Pump.fun is in a mess! The buyback price of 188 million coins continues to fall, and the airdrop has disappointed, causing the community to explode.

Pump.fun spent nearly $188 million to repurchase Tokens, yet the coin price continues to decline. From battling bonk.fun to completing one of the largest ICOs in Crypto Assets history, it has now sparked strong dissatisfaction due to neglecting the ecosystem and failing to fulfill Airdrop promises. Pump.fun has spent about $188 million of its transaction fee revenue to repurchase 12.227% of the total supply of PUMP, but it has not improved the coin price.

Buyback of 188 million USD cannot save the coin price

As of November 27, Pump.fun has spent nearly 1 million SOL (approximately 188 million USD) in transaction fee revenue to repurchase 12.227% of the total supply of $PUMP. This scale of repurchase is extremely rare in Crypto Assets projects and should theoretically provide strong support for the coin price. The logic behind the repurchase mechanism is: reduce circulating supply → supply-demand imbalance → price increase. However, the continuous and large-scale repurchase has not resulted in any improvement in Pump.fun's coin price, which continues to decline.

This abnormal phenomenon reveals the fundamental problem faced by Pump.fun: it is not a supply issue, but a demand issue. When the market loses confidence in the project, even if the supply decreases by 12%, as long as the demand falls by more than this ratio, the price will still drop.$PUMP The continuous decline in coin price reflects the market's disappointment in the Pump.fun management team and the project's prospects.

From an economic perspective, the effect of buybacks depends on the market's interpretation of the motivation behind the buyback. If the market views the buyback as a sign of management's confidence in the long-term value of the project, it will have a positive effect. However, if the market perceives the buyback as an attempt to save a collapse or compensate for other mistakes, the effect may be counterproductive. The situation with Pump.fun clearly falls into the latter category, as the large buyback is seen as “a dying horse treated as a live horse,” failing to reverse market sentiment.

Ironically, the funds used for buybacks by Pump.fun come from the platform's fee income, which essentially stems from users' trading costs. Users pay high transaction fees expecting the platform to use the funds for ecosystem development, product optimization, or user incentives, only to find that the funds are used for buybacks to maintain coin prices. This way of using funds raises the question of “who is being served”: Is Pump.fun serving the users or the Token holders?

Pump.fun Buyback Data

Repurchase Amount: Nearly 1 million SOL (approximately 188 million USD)

Repurchase Ratio: Accounts for 12.227% of total supply

Effect: The coin price continues to decline, and the buyback fails.

Source of Funds: Platform transaction fee income

2.6 million followers big V public bombing

The day before yesterday, Mario Nawfal, a major influencer with over 2.6 million fans, publicly criticized Pump.fun on his alternate account: “Even if Pump.fun is a for-profit company, their actions are baffling. Solana has been struggling, yet they sold SOL in the billion-dollar range. They completed the ICO of $PUMP a few months ago and promised an Airdrop, but have yet to deliver, nor have they reinvested in the entire ecosystem. Even setting aside the moral aspect of what this company should be doing, from a business standpoint, how can we expect them to continue thriving when they so blatantly disregard the ecosystem that enabled their success?”

This could be the largest public criticism of Pump.fun we have seen so far from a KOL. Mario Nawfal has a huge influence in the crypto community, and his public criticism could trigger a chain reaction, prompting more KOLs and users to express their dissatisfaction. This kind of reputational crisis is deadly for platforms that rely on network effects.

Just a few hours after this tweet, Pump.fun announced a community grant of $10,000 each for 6 meme coins within its ecosystem. This action is purely adding fuel to the fire and was mercilessly mocked by the “trench”. In the comments section of this tweet, there are many angry responses: “I c your”, “So f*cking funny”, “You guys earn so much money every day and then only give these meme coins that have been struggling to build in your ecosystem $10,000? What can $10,000 do?”

The community incentive of 60,000 USD (10,000 each for 6 projects) seems indeed trivial compared to the platform's 300 million USD in transaction fees. This “charity-style” incentive has instead deepened the community's anger, as it highlights the platform's stinginess and disregard for the ecosystem. If Pump.fun truly supports the ecosystem, it should at least allocate 10%-20% of its transaction fee revenue (i.e., 30 million to 60 million USD) to establish an ecological fund, rather than a symbolic 60,000 USD.

Glass Full Foundation reports a total loss of 1.37 million

In August of this year, when Pump.fun faced a vigorous challenge from bonk.fun, they launched the Glass Full Foundation, spending approximately 1.7 million dollars to purchase some meme coins that performed well within their ecosystem. This initiative was seen at the time as a positive signal of Pump.fun's support for the ecosystem, attracting the support of many project parties and users.

But since then, Pump.fun has not supported its own ecosystem meme coins with real money. About two weeks ago, the “last survivor” in the Glass Full Foundation $neet also fell below the price when Pump.fun bought in, and the holdings of the Glass Full Foundation have all suffered losses, with a total loss of approximately 1.37 million dollars. This bleak outcome is not only a financial loss but also a questioning of Pump.fun's judgment and execution capabilities.

