【51% retracement zone—what are long-term funds looking at?】
Most people see PUMP fall from its peak by half and their first reaction is, “It’s going to drop further.”
But I’ll tell you an anti-intuitive truth: what truly manages to crawl out of this kind of deep retracement historically isn’t usually driven by “it has fallen enough,” but by “business logic getting verified.”
In the past few days, Hyperliquid and Pump.fun spent $638 million on token buybacks. On the surface, this looks like good news—project teams are buying their own coins. But what I care about is the other side: where did this money come from?
The answer is simple: real revenue.
Pump.fun takes a commission from meme-coin issuance every day, and Hyperliquid has real trading volume that accumulates. This money isn’t printed—it’s real cash flowing in from users’ pockets, then circulating back into the ecosystem. That’s the key.
So the question isn’t “can PUMP rebound,” but “can PUMP’s underlying business keep generating blood.”
From the data, trading volume is unusually amplified, key support at 0.004057 is holding, and the Fear & Greed Index is still in the greed zone at 63. These signals suggest the battle between bulls and bears is intensifying. But after intensifying, whether it moves up or down doesn’t depend on the candlesticks—it depends on whether the market can continuously validate this business logic.
I’ve seen too many projects pump via buybacks, only to keep dropping after the buybacks are done. What’s the difference? Can it be sustained? Can income cover the scale of the buybacks? Do users still want to keep using it?
I don’t have a definitive answer to that, but I tend to believe: if the underlying business is running, long-term funds have already started looking.
Do you believe this wave can truly land?
Most people see PUMP fall from its peak by half and their first reaction is, “It’s going to drop further.”
But I’ll tell you an anti-intuitive truth: what truly manages to crawl out of this kind of deep retracement historically isn’t usually driven by “it has fallen enough,” but by “business logic getting verified.”
In the past few days, Hyperliquid and Pump.fun spent $638 million on token buybacks. On the surface, this looks like good news—project teams are buying their own coins. But what I care about is the other side: where did this money come from?
The answer is simple: real revenue.
Pump.fun takes a commission from meme-coin issuance every day, and Hyperliquid has real trading volume that accumulates. This money isn’t printed—it’s real cash flowing in from users’ pockets, then circulating back into the ecosystem. That’s the key.
So the question isn’t “can PUMP rebound,” but “can PUMP’s underlying business keep generating blood.”
From the data, trading volume is unusually amplified, key support at 0.004057 is holding, and the Fear & Greed Index is still in the greed zone at 63. These signals suggest the battle between bulls and bears is intensifying. But after intensifying, whether it moves up or down doesn’t depend on the candlesticks—it depends on whether the market can continuously validate this business logic.
I’ve seen too many projects pump via buybacks, only to keep dropping after the buybacks are done. What’s the difference? Can it be sustained? Can income cover the scale of the buybacks? Do users still want to keep using it?
I don’t have a definitive answer to that, but I tend to believe: if the underlying business is running, long-term funds have already started looking.
Do you believe this wave can truly land?