx:cfm_sol · X / Twitter

QuoteSep 07, 02:59 PM

We just talked about how $SOCK could potentially become the $PONS of BSC, so now let’s look at the similarities and differences between the two. Both are token launchpads + platform tokens that use platform fees for buybacks. The base trading fee for both is 1%, with the same split: 70% to creators and 30% to the protocol. That 30% protocol share is mainly used to buy and burn the platform token, creating the flywheel: More Trading → More Buybacks → More Deflation Both also have locked liquidity, and both are moving toward the direction of new tokens × tokenized stock RWA. The differences For SOCK, the 30% protocol fee received by Sock Market is fully used to buy SOCK. After buying SOCK, 75% is directly burned and 25% is airdropped to SOCK holders. If the protocol receives a token launched by someone else as fees, it will first burn half of that token, then use the remaining half to buy SOCK. For PONS, 80% of the 30% protocol share is used to buy back and burn PONS, while the remaining 20% is kept for infrastructure and the team. The buyback portion is basically burned directly, without the additional layer of airdrops to token holders. On the product side SOCK is on BNB Chain, and one token can be traded against 2–10 stocks simultaneously. PONS is on RH Chain, and is closer to a traditional launchpad, with liquidity eventually moving to Uniswap V4, while also supporting pairings with stock tokens such as NVDA and AAPL. Simply put: The proportion of protocol revenue actually flowing into platform-token buybacks is higher for SOCK, while PONS’s proportion is slightly lower, but PONS is currently much larger in scale. But I think in the long run, the real question is not simply whether the money is immediately returned to the token. It comes down to whether the platform can survive and continue capturing trading volume. SOCK is more holder-friendly. The entire 30% protocol share goes into buybacks, which is then split into 75% burn + 25% airdrop. This allows holders to benefit from both deflation and cash flow. When trading activity comes in, the value flows back to holders in a cleaner way. The downside is that the team keeps almost no operating budget from trading fees. Later on, things like audits, product development, and competing for market share will require additional funding, either from earlier token allocations or other sources of revenue. And sinc…

CF

@cfm_solx:cfm_sol · X / Twitter

QuoteSep 07, 01:47 PM

Now let’s review the entire $PONS rally and the corresponding catalysts. There may be some inaccuracies, so feel free to discuss them in the comments. 0x39dbed3a2bd333467115de45665cc57f813c4571 If we look at the timeline, PONS’s rally was not driven by a single catalyst. Instead, as the RH Chain ecosystem developed, it gradually formed a complete process of expectation → catalyst realization → new expectations. Phase 1: RH Chain launches, and PONS becomes an early core infrastructure One of the biggest narratives around RH Chain itself is bringing stocks, ETFs, and other RWAs on-chain while building a native on-chain trading ecosystem. But one of the biggest problems for any new chain has always been: Where does the liquidity come from? PONS happened to solve this problem. It is not simply about launching a Meme. It positioned itself as the Meme Launchpad on RH Chain, allowing users to quickly create and trade Memes on-chain. Therefore, as users and capital entered RH Chain, PONS naturally became an important gateway for capturing on-chain trading demand. Phase 2: Trading volume starts growing, and PONS’s business model gets validated by the market PONS’s core flywheel is very simple: More Token Launches → More Trading → Higher Trading Volume → Higher Protocol Revenue → Buyback & Burn → Greater PONS Scarcity → More Attention → More Token Launches This is also the biggest difference between PONS and an ordinary Meme. It does not need to rely on the lifecycle of a single Meme. Instead, it can continuously generate revenue from trading activity across the entire Launchpad ecosystem. As PONS’s cumulative trading volume continued to grow, protocol revenue also started increasing significantly, and the market began to pay real attention to its revenue and value capture capabilities. Phase 3: Buyback & Burn becomes a core catalyst As trading volume increased, PONS started continuously using protocol revenue to buy back and burn the token. Previous data showed that PONS once reached around $544M in daily trading volume, with daily protocol revenue reaching around $1.2M. Around $880K of that was used for Buyback & Burn, equivalent to burning around 0.25% of the total supply in a single day. Within just a few days, cumulative Burn had exceeded 1% of the total supply, while cumulative protocol revenue also surpassed $10M. This made the market realize that PONS was not…