Believe price

Written by: Squid | drift Compiled by: Saoirse, Foresight News There are already dozens of homogeneous launchpads on Solana, and more are being added every day. This article aims to provide a simple framework to help comb through the chaos in the industry and provoke thought. Let's start with the core question: Why would users choose the new Launchpad over Pump.Fun (or Bonk today)? Users can be divided into two categories: bidders and deployers. Although these two groups are highly related, bidders are the core group we focus on first because funds are scarce resources. To analyze why buyers choose new platforms over top platforms, the answer is simple: they believe that new platforms offer more opportunities to make money. But many of these factors are beyond the control of the platform, so this article focuses on two drivers that the platform can control: Assets: Can the platform create assets with significant differentiated value? Flows: Does the platform have a differentiated deployer flow? Let's dive in. Assets There are two main reasons why people buy tokens: speculation (thinking that tokens will appreciate in value), and practicality (tokens have practical uses). Speculative level: There are many drivers of speculation, mainly including memes (such as meme coins) and fundamentals (such as capital reserves, cash flow, etc.). But Launchpad cannot differentiate itself at the speculative level. Memes are spontaneous and market-dependent, while fundamental factors such as earnings are ultimately determined by the project party or product. Practical level: The practicality is more flexible, that is, "why do people buy tokens except for speculation?" (Of course, practicality is closely related to speculation, because practicality drives speculation). For example, token access rights, fee discounts, governance rights, etc. are all practical categories. Launchpad provides a practical advantage by providing differentiated supporting infrastructure and tools, allowing deployers to access from day one. This type of support comes in various forms, but competition may be focused on more focused platforms in verticals. It should be noted that supporting facilities should not only give the token unique utility, but also create "valuable utility", that is, give users a reason to buy. Social Token Case: Ego vs Time.Fun Both attempt to tokenize social influence, and each creator can only issue one "soul-bound token" tied to their Twitter account. Ego's tokens, while owned by the creators, lack direct use. This "flexibility" leads to a lack of incentive for creators to build utility, ultimately making their tokens indistinguishable from those of the Pump platform. Time.Fun is different. It has built-in utility features for the token, allowing creators to quickly create value and monetize the token, thus achieving continuous user activity. (Note: I recognize the Ego team and chose this case because I believe they will continue to optimize.) ） In addition, "providing utility" does not mean "creating value". For example, many tweet-based tokenization platforms integrate tweets into supporting facilities to form "value-based curated social streams." This is a utility, but if no one uses the social stream, its value is zero. These platforms often struggle to create real value. It is worth noting that creating value is not an easy task, and it is necessary to carefully evaluate whether the supporting facilities or design are truly valuable. At the same time, differentiation is relative. Functions such as "token buyback tools" and "project economy and token flywheel binding" are currently popular in the industry, but they will soon become standardized technologies. Once differentiation is lost, it is no longer attractive. In summary, when evaluating a new platform from the perspective of "assets", it is necessary to consider: where is the differentiation of tokens? Does this differentiation add value to the token? My current focus includes: incentivized distributed training, next-generation decision markets (with some interesting mechanics), niche real-world assets (with some novel designs), and initial coin issuance mechanisms (ICM, which are in the early stages and have great potential). Flows Next, let's look at another differentiator: dedicated deployer "traffic". This is similar to the "transaction flow" of venture capital, and the core is whether the platform can attract the hottest projects to the list. From a limited partner (LP) perspective, one of the keys to evaluating a venture capital firm is whether it has a high-quality captive deal flow. The same logic applies to Launchpad. The return structure of the two is similar (the top project contributes most of the transaction volume/revenue), and the essence is "let the value creator choose you over the homogeneous competitor". For example, a contrarian view is that Believe's initial success did not stem from the mechanical design (in fact, I don't agree with this design), but because its founder, Pasternak, was able to attract Web2 entrepreneurs who would not have issued tokens in the first place - this is the value of traffic. Large platforms are inherently traffic advantages: they have users, ecological integration capabilities, and distribution channels. But user attention is a scarce resource, and new platforms must rely on real differentiation to attract traffic. Here are a few common factors in traffic differentiation: Founder influence: The crypto industry circle is small, and connections are crucial. Do platform founders have enough social resources to attract deployers? Can we gain social support for the token after the project goes live? (e.g. Pasternak) Development momentum: Is there a successful launch case of the platform? For example, Bonk's Launchpad has been successful in its token issuance, incentivizing more people to issue and bid on it, forming a "social flywheel effect". Early platforms should screen high-quality projects to provide in-depth support, and a few failed launches may destroy a platform, after all, the flywheel effect is a two-way street. Specialized positioning: If the platform focuses on a certain segment, having a professional community can increase project exposure. For example, in the field of AI agents and virtual assets (although the token itself is homogeneous), the advantages of specialization are more pronounced, especially when the platform is aimed at non-crypto-native users. Capital formation capacity: For projects with commercial attributes, the financing capacity in the early stages of launch may affect the final success or failure. Does the platform's issuance mechanism and coverage contribute to higher levels of capital formation? Practicality: As mentioned earlier, the utility of an asset can directly attract traffic. In summary, when evaluating a new platform from the perspective of "traffic", it is important to consider: Why did the deployer choose the platform? What is the reason for their current choice? Is this differentiation sticky and scalable? Market view Here's my analysis of the direction of mainstream Launchpads in the market (chains that are not marked on Solana): BonkFun: An industry leader with a significant meme advantage. Its leading position is more stable than imagined, and it will be difficult to shake unless a new incentive mechanism platform appears. Raydium, Jup, Orca (coming soon): No differentiation of assets, standardized technology, but still able to maintain traffic with brand and capital advantages. The focus of competition is on business expansion, who can attract more platform cooperation and who can better support popular tokens. Pump.fun: Lack of differentiation before more streaming features are being introduced, and traffic is being lost. Unless incentives are launched or new products are released, it will be difficult to return to the top in the short term. Aggressive takeovers or funding operations can be variable. Block: Differentiated at the asset level due to the cooperation with WLFI. Zora: (Deployed on the Base chain) Relying on the traffic of the Base ecosystem to become the leading platform, due to asset homogeneity, its market share may decline as more platforms enter the market (but the support of the Base camp may be able to reverse this trend). Doppler: As a "Launchpad of Launchpad", it has high industry recognition and good development prospects. MetaDAO: Asset creation is differentiated, but the value of the governance mechanism needs to be demonstrated. Vertigo: No differentiation of assets (anti-sniper technology is standardized), but still has the opportunity to attract deployers. Believe: (Deployed on BNB Smart Chain) The core advantage is traffic, but the current deployment is lost and market sentiment is unclear. I still have expectations for the project, and I need to evaluate its health through the new launch. heaven: (Deployed on BNB Smart Chain) is well-designed, and the core problem is how to attract high-quality deployers, and its investors may be able to help. The Metagame (deployed on BNB Smart Chain), Trends: Details are unknown, but the team is a veteran crypto-native player (which is crucial) and is expected to break through in the social space. summary Verticalization is an important opportunity, but it must create real value. Early layout is more likely to pay off than betting on "defensive" or market growth. Novelty should be valued.