Players who firmly stand by Pump.fun in the battle against bonk.fun, as well as those who hope that Pump.fun can take on the heavy responsibility of revitalizing the meme market, can only be as disappointed as they are. They hope that Pump.fun can properly support its own ecosystem, instead of suddenly rushing to engage in CCM (live streaming Token), then suddenly engaging in ICM, and ultimately making a mess of everything.

The large repurchase yet sluggish $PUMP coin price, under the increasingly despondent player sentiment and disappointment, is gradually being questioned. “How do you explain that $PUMP repurchased over 10% yet still fell below the issue price?” This question has been repeatedly raised in the community, but Pump.fun has never provided a convincing answer.

10 Days of Silence and AI Opens Fire

In this situation, the official Pump.fun Twitter account, as well as the official Twitter account of Pump.fun co-founder Alon, inexplicably fell into a silence lasting about 10 days, with not a single tweet. Even the previous important update from Pump.fun, “Mayhem Mode,” was not mentioned by the official Pump.fun account. This silence during a crisis is interpreted by the community as a sign of evading responsibility or preparing to run away.

By the way, the “Mayhem Mode” is also an update that has been heavily criticized by players. With the Solana meme market in decline, the lowering of the Token graduation threshold and the mechanism of randomly purchasing the mode's Token through transaction fees incurred when activating this mode are seen as Pump.fun depleting resources. This design encourages the issuance of more low-quality Tokens, dilutes the overall ecological quality, and sacrifices long-term health for short-term transaction fee revenue.

The unreasonable silence made aixbt, this AI, fire at Pump.fun: “Pump.fun charged a fee of 300 million USD, but the Token graduation rate is only 0.7% now. There are 12,610 launches daily, of which 98 are successful. The platform profits from 99.3% of failed Token launches. The team suddenly disappeared 13 days ago, during the week of the highest trading volume ever. It is claimed that their buyback is just shifting from one hand to the other, and this product itself is a value juicer.”

This criticism is extremely sharp, pointing out the essential problem with Pump.fun's business model: the platform profits by charging fees from 99.3% of failed projects, while the losses from these failed projects are borne by retail investors. The 0.7% graduation rate means that out of every 1,000 issued Tokens, only 7 can succeed, while the remaining 993 go to zero or close to zero. This extremely low success rate exposes the predatory characteristics of the platform.

Lookonchain Rumors and Pale Justifications

(Source: Trading View)

Subsequently, a tweet from Lookonchain sparked market rumors that “Pump.fun has run away”: “It looks like Pump.fun has cashed out at least $436.5 million since October 15.” This tweet finally led to Pump.fun being “dead in the water.” Pump.fun co-founder Sapijiju tweeted that Lookonchain's tweet was completely untrue, stating that Pump.fun has not cashed out any funds, but merely transferred the funds raised from the ICO to different wallets so that the company can use these funds for business development investments.

This explanation is clearly weak. Pump.fun has only disclosed the acquisitions of Kolscan and Padre, the former being a tool that tracks KOL trading profits and losses, and the latter being a trading terminal. When the news of the acquisition of Padre was announced, Pump.fun also announced that the Padre Token would no longer be used on the platform, and there are no further future plans.

Imagine a company in Web2 being acquired, and then just 2 minutes after the shareholders are happy, they are told that all their stocks are void. This is the cold and ruthless tragedy that happened that night, where those who didn't closely follow the tweet thread were left hanging at the top of the mountain, $PADRE and the original holders had no one to turn to. Holding a coin of a product → finally seeing it acquired by a big company in the industry → instantly doubling in joy → discovering that the acquirer says the Token is no longer useful and there are no future plans → being left high and dry.

Although the rumors about Pump.fun's exit are currently unfounded panic and Pump.fun has responded, this reflects the concentrated expression of market dissatisfaction. If Pump.fun is merely a calculating enterprise, but completely ignores human sentiment in its calculations, it cannot be called a shrewd calculator.

Airdrop Default and Community Trust Collapse

Of course, it's also possible that they have earned enough and don't care about anything anymore. After all, the airdrop has been saying “coming soon” since the tweet on July 9, and there are still no signs of any soon today. Alon said that the fourth quarter would be a brilliant quarter, but the result is a cold and empty mess. The opaque communication that shows no respect for the community and the joke-like community incentives have only increased players' disgust.

The failure to fulfill Airdrop commitments is the key factor that has led to the loss of community trust in Pump.fun. In the Crypto Assets field, Airdrops are an important means for project parties to establish trust with the community and reward early supporters. When project parties promise Airdrops but fail to deliver for a long time, the community perceives this as deception or contempt. Since July 9, nearly 5 months have passed, and “coming soon” has turned into a promise that will never arrive.

How does the “trench” say I love you, Pump.fun? The trenches refer to the early supporters in the crypto community who stick around for the long term, loyal and unwavering. These individuals chose sides during the competition between Pump.fun and bonk.fun and continued to use the platform even during market downturns; they were originally Pump.fun's most steadfast supporters. Now, the disappointment and anger of these individuals mark the collapse of the Pump.fun community foundation.