Who Will Become Pump.fun on the Robinhood Chain?

CoinW Research

On July 11, the early leading meme launch platform NOXA on the Robinhood Chain suspended new token issuance. Two days later, the original website was temporarily inaccessible; the static entry activated on July 14 only retained functions for browsing historical projects, existing transactions, and collecting creator fees. On July 15, NOXA further announced that it would no longer charge subsequent transaction fees and would transfer all transaction revenue to creators. As of the time of publication, new issuances have not resumed.

NOXA's exit was almost as rapid as its rise. After the Robinhood Chain mainnet went live, the platform quickly attracted creators, traders, and fee income through CASHCAT, and the official attention and promotion from Robinhood for early native projects further reduced the cold start costs. NOXA created over 60,000 tokens in total, with cumulative fees approaching $12 million; however, after the suspension of new issuances, project supply quickly shifted to entry points like Pons.family and Flap.

CoinW Research believes that the Robinhood Chain launch platform has entered a stage of high supply and low conversion. Dune data shows that on July 16, the entire chain added 42,709 tokens, with Pons.family and Flap accounting for a combined 50.30%; as of the time of publication, only 18 tokens had a market value exceeding $1 million, mainly from NOXA and Virtuals. The issuance entry has shifted to Pons and Flap, while high market value projects remain concentrated on platforms that formed wealth effects in the previous stage. Since NOXA's exit, no new absolute leader has emerged, and subsequent rankings will mainly depend on effective graduation rates, million-dollar token outputs, and market value retention.

1. NOXA's First-Mover Advantage Did Not Create a Stable Barrier

NOXA went from leading to halting issuance in a very short market cycle. The platform's rise relied on first-mover entry, representative projects, and the amplification of Robinhood's official support and buyer attention; when new projects stopped entering, this growth cycle was also interrupted.

1.1 How CASHCAT Helped NOXA Establish Its First Round of Advantage

The Robinhood Chain opened its public mainnet on July 1. The network uses the Arbitrum Platform, supporting low-latency confirmations of about 100 milliseconds and is compatible with EVM development tools. Uniswap v2, v3, v4, and UniswapX were integrated at the mainnet launch, allowing developers to directly deploy token contracts, establish public liquidity, and quickly enter wallet and aggregator trading paths.

NOXA directly connected token creation with Uniswap v3's unilateral liquidity. New projects entered public pricing from the first transaction, allowing creators to earn transaction fees within the pool, while manual pool creation and subsequent migration steps were correspondingly reduced. While other launch platforms had not yet formed stable products, this process first met the demand for new token issuance on the Robinhood Chain.

NOXA's first-round advantage did not only come from product mechanisms. CASHCAT connected Robinhood's early brand narrative, on-chain community, and short-term trading needs, while the official attention and promotion from Robinhood further amplified project exposure, community trust, and inclusion of trading tools. Price and transaction growth subsequently redirected attention back to NOXA: creators wanted to reach existing buyers and leaderboard traffic, and traders gradually viewed NOXA as an important entry point for discovering new tokens on the Robinhood Chain. Representative projects, official support, and platform traffic thus formed a mutually reinforcing cold start cycle.

1.2 Halting Issuance Cuts Off New Project Supply, Existing Assets Can Still Operate

NOXA attributed the suspension of new issuances to the proliferation of bot replication and low-quality tokens. After the original domain was interrupted, the team migrated the historical interface to the ENS entry, allowing existing projects to still be browsed and traded, and creators could continue to collect fees. The fee adjustment on July 15 further confirmed the platform's contraction direction: NOXA stopped charging subsequent transaction fees and transferred all income to creators, effectively retaining historical contracts and trading channels while abandoning continuous monetization on the platform side. For existing projects, tokens and liquidity pools can still operate; for NOXA, the growth cycle constituted by new projects, platform income, and leaderboard updates has already been interrupted.

This indicates that the traffic cycle of the launch platform relies on continuous supply. The platform must not only continuously introduce projects but also maintain leaderboards, integrate trading tools, and continuously output content to the market. Once new projects stop entering, creators will lose access to the original buyer network, and traders will turn to platforms that are still updating.

1.3 NOXA Exposes Three Shortcomings of Early Launch Platforms

First, representative projects can quickly amplify platform traffic but also increase the platform's dependence on the market performance of a single asset. CASHCAT helped NOXA establish market recognition, but when the representative projects declined, the platform halted issuance, and market sentiment weakened simultaneously, transaction volume and user attention would also decline in tandem.

