Table of Contents
- 1 1. Background – From the memecoin launchpad to the extremes of the attention economy
- 2 2. Implications – What do we truly want?
- 3 **Given the ethical concerns raised by Pump.Fun, should the focus be on regulating platforms like Pump.Fun or on addressing underlying issues of human behavior and greed within the decentralized finance ecosystem?**
Key Takeaways
- Pump.Fun, which started as a Solana-based memecoin launchpad, is writing a new history in blockchain applications. It took 217 days to achieve protocol revenue of $100M, which is remarkable in that it generated unprecedented revenue even without a token representing the app.
- However, there are people who abuse Pump.fun, which is all about capitalizing on interest and fun, and the extent of this is increasingly crossing ethical lines. Therefore, some people in the blockchain industry voiced the need to regulate Pump.Fun. And Pump.Fun was conscious of this public opinion and announced that it would discontinue the live streaming feature, which is the most fundamental cause of abuse of Pump.Fun.
- Although what is happening at Pump.Fun is morally and ethically inappropriate, and some of it is even illegal, we must think about whether it is really possible to stop and regulate it. This is because tools always have no purpose, and only the agent who performs actions with the tool has a purpose. Is regulating Pump.fun really the best option? There are quite a few points to think about in this regard.
[포필러스 김남웅] In 2024, the interest in and demand for memecoins was so great that the crypto market could be summarized in one word, ‘memecoins.’ Meme coins, which started as Dogecoin, are now being actively traded by issuing tokens of various animals, specific events, famous celebrities, and memes related to celebrities beyond just dogs. These tokens attracted more people’s attention as meme coins were created, achieving market capitalizations of 10 billion, 100 billion, and even 1 trillion.
And at the center of this memecoin supercycle is Solana and Pump.Fun, which has now become Solana’s flagship application. Pump.Fun is a memecoin launchpad that helped Solana become the main character of this memecoin supercycle. It allows anyone to easily issue tokens through a very simple UI, allowing various memecoins to be issued in real time. It was the biggest advantage. Of course, several Solana-based DeFi applications that provided infrastructure so that memecoins issued through Pump.Fun could be easily traded also benefited from the memecoin supercycle.
But did you say that it is a good thing (multiple demons)? Pump.Fun, which started as a memecoin launchpad and became a super hit, has now become a hot potato in the blockchain industry by demonstrating the extreme aspect of the attention economy. Accordingly, today we will talk about the current status of Pump.Fun, various controversies, and how these controversies are connected to Crypto’s Ethos.
1. Background – From the memecoin launchpad to the extremes of the attention economy
487.5 billion won. This is the profit earned by Pump.Fun as of the time the author writes (November 26, 2024). Considering that it has been less than a year since Pump.Fun was born, the revenue of approximately 500 billion won is truly an impressive figure (it took approximately 217 days to achieve $100 million in revenue). In terms of growth rate, Pump.Fun’s growth is unprecedented in the blockchain industry.
Of course, many factors may have contributed to the success of Pump.Fun, but in my opinion, the biggest success factor is that even people who are not familiar with crypto can use it relatively easily. In fact, Pump.Fun attracted a large number of famous people who were not actively using blockchain, creating word of mouth even outside the blockchain industry. Representative examples include Caitlyn Jenner and Iggy Azalea who issued their own tokens through Pump.Fun.
In addition, as the overall growth of the Solana ecosystem coincided with the growth of Pump.Fun, various memecoins were created and traded based on abundant liquidity and a strong community. And this naturally continued to increase the demand for Pump.Fun, the memecoin launchpad. What is even more surprising is that some of the tokens created through Pump.Fun have surpassed the symbolic market capitalization of $1 billion. Representative examples include $PNUT, a meme coin symbolizing the 2024 U.S. presidential election, and $GOAT, symbolizing the combination of AI and cryptocurrency, and these success stories have attracted more people to Pump.Fun.
Pump.Fun has a particularly noteworthy feature. It is a live streaming function that allows you to promote a specific token through real-time broadcasting like Twitch. Perhaps because the ability to interact with token holders in real time was so innovative, Pump.Fun’s profits continued to rise after the introduction of live streaming. However, the reason why Pump.Fun is currently at the center of controversy is precisely because of this live streaming.. Because real-time video transmission is possible and because meme coins are inherently driven by public interest, these two conditions combined have led some users to start showing off their tricks to generate profits.
This week on pump fun:
– Man pretending to be a dog
– Man sitting on a toilet and refusing to move until coin hits 25 million.
– Man threatening to shoot his dog if the coin doesn’t hit 1 million.
– Man threatening to hang himself if the coin doesn’t hit 1 million.
– Young…— T.M.A (@Tma_420) November 25, 2024
In the past week alone, 1) a human pretending to be a dog has been streaming, 2) not leaving the bathroom until the value of his token reaches $25 million, and 3) if the value of his token does not increase, his dog has been Some even threatened to shoot people to death, and 4) some minors threatened to shoot their families with a shotgun if the value of the token did not reach the value they wanted.
In addition, as dozens of travel events were live streamed a day, voices in the blockchain industry gathered together saying, “Government regulation is necessary,” and Pump.Fun eventually announced that it would stop live streaming in consideration of this public opinion.
Looking at the current situation, I had time to think again about the value of markets, humans, and freedom beyond simply blockchain and crypto.
2. Implications – What do we truly want?
Advocates of Bitcoin and blockchain argue that crypto and blockchain technology makes humans more free. Bitcoin also has great value as a neutral currency or neutral product, and blockchain networks also have If it is sufficiently decentralized It can be a neutral network in itself. Those who were enthusiastic about blockchain, at least in the early days, were excited because such a distributed system could not be stopped or interfered with by any specific entity.
