Written by: @0xIT4I
Compiled by: AididiaoJP, Foresight News
All meme coins are ultimately destined to decline; they are the tokenized mapping of trends, and trends are born to be replaced.
Sometimes they reflect certain social movements, but movements in human history also rise and fall. Very few can withstand the test of time (such as DOGE, SPX).
Ghibli-style hype wave March 25 - 27, 2025
Trashy shanzhai coins are the basement of the crypto world, forever filled with pump and dump schemes, running away with funds, scam tactics, bundled transactions, and insider operations; this is its essence. But these are also the reasons we love this basement: without risk, there is no advantage, and advantage is the foundation of this highly competitive market we are passionate about. This article cannot change the overall environment, but perhaps it can change the land beneath our feet.
Monetary policy and waves of innovation are the two forces that determine the tone of each cycle. Policy determines how much oxygen the market has, while innovation decides whether there is anything worth breathing. Currently, the policy is tightening, and apart from the real-world AI chip craze, our field lacks new hotspots (perhaps privacy and perpetual DEX count, but they are far from the grassroots battlefield), hence the market performance meets expectations.
Before expressing your views, ask yourself: how much of your opinion is derived from the fear of asset depreciation or anxiety about declining company revenues? This article does not attack industry infrastructure providers like @Pumpfun and @AxiomExchange; I admire @a1lon9 and closely collaborate with many excellent founders in the field we are about to discuss.
My goal is to empower users: provide knowledge that could become the cornerstone of the next competitive environment, ultimately promoting fairness and repairing the parts of the industry that can be improved.
Core of the Problem
The fundamental contradiction in the current meme coin space lies in the massive imbalance between production costs and speculative costs.
Zero-cost token issuance has brought positive impacts: it lowered the entry barrier for external builders, broke technical monopolies, and promoted a more competitive and open market.
But the gap created between production and speculation is hard to sustain. This structure resembles a system loophole, where the speed of value loss exceeds accumulation.
The problem lies not only with issuance platforms or trading terminals but at a deeper project level.
AI has broken through professional barriers; what used to take Harvard technocrats three months can now be done by a teenager in Australia in a week in a basement. The decades-long connection between labor and growth has already broken.
This matter has far-reaching implications, but in the context of this article, it exacerbates the same problem: production has become cheap not only at the token issuance level but also at the project operation and content creation levels.
The connection between labor and growth has broken, and "garbage flooding" has spread to every public chain.
Current speculative ecological pattern
@AxiomExchange, @gmgn_ai, and other trading terminals, as well as @SigmaTrading (I am honored to serve as an advisor) and @MaestroBots, all charge a fee of 1%. Platforms like @Pumpfun charge about 1% before tokens reach a market value of 3-4 million (most tokens cannot break through). Four.meme also charged 1% before migration. According to data from @bonkfun's website, the trading volume in the past 24 hours was 2.4 million, with a fee of 23,000 USD, and the fee rate remains around 1%.
Therefore, the industry standard for grassroots battlefield speculation is 2% (1% issuance fee + 1% terminal fee).
As a reference, compare mainstream spot trading fee rates:
@binance 0.10% / 0.10%
@krakenfx 0.16% / 0.26%
@okx 0.08% / 0.10%
Of course, I understand that large traders and KOLs can receive rebates, and centralized exchanges also have tiered fee rates. Let's estimate generously:
The fee gap remains at 10-15 times.
Does this mean that the cost for ordinary retail investors to purchase cheap assets (easy to produce) is 10-15 times that of institutional investors purchasing expensive assets (hard to produce)?
If this is not a problem, then you might as well go back to playing (Fortnite).
How did the current situation form?
There are various reasons: barriers to competitive network effects, early-stage market, inexperienced young participants, inadequate builder capabilities, or bad intentions.
But fundamentally, it lies in the unique culture of this field.
Most tokens represent "trends"; holding them is like joining a "team", "movement", or "cultural circle".
Participants mistakenly extend this cultural identity to infrastructure choices, valuing sentiment over efficiency and fairness.
Project parties understand this well and leverage it for profit.
It's like a small soccer club in Eastern Europe: they would rather spend money on flags than build a roof over the stadium; willing to watch games in the rain, losing potential viewers who value comfort.
Imagine a Bitcoin minimalist paying 15 times the fee to prove a point on an exchange called "There is no second best"—absurd, right?
Solution
To treat the symptoms, one must diagnose the problem; while there is no perfect solution, it is meaningless to criticize without suggesting.
My suggestions are divided into two aspects: users and providers.
Users need to act collectively: read and share this type of content more, clarify what "better" means, and actively demand it. Give new platforms a chance, test experiences, and provide feedback. You might discover the next wealth opportunity. Encounter a competitor with lower fees? Try it decisively. If everyone does this, the market will return to fairness.
For providers, reform requires even more courage:
The issuance platforms and trading terminals' fees will ultimately align with 0.1%, in line with traditional financial markets. While it is an inevitable trend, it may be too early at the moment. Therefore, it is recommended:
Fees should dynamically match demand; this is the logic of modern service industries:
Hotel prices rise during holidays.
Electricity prices increase during heat waves.
Delivery prices increase during heavy rain.
Shipping costs rise during trade peaks.
Short rates increase when loopholes explode.
When the Bitcoin and Ethereum networks are congested, gas fees rise.
Countless cases prove: dynamic balance is the key to sustainability.
So why should we pay 2% for neglected garbage coins?
A simple formula for assessing "demand": trading volume ÷ time × market value. This reflects the trading demand heat of assets at a specific moment. Note: the core is trading demand, not asset value itself.
There is trading demand → charge a basic premium.
Strong demand → raise the premium.
Obscure potential coins → no fees.
This move will produce multiple effects:
Incentivize early value discoverers to enjoy low fees during the potential stage.
Reward early discoverers and provide first-mover advantages.
Push project parties to implement roadmaps, exchanging results for market heat.
Guide funds to quality assets, letting hollow speculation bear its costs.
Extend price cycles and reduce volatility by suppressing FOMO to achieve healthy growth.
Challenges are even more severe for trading terminals and bots.
One can learn from @vnovakovski's model of transforming perpetual DEX through @Lighter_xyz: basic functions are free + premium services are charged.
Pursuing low latency? Purchase the premium version.
Need an API interface? Purchase the premium version.
Multiple wallet management?
Accumulate airdrop points?
There are many solutions; please feel free to express them.
Dear terminal merchants, face the reality: user loyalty to the platform is nearly zero. When most terminal revenues drop over 90% from peak, during the next wave, it will either be you or your competitor who will provide fairer services with the same technology.
"I am a realist, not for honor, but for reward."
Final Chapter
The next industry bonus belongs to those who resist greed. Charge less and earn more; this is the inevitable rule of the modern market. Platforms that align with users' fundamental needs for fairness will win the future.
Users must demand better, which requires cognitive upgrades. The responsibility does not lie with the current providers but with the consumers who need improvement; the market will adapt.
The solution is not limited to this; it is just one of the paths I firmly believe in.
Forever grateful to Pumpfun, Trojan, and Banana Bot; they are the foundation of my growth. But times change, and so do responsibilities.
My core proposition is: recognize and promote that inevitable transformation.