Second, continuous operation itself has become a core competitive capability. If a platform halts core business during the most active market periods, creators' expectations for fee collection, contract maintenance, and product continuity will be affected. Platforms with leading potential need to prove that they can filter out low-quality projects during supply peaks while maintaining contracts, front-end services, and project support.

Third, official support is an important variable for cold starts but cannot replace the platform's independent growth. NOXA's early explosion illustrates that Robinhood's official attention, brand linkage, and channel dissemination can significantly enhance the exposure efficiency of native projects. In the future, platforms need to improve issuance and liquidity products, strive for content distribution, event collaboration, and infrastructure integration; more importantly, they need to convert temporary support into continuous project supply, real buyers, and repeatable market distribution capabilities.

2. 42,709 Tokens Added in a Single Day, Only 18 Exceeding a Million in Market Value

2.1 Over 40,000 Tokens in a Single Day, Where Are the Million-Dollar Tokens Concentrated?

Dune data shows that on July 16, the Robinhood Chain added 42,709 tokens in a single day. Among them, Pons.family created 11,547 tokens, accounting for 27.04%; Flap created 9,935 tokens, accounting for 23.26%; the two combined created 21,482 tokens, accounting for 50.30%, while other platforms combined created 21,227 tokens, accounting for 49.70%. Pons and Flap remain the two main issuance entry points, with their combined share slightly exceeding half of the entire chain. However, as of the time of this report's update, only 18 tokens had a market value exceeding $1 million.

Table 1: Token Issuance Scale and Million-Dollar Token Output of Major Launch Platforms on the Robinhood Chain

Table 1 shows that the issuance share and market value results have formed two sets of rankings. Pons and Flap together contributed 50.30% of the new tokens added on July 16, but the latest million-dollar leaderboard is still mainly composed of NOXA and Virtuals projects; Pons currently relies mainly on its namesake token to form a high market value sample, while Flap has no projects worth a million dollars. The issuance entry is migrating towards Pons and Flap, but million-dollar market values are still mainly concentrated on platforms like NOXA and Virtuals.

2.2 Pons Has the Highest Issuance Volume, but There Are Signs of Bot Manipulation

Pons' public page shows that there are still about 21,454 tokens in the curve stage, with 110 graduated tokens, totaling about 21,564 tokens created. Based on this, Pons' original graduation rate is estimated to be about 0.51%. However, among the 110 graduated tokens, only $PONS entered this million-dollar leaderboard, accounting for about 0.91% of graduated projects and 0.0046% of all created projects.

At the same time, on-chain data confirms that there are signs of bot manipulation in the Pons ecosystem. Here, "manipulation" mainly refers to automated accounts repeatedly executing operations such as creating tokens, buying tokens, authorizing transaction routes, selling tokens, and collecting fees, causing the number of tokens created and the number of on-chain transactions in the platform statistics to rapidly increase in a short period.

The following are two verifiable addresses:

Address One: ++0x7DE5b9C86D2B47607A2962043bB165f7BEFeB06b++

Address Two: ++0x7D22d3Dd32F00848A54eBE00c00a9082A18D4E66++

For example, in a larger transaction operation on July 17, VLAD (contract address: 0x91e2ce85c223CD55b0Cf76Ca668a0e61ed696C6b) was created by the Pons issuance contract. At 00:23:51, 00:24:58, and 00:26:06, the above two addresses consecutively bought VLAD at exactly the same second with exactly 0.033333333 ETH. Each address invested about 0.1 ETH, totaling about 0.2 ETH for both addresses.

At 00:31:09, the two addresses completed authorization and sold all VLAD at the same second. Address One sold about 5,694,114.656 VLAD, exchanging 0.101688749 WETH from the pool, and after deducting routing fees, actually received 0.100671862 ETH; Address Two sold about 5,707,289.584 VLAD, exchanging 0.106254208 WETH from the pool, and actually received 0.105191665 ETH.

At the same time, on July 17, Address One and Address Two successfully called the Pons issuance contract 896 times and 886 times respectively, creating a total of 1,782 tokens, with each creation transaction investing a fixed amount of 0.0015 ETH.

