Solana Launchpad Battle: Why Can the New Platform Take Bonk's Place?

How to see if the assets of the new platform are special enough? Where does the real money "traffic" that can attract come from?

Written by: Squid | drift

Compiled by: Saoirse, Foresight News

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 the chaos in the industry and provoke thought. We start with the core issue:

Why would users choose the 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 related, due to the fact that funds are a scarce resource, bidders are the core group we focus on first.

If you want to analyze why buyers choose the new platform over the leading platforms, the answer is simple: they believe the new platform has more opportunities to make money. However, many of these factors are beyond the platform's control, so this article focuses on the two major driving factors that the platform can control:**

• Assets: Can the platform create assets with significantly differentiated value?
• Flows: Does the platform have a differentiated deployer process?

Let's dive deeper.

Assets

There are mainly two reasons why people buy tokens: one is speculation (believing that the token will appreciate), and the other is practicality (the token has actual uses).

• Speculative aspects: There are many driving factors for speculation, mainly including memes (such as Meme coins) and fundamentals (such as the value brought by capital reserves, cash flow, etc.).

However, Launchpad cannot create differentiation on a speculative level. Memes are spontaneous and rely on the market, while fundamental factors such as returns are ultimately determined by the project party or product.

• Practical aspects: Practicality is relatively flexible, that is, "Besides speculation, why do people buy tokens?" (Of course, practicality is closely related to speculation, as practicality can drive speculation). For example, access permissions for tokens, fee discounts, governance rights, etc., all fall under the category of practicality.

Launchpad can create advantages in practicality by providing differentiated supporting infrastructure and tools, allowing deployers to connect from the very first day of going live. This type of support can take various forms, but competition may be more focused on platforms concentrated in vertical fields. It is important to note that the supporting infrastructure must not only endow tokens with unique utility but also create "valuable utility", meaning there should be a compelling reason for users to make a purchase.

Social Token Case: Ego vs Time.Fun

Both attempt to tokenize social influence, and each creator can only issue one "soulbound token" linked to their Twitter account.

• The Ego token is owned by the creator, but lacks direct utility. This "flexibility" leads to a lack of motivation for the creator to build utility, ultimately making its token no different in essence from the tokens of the Pump platform.
• Time.Fun is different. It has built-in utility functions for tokens, allowing creators to quickly generate value and profit through tokens, thus achieving sustained user engagement.

(Note: I acknowledge the Ego team, and I chose this case because I believe they will continue to optimize.)

Moreover, "providing utility" does not equal "creating value." For example, many tokenization platforms based on tweets integrate tweets into supporting facilities, forming "value-based curated social interactions." While this is a type of utility, if no one uses the social interactions, their value becomes zero. Such platforms often struggle to create real value.

It is worth noting that creating value is not an easy task and requires careful evaluation of whether the supporting facilities or designs are truly valuable. At the same time, differentiation is relative. The currently popular features in the industry, such as "token buyback tools" and "binding project economics with token flywheels," may have value in the short term, but will soon become standardized technology. Once differentiation is lost, it will no longer be attractive.

In summary, when evaluating the new platform from the perspective of "assets", one must consider: where does the differentiation of the tokens lie? Does this differentiation add value to the tokens?

The areas I am currently focused on include: incentive-based distributed training, next-generation decision markets (which have some interesting mechanisms), niche real-world assets (which have some novel designs), and initial coin offering mechanisms (ICM, which are in the early stages and have great potential).

Flows

Next, let's discuss another differentiating factor: the exclusive deployer "traffic." This is similar to the venture capital "deal flow," the core issue is whether the platform can attract the hottest projects to go live.

From the perspective of limited partners (LPs), one of the key assessments of venture capital firms is whether they have access to high-quality exclusive deal flows. This logic also applies to Launchpad. The return structures of both are similar (leading projects contribute most of the trading volume/income), and the essence is "to let those who create value choose you rather than homogeneous competitors."

For example, a contrary view holds that the initial success of Believe is not due to the mechanism design (in fact, I do not agree with this design), but rather because its founder Pasternak was able to attract Web2 entrepreneurs who would not originally issue tokens — this is the value of traffic.

Large platforms inherently possess traffic advantages: 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.

The following 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 garner social support for the tokens after the project goes live? (e.g., Pasternak)
• Development Momentum: Does the platform have successful launch cases? For example, Bonk's Launchpad has successfully incentivized more people to issue and auction tokens due to its token issuance success, creating a "social flywheel effect." Early platforms should screen quality projects to provide in-depth support, as several failed launches can potentially destroy a platform, since the flywheel effect is bidirectional.
• Professional Positioning: If the platform focuses on a specific niche, having a specialized community can enhance project visibility. For example, in the AI agency and virtual asset fields (even though the tokens themselves are homogeneous), the advantages of specialization are even more pronounced, especially when the platform targets non-crypto native users.
• Capital Formation Ability: For projects with a commercial orientation, the financing capacity in the early stages of launch may affect the final success or failure. Does the platform's issuance mechanism and coverage assist in achieving a higher level of capital formation?
• Practicality: As mentioned earlier, the practicality of an asset can directly attract traffic.

In summary, when evaluating the new platform from the perspective of "traffic", one needs to consider: why did the deployer choose this platform? What are the reasons for their current choice? Does this differentiation have stickiness and scalability?

Market View

Here is my analysis of the trends of mainstream Launchpads in the market (excluding those marked with their respective chains on Solana):

• BonkFun: An industry leader with significant meme advantages. Its leading position is more solid than imagined, and it will be difficult to shake unless a completely new incentive mechanism platform emerges.
• Raydium, Jup, Orca (coming soon): Asset differentiation is non-existent, and the technology has been standardized, but they can still maintain traffic due to brand and capital advantages. The focus of competition lies in business development; whoever can attract more platform partnerships and better support popular tokens will prevail.
• Pump.fun: Lacks differentiation before launching more streaming features, and traffic is currently declining. It will be difficult to return to its peak in the short term unless incentive measures are launched or new products are released. Aggressive acquisitions or financial maneuvers may become variables.
• Block: Differentiated at the asset level due to collaboration with WLFI.
• Zora:* (deployed on the Base chain) *relies on the traffic of the Base ecosystem to become a leading platform, but due to asset homogeneity, its market share may decline as more platforms enter the market (however, support from the Base camp may be able to reverse this trend).
• Doppler: Known as the "Launchpad of Launchpad", it has a high industry recognition and a promising development outlook.
• MetaDAO: Asset creation is differentiated, but the value of the governance mechanism needs to be proven.
• Vertigo: Asset non-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, deployers are leaving, 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) *excellent design, the core issue is how to attract high-quality deployers, whose investors may provide assistance.
• The Metagame* (deployed on BNB Smart Chain) *, Trends: Details are unknown, but the team consists of experienced crypto-native players (this is crucial) and is expected to break through in the social domain.

Summary

• Verticalization is an important opportunity, but real value must be created.
• Early positioning is easier to yield returns than betting on "defensive" or market growth.
• Novelty should be valued.