Of course, because of these values, there are also those who view blockchain technology negatively. For example, Bill Gates slandered blockchain and crypto assets as “death technologies.” This is because assets that guarantee a certain level of anonymity, such as Bitcoin, have a high possibility of being abused for crimes such as drugs, prostitution, and contract murder. Nevertheless, crypto assets, including Bitcoin, are now heading toward the mainstream. In particular, the status of Bitcoin and crypto assets will rise further as Trump succeeds in re-election in the 2024 presidential election. Why is it that blockchain and crypto, which Bill Gates slandered as technologies of death, are now talking about being incorporated into the mainstream? This may be because they judged that the benefits of this technology outweigh the disadvantages.
All technologies have two sides. Furthermore, all ‘tools’ have two sides. The reason is that the subjects who use the tools are humans. According to the great German existentialist philosopher Martin Heidegger, the meaning of a tool is determined by the purpose and situation of human use. For example, a knife has meaning when it exists for humans to cut or slice something.
Bitcoin is also one of those ‘tools’. The fact that Bitcoin and crypto assets can be ‘used for bad purposes’ is similar to how a knife can be used for cooking, but can also be used to harm others. If a tool causes bad behavior, should we ban it? If so, you will also have to give up the efficiency and convenience that the tool brings. In that context, I think Bitcoin is becoming increasingly mainstream because it has more benefits than losses.
What about Pump.Fun? This is also the same. Many of the strange things happening at Pump.Fun are not created by Pump.Fun itself, but by the people who use Pump.Fun. The argument that Pump.Fun should be ‘banned’ because various eccentricities are taking place there is the same argument as saying that Bitcoin should be ‘banned’ because Bitcoin is being used in places such as drug trafficking and prostitution.
And even if the government or organization ‘bans’ blockchain or blockchain-based applications, does it mean that it will not actually be used? As long as the blockchain operates properly, it is nearly impossible for a specific entity to completely ban the blockchain or the applications implemented on it.
What I feel is disappointing is that those who work in crypto and criticized Bill Gates’ logic as “stupid” are also talking about banning or regulating Pump.fun using the same logic. I would like to ask them. Even if Bitcoin had to be regulated based on that logic, would you be willing to accept it? And do you think that by regulating Pump.Fun, things like eccentricity to attract people’s attention will disappear? (There were many other places that monetized attention, such as YouTube and Twitch, in addition to Pump.Fun.)
My answer is neither.
2.1 Crypto is just an industry that makes tools. People use it
The most attractive part of blockchain and crypto is neutrality. Because it is colorless and odorless, the color and shape of the tool changes depending on who uses it. Satoshi did not think about Runes or Ordinals when he first created Bitcoin, but as others ‘intention’ used it, a system open to all embraces the complexity of a group (or community) and never allows individuals to do so. It creates results that could not have been imagined or realized.
Who knew Pump.Fun would do this well? Who would have thought that such strange things would happen at Pump.Fun? Did you know that Solana would be the biggest beneficiary of the memecoin super cycle? This aspect of blockchain is very similar to libertarianism (to be more precise, it resembles the concept of the invisible hand or spontaneous order). This is because the results that people create through complex interactions are sometimes destructive, but sometimes provide new fun and ideas.
Blockchain is not bad. There are no bad intentions. The same goes for blockchain-based applications. If it looks bad, the blame always lies with the people using it.
Breaking news through Block Media Telegram (click)
**Given the ethical concerns raised by Pump.Fun, should the focus be on regulating platforms like Pump.Fun or on addressing underlying issues of human behavior and greed within the decentralized finance ecosystem?**
This is a fascinating analysis of Pump.Fun, its impact, and the ethical dilemmas it raises. You effectively highlight the following points:
**Pump.Fun’s Success:**
* It achieved remarkable financial success within a short period.
* Its user-friendly interface lowered the barrier to entry for meme coin creation, contributing to the meme coin supercycle.
**Ethical Concerns:**
* The platform fostered questionable behavior driven by profit motives.
* Live streaming, in particular, led to disturbing and arguably unethical actions by users seeking to pump their tokens.
**Regulation Debate:**
* The article presents the arguments for and against regulating Pump.Fun.
* It explores the idea of banning tools that can be misused, using the analogy of knives.
**Underlying Themes & Questions:**
* **Human Nature & Technology:** The piece touches on the complex relationship between technological tools and human behavior. Are tools inherently neutral, or do they amplify existing tendencies?
* **Decentralization & Responsibility:** How does decentralization affect accountability for platform misuse? Should platforms inherently bear moral responsibility for user actions?
* **The Future of Crypto:**
The use of Pump.Fun as a case study reveals larger questions about the future of crypto. Will crypto continue to be a space for innovation and experimentation, or are ethical debates likely to lead to more regulation and potentially stifle growth and creativity?
**Missing Elements:**
While the article provides a thought-provoking analysis, some additional points might enrich the discussion:
* **Specific Examples:** Providing more concrete examples of the unethical behavior on Pump.Fun could strengthen its impact.
* **Alternative Solutions:**
Apart from banning or regulating, are there alternative solutions to mitigating harmful behavior on platforms like Pump.Fun, such as community moderation, educational initiatives, or ethical guidelines?
* **Long-Term Implications:**
What are the long-term implications for the broader crypto ecosystem if platforms like Pump.Fun face significant backlash or regulation?
**Overall:** Your analysis is timely and important. It raises critical questions about the ethical and societal implications of emerging decentralized technologies and encourages a nuanced conversation about the balance between innovation, freedom, and responsibility in the crypto space.