A large number of standardized creation records, along with two addresses buying in the same second and amount three times consecutively and clearing in the same second, do not conform to the characteristics of independent user manual operations. It can be concluded that the related operations are executed in bulk by robots or automated scripts. Such operations will inflate the issuance volume and transaction count of Pons, while also incorporating a large number of tokens lacking subsequent operations into the graduation rate. Therefore, it can be determined that there is a significant presence of bot-driven volume in Pons' issuance data.

2.3 Flap's Graduation Rate and Market Value Conversion Still Need Verification

Flap set a record for issuing approximately 22,000 tokens in a single day on July 14. On July 16, its creation volume fell back to 9,935 tokens, accounting for 23.26% of the total issuance on the chain that day, still making it the second-largest launch platform after Pons.

Dune statistics show that there are only 18 tokens on the Robinhood Chain with a market value exceeding $1 million, mainly occupied by platforms such as NOXA and Virtuals. Although Flap rapidly expanded its issuance scale, it has zero million-dollar projects. This indicates that its current advantage is mainly concentrated on creation entry and project distribution, and whether it can further convert its issuance scale into high-value projects still needs to be observed in terms of the market value, liquidity, and natural transaction retention of the graduated tokens.

2.4 Comprehensive Judgment: Continuous Market Value Output Determines Platform Ranking

Pons' advantages lie in its issuance scale, the platform's eponymous representative token, and strong in-chain attention; its shortcoming is that the original graduation rate is only about 0.51%, and there are bot-driven bulk operations in the creation data, with the million-dollar market value output mainly concentrated on $PONS. Flap's advantages are protocol reuse, external distribution, and rapid expansion of project supply; its shortcoming is that it has zero million-dollar projects. In contrast, NOXA and Virtuals currently do not occupy advantages in new issuances, yet their projects still occupy many positions on the million-dollar market value list, indicating that representative projects, real buyers, and continuous operations after graduation are more decisive for the platform's long-term attention than the number of creations.

Thus, when evaluating launch platforms in the future, priority should be given to observing the number of million-dollar tokens and their daily retention rates, followed by the median market value, liquidity, and number of independent buyers of graduated projects, and finally the original issuance volume after excluding bot-driven bulk creations. According to this approach, Robinhood Chain has not yet formed a new leader capable of completely replacing NOXA. Pons and Flap lead in new issuance entry, but the number of high-value projects they have produced is limited.

3. Liquidity Downstream of Launch Platforms: Why Uniswap Benefits

3.1 Launch Platforms Compete for Creation Entry, Uniswap Undertakes Public Liquidity

Launch platforms like Pons and Flap mainly compete around creation costs, curve parameters, creator shares, project discovery, and external distribution. However, once tokens meet graduation conditions, liquidity typically flows into Uniswap or other public trading pools. Klik directly establishes Uniswap v4 pools, Bankr organizes v4 liquidity through Doppler, while Flap, Pons, and hood.fun migrate liquidity to Uniswap or other decentralized exchanges once projects meet set conditions. Launch platforms are responsible for token creation and early user acquisition, while Uniswap handles public pricing, trade execution, and liquidity undertaking after graduation.

The suspension of NOXA further illustrates the division of labor between the two. After NOXA halted new token issuance, historical projects can still circulate through Uniswap and other trading interfaces. The front end of the launch platform can stop updating, but established public liquidity pools will still be accessed by wallets, trading bots, and aggregators, allowing tokens to continue trading independent of the original launch entry.

This division of labor allows Uniswap to have a relatively independent growth path that is not solely dependent on the ranking of individual platforms. The share among launch platforms may change rapidly, but as long as new projects continue to use Uniswap v3 or v4 to establish public liquidity, Uniswap can acquire more tradable assets, pool transactions, and liquidity provider fees. The more decentralized the launch entry, the more the market needs a liquidity layer that can be called upon by multiple platforms, wallets, and aggregators, which is also Uniswap's main advantage on the Robinhood Chain.

3.2 CCA Further Extends Uniswap to the Token Issuance Stage

Launch platforms typically direct liquidity into Uniswap after token creation or graduation, while Continuous Clearing Auctions (CCA) further extend Uniswap into the initial issuance stage. Issuers can set the sale quantity, auction time, settlement assets, and fundraising purposes, while participants submit budgets and maximum willing prices, with orders gradually participating in clearing during the remaining blocks. After the auction ends, the system can automatically establish Uniswap v4 pools at market-formed prices, linking token distribution, initial pricing, and secondary trading.

