|

Pump.fun Co-Founder Says Fee Model Failed, Announces System Revamp

🚨

Pump.enjoyable co-founder Alon acknowledged that the platform’s creator fee mechanism has didn’t ship sustainable outcomes, prompting a serious system overhaul that can let merchants resolve which tokens deserve revenue-sharing preparations.

The admission comes because the Solana-based memecoin launcher faces mounting authorized strain and market-share erosion whereas trying to steadiness creator incentives with dealer participation.

Although there was some increased trading activity in latest days, it’s nowhere close to what it was earlier than.

The platform launched its first adjustments via a fee-sharing function that enables creators to distribute revenues amongst as much as 10 wallets, switch coin possession, and revoke replace authority.

The replace goals to deal with transparency points that beforehand pressured token holders to belief deployers to manually redirect charges to supposed recipients.

Dynamic Fees Drew Creators But Discouraged Trading

Alon defined that Dynamic Fees V1, launched months earlier, appeared initially profitable, attracting creators who had by no means used crypto purposes.

“Only per week later, the potential of the mechanism confirmed: an increasing number of creators—lots of which have by no means touched a crypto app earlier than—started organically launching cash and streaming on the platform,” he wrote.

The streaming meta that adopted doubled platform exercise, with bonding curve volumes surging 2x inside weeks of the charge construction’s implementation.

However, the mannequin created an imbalanced ecosystem by incentivizing low-risk coin creation over high-risk buying and selling exercise.

“Traders are the lifeblood of the platform,” Alon wrote, noting that profitable tokens require environments the place market members present liquidity, generate quantity, and take danger.

He added that “creator charges might have skewed the motivation for customers to interact in low-risk exercise (coin creation) as an alternative of high-risk exercise (buying and selling), which is harmful.“

Alon acknowledged that creator charges “are a fantastic device to incentivize high-quality Project Tokens” however admitted the platform “fails at offering a superb consumer expertise” for narratives that might use charges to lift undertaking ceilings.

The new system will implement “a market-based method, and let merchants resolve whether or not a story really deserves Creator Fees, and the way these must be used.”

He concluded on an optimistic word, stating that he’s “extraordinarily excited for what 2026 holds.”

Community Backlash Against Creator Fee Structure

The announcement drew sharp criticism from business observers who questioned whether or not the adjustments addressed elementary issues.

Unihax0r, a blockchain developer, dismissed the replace as gaslighting, writing: “All this message to announce: nothing. The trenches want their Hyperliquid second. We want a launchpad as a public good, the place 99% of the worth is redistributed to customers.“

He criticized Pump.enjoyable for renaming taxes as creator charges, arguing that “individuals who deploys should not ‘creators’. They don’t create something beneficial, if something it must be referred to as Extractor charges.“

Unihax0r claimed that deployers use industrialized instruments that launch 1000’s of tokens “in 2 clicks” whereas amassing substantial income with minimal effort, questioning why the platform “offers them probably the most upside” when “they NEED 10k deploys a day.“

A consumer with the X title of “Patience” proposed a less complicated resolution: “creator charges to 0% till a coin hits 1m+ mc, cost like 3 to five SOL to deploy a coin = downside solved.“

Meanwhile, “Easy” from K9 Strategy compared the adjustments unfavorably to the Bags app, arguing that the charge reassignment function would incentivize deployers to assign charges to unwilling recipients, creating strain campaigns during which “a bunch of bag holders hassle the ever residing hell out of that particular person” to acknowledge tokens they by no means supposed to launch.

Growing Legal Troubles and Treasury Controversy

Amid all these uncertainties brewing across the platform, a U.S. federal choose in December allowed plaintiffs so as to add practically 5,000 inside chat messages to a class-action lawsuit accusing Pump.Fun, Jito Labs, and Solana Foundation entities are working a coordinated enterprise that gave insiders precedence entry to newly launched tokens.

Judge Colleen McMahon granted permission to amend the criticism with proof from a whistleblower who resurfaced in September.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants marketed launches as truthful whereas secretly enabling transaction-order manipulation via maximal extractable worth practices.

Court filings estimate the platform generated over $722 million in income whereas inflicting between $4 billion and $5.5 billion in losses on retail merchants.

Separately, co-founder Sapijiju pushed back against allegations of a $436 million USDC cash-out, calling the claims “full misinformation” and describing the transfers as routine treasury administration.

The put up Pump.fun Co-Founder Says Fee Model Failed, Announces System Revamp appeared first on Cryptonews.

Similar Posts