CCA differs from one-click launch platform services in terms of project types. One-click launch platforms emphasize low thresholds, rapid creation, and community dissemination, making them more suitable for high-frequency, narrative-driven meme coins; CCA is more suitable for projects that wish to publicly sell a fixed number of tokens, reduce the impact of front-running, and form initial prices through public bidding. Thus, Robinhood Chain forms two issuance paths: one-click launch platforms handle high-frequency community creations, while CCA handles relatively standardized public auctions, with both types of projects ultimately entering Uniswap's public liquidity system.

TRASH is an early hot project issued by Robinhood Chain using CCA. As of now, its fully diluted valuation is approximately $759,000, with about 2,350 holding addresses and a 24-hour trading volume of approximately $7.1 million, which is about 9.4 times its fully diluted valuation for a single day. This set of data indicates that CCA can concentrate orders and achieve high transaction volumes in a short time, but high turnover also means that early prices are easily influenced by short-term funds.

Thus, Uniswap's benefit path on the Robinhood Chain can be divided into two: launch platforms introduce graduated projects and public liquidity into Uniswap, while CCA directly incorporates some projects' initial allocations, price discovery, and initial pool establishment into the Uniswap system. Both paths will increase the number of assets, transaction scale, and trading fees, but whether these fees can further convert into protocol revenue and UNI value depends on whether protocol fees are enabled and how the fees are ultimately distributed.

3.3 Comparison with Hyperliquid: Similar Trading Fees Correspond to Different Value Capture

Uniswap and Hyperliquid have different product structures. Uniswap focuses on multi-chain spot automated market-making and permissionless liquidity, while Hyperliquid mainly adopts order book-style matching and covers perpetual contracts and spot trading. The two are not suitable for directly comparing market shares or product advantages, but their trading fees over the past 30 days are relatively close, which can be used to observe how fees are distributed among liquidity providers, market makers, protocols, and tokens under different trading structures.

Table 2: Comparison of Uniswap and Hyperliquid's Fees, Revenue, and Value Capture Over the Past 30 Days

|---------------|--------------------------------|---------------------------------|--------------------------------------| | Metric | Uniswap | Hyperliquid | Comparison | | Trading Fees | $61.435 million | $62.193 million | The two differ by only about 1.2% | | Protocol Revenue | $3.946 million | $44.306 million | Hyperliquid is about 11.2 times | | Protocol Revenue/Trading Fees | About 6.4% | About 71.2% | Significant differences in fee retention structure | | Liquidity/Market Maker Compensation | Liquidity providers receive most trading fees and bear capital occupation and impermanent loss | Market makers profit through price differences, hedging, and order rebates; HLP has additional distributions | Different retention space for protocols on trading fees | | Token Value | Protocol fees enter the TokenJar contract and are exchanged by seekers to form UNI destruction | Fees are distributed to HLP, assistance funds, and deployers; assistance funds buy and destroy HYPE | Hyperliquid's chain link is more direct; Uniswap relies on governance execution and liquidity retention |

In the past 30 days, Uniswap generated approximately $61.435 million in trading fees, while Hyperliquid generated about $62.193 million, with only about a 1.2% difference; during the same period, Uniswap's protocol revenue was approximately $3.946 million, while Hyperliquid's was about $44.306 million, with the latter being about 11.2 times that of the former. The proportion of protocol revenue to trading fees for the two is approximately 6.4% and 71.2%, respectively. The scale of fees paid by traders is similar, but the proportion entering the protocol control path shows a significant difference.

This difference primarily arises from liquidity compensation. Uniswap adopts an automated market-making structure, requiring liquidity providers to continuously invest capital and bear price fluctuations, positions exceeding effective ranges, and impermanent losses, thus most trading fees need to be retained for liquidity providers. For example, in the fee rate after the protocol fee was enabled in Uniswap v2, traders pay a 0.30% fee, of which 0.25% goes to liquidity providers and 0.05% enters the protocol, with the protocol receiving one-sixth of the total fees.

Hyperliquid adopts an order book structure, allowing professional market makers to earn profits through buy-sell spreads, inventory management, cross-market hedging, and order rebates, resulting in relatively low dependence on trading fee compensation. This allows more fees to enter distribution paths such as HLP, assistance funds, and deployers, with the assistance fund using related funds to buy and destroy HYPE.

Therefore, the difference in the proportion of protocol revenue to transaction fees mainly reflects the different distribution of fees in the two trading and market-making structures. Hyperliquid can direct a higher proportion of fees into the protocol and the HYPE value path; Uniswap, on the other hand, needs to prioritize the earnings of liquidity providers to maintain open liquidity and trading depth. Uniswap can expand network value through asset and transaction growth, but whether UNI can simultaneously achieve value return remains to be observed.

3.4 UNI Value Capture Still Awaits Protocol Fee Implementation

Robinhood Chain has already brought significant trading growth to Uniswap. According to DeFiLlama data, this chain contributed approximately $23 million in transaction fees to Uniswap over the past 30 days, making it the highest single network contributor to Uniswap fees, yet the corresponding protocol revenue remains at 0. At this stage, this growth is mainly reflected in new assets, transaction volumes, liquidity provider fees, and the expansion of public liquidity networks, with UNI holders yet to receive direct value return from it.

The direct reason for this discrepancy is that the protocol fees on Robinhood Chain have not yet been activated. The Uniswap community has proposed to extend the protocol fee mechanism to the v2, v3, and v4 deployments on this chain. The relevant governance proposal concluded on July 15, receiving approximately 12.953 million votes in support, with no opposing or abstaining votes. However, the passage of the governance proposal only represents an initial consensus within the community; formal on-chain voting and cross-chain execution have yet to be completed.

According to the governance proposal, the v2 and v3 protocol fees on Robinhood Chain will be activated through independent on-chain proposals, while v4 will be included in the first batch of multi-chain activation proposals. Once the proposal is formally passed, governance messages will need to be sent from the Ethereum mainnet to Robinhood Chain for execution, at which point protocol fees will begin to flow into this chain. This pathway can convert part of the transaction fees generated on Robinhood Chain into UNI token value, but the ultimate effect will still be influenced by two factors: first, whether existing liquidity and aggregators can be maintained after the protocol fee is activated; second, whether high market cap projects can continue to generate real transactions. Protocol fees will reduce the fees earned by liquidity providers, and if the fee rate settings affect the depth of the pools, the growth of protocol revenue may also be limited.

Overall, the market value conversion of the Robinhood Chain launch platform remains relatively low, but a few successful projects will concentrate transactions and public liquidity into Uniswap, making it a structural beneficiary of market expansion. Current earnings mainly remain at the levels of asset quantity, transaction scale, liquidity provider income, and public liquidity networks. Only when the protocol fees complete formal governance and cross-chain execution, and transaction volumes and liquidity remain stable, will this growth further translate into protocol revenue and UNI token value.

Conclusion

Robinhood Chain has entered a phase of high-frequency token issuance. On July 16, the entire chain saw the addition of 42,709 new tokens in a single day, with Pons and Flap together creating 21,482 tokens, accounting for 50.30%; Dune data shows that there are only 18 tokens with a market cap exceeding $1 million. This indicates that the speed of token issuance far exceeds the growth rate of real funds and user demand, and the bottleneck of platform competition has begun to shift from creation tools to the retention of market value and liquidity after graduation.

At this stage, the original issuance volume can only reflect the platform's capacity to accommodate token creation, making it difficult to independently indicate project quality. Robot batch creations can inflate issuance volumes and increase graduation rates, while the graduation thresholds set by the platform can only prove that projects have obtained initial funding and liquidity. More comparably valuable indicators are the effective graduation rates after excluding identified automated addresses, the number of million-dollar tokens, daily retention rates, and the median market cap, liquidity, and number of natural buyers of graduated projects. Only if projects can continue to attract independent buyers after crossing the graduation threshold can the platform potentially form a stable wealth effect and user return.

From the current landscape, Pons is in a leading position in terms of issuance volume, but the original graduation rate is about 0.51%, and there are instances of robot batch creations and synchronized transactions in the on-chain samples, which may cause some issuance volumes and transaction counts to deviate from real user demand. Currently, the projects entering the million-dollar list for Pons are still mainly the platform's namesake tokens, with market cap output showing a clear concentration on a single project. Flap has a more complete external distribution and protocol reuse, but there are no projects with a market cap of a million dollars. Meanwhile, NOXA and Virtuals still occupy the main positions on the high market cap project list, indicating that the user base and wealth effect formed by historically representative projects have not yet been replaced by the new issuance scale. Therefore, after NOXA exits, Robinhood Chain has not yet seen a new leader emerging simultaneously, and future attention should focus on effective graduation rates, token market caps, and retention rates.