BONK Outperforms PUMP in Battle of Solana Launchpad: Stats

Théodore Lefevre

Blog

August 27, 2025

1 Views

Surprising fact: the memecoin category on Solana nearly hit $15 billion as BONK rallied 161% over a month.

I checked the raw numbers and felt the scale. The data shows LetsBonk.fun overtook Pump.fun on daily revenue while Pump.fun still led slightly on daily launches.

I reviewed Dune Analytics and contemporaneous reports. Pump.fun logged 13,690 daily launches versus 13,392 for LetsBonk.fun. Volume and fee figures tell a different story: $82.4M versus $87.7M in volume and $1.37M versus $8.4M in fee revenue.

What moved the market? A rapid rally, a volatile token debut, and two platforms fighting for the same ecosystem. My aim here is simple: show the key metrics and explain why they matter for performance and future activity.

Key Takeaways

• The memecoin market surged to near $15B, driven by a strong rally.
• LetsBonk.fun led on fee revenue, while Pump.fun led on launch count.
• Daily volume and launches are critical metrics for platform health.
• Early token swings and reported buybacks influenced short-term price action.
• I rely on Dune data and reporting to cross-check headline claims.

News Snapshot: Solana memecoin launchpads clash as BONK edges PUMP on key revenue metrics

In the last 24 hours the launchpad landscape tightened into a near-duopoly. Pump.fun and LetsBonk.fun together control 88.2% market share, concentrating most token activity and capital.

I tracked the short-interval data so the picture is current: Pump.fun logged 13,690 launches while LetsBonk.fun posted 13,392 launches over the same hours. Volume favored LetsBonk.fun — $87.7M versus $82.4M — and fees skewed heavily the other way: $8.4M to $1.37M.

“Daily snapshots of launches, volume, and fees show where attention and capital rotated during the surge.”

These metrics matter: launches alone don’t prove traction. I watch volume and fees to gauge genuine engagement and token-level economics.

• The split highlights concentrated risk and concentrated rewards in this market.
• Higher volume on LetsBonk.fun implies larger average trades per token.
• Hourly data can flip narratives fast; I use it to avoid overfitting to noise.

BONK Outperforms PUMP in Battle of Solana Launchpad …

The 24-hour figures show a narrow gap in token launches but a striking gap in fee capture.

I plotted a simple graph in my head: x-axis for token launches, left y-axis for volume, right y-axis for fee revenue. Pump.fun recorded 13,690 token launches while LetsBonk.fun hit 13,392.

Graph outline and key metrics

The visual will contrast $82.4M vs. $87.7M in daily volume and a much wider split in fees: $1.37M versus $8.4M.

Evidence and interpretation

The divergence matters: LetsBonk’s bonding curve history (~$839M) helps explain stronger fee conversion during high-velocity listings.

Source note: these figures track to Dune Analytics (Adam_Tehc) and contemporaneous market coverage I reviewed.

“Daily volume and fees tell different stories about platform health and monetization.”

• Throughput vs. value: Pump.fun edges launches but not revenue.
• Concentration: Pump.fun lists 245 coins above $1M versus 52 on LetsBonk.fun — different capital distributions.
• Takeaway: right now, one platform converts similar activity into more cash flow; the other concentrates larger market caps across more coins.

Price performance and token momentum: BONK rallies while PUMP retraces amid launch volatility

A close look at price action shows one token powering higher while the other struggles to hold gains.

Data snapshot

Month: BONK rose 161% over the past month and gained 43% over the past week.

PUMP token: launched at $0.004, spiked to $0.006812, then fell below the ICO price. It later rebounded about 33% to $0.003435 amid multimillion-dollar buyback reports.

Market cap pressure showed early strength—PUMP’s cap hovered near $2B at launch—yet that figure masked a fragile holder base during the drawdown.

Mechanics that matter

LetsBonk funnels part of platform fees into buy-and-burns. That reduces supply and creates a mechanical tailwind that can support price during pullbacks.

“Consistent fee flows feeding burns often convert activity into reflexive demand in thin markets.”

By contrast, Pump.fun reported buybacks after a 52% drawdown from the ATH. Those actions can stabilize short-term performance but rarely solve large unlocks or profit-taking alone.

• I map the month and week arcs: sustained climb versus classic post-ICO whipsaw.
• Prediction: if fee flows stay elevated on LetsBonk, mechanical burns could limit downside and sustain momentum.
• Evidence & source: on-chain fee tallies and market reports corroborate the buyback/burn narratives used here.

Platform contrast: revenue engines, user activity, and market cap concentration on Solana

Raw stats expose a strategic trade-off: steady fee flows versus a roster of larger-cap tokens.

I focus on two measurable axes: throughput and concentration. The numbers show different paths to success.

Throughput vs. concentration

LetsBonk.fun posted $87.7M of daily volume and $8.4M in fees. That fee intensity points to heavy curve interaction and frequent churn per listing.

Pump.fun recorded $82.4M of volume but only $1.37M in fees. It lists far more large winners: 245 tokens above $1M market cap versus 52 on LetsBonk.fun.

Market share sits at 45.9% for Pump.fun and 42.3% for LetsBonk.fun, consolidating most activity between the two launchpads. Dune Analytics and on-chain tallies back these figures.

“Throughput and cap distribution reveal which platform converts activity into cash flow versus headline market caps.”

• The contrast shows two viable strategies: fee-driven revenue or cap-weighted listings.
• Fee intensity suggests a repeatable revenue engine; token concentration signals larger single-token bets.
• When two platforms hold most share, small policy or UX changes can quickly shift flows.

Tools and guide: how users navigate Solana launchpads and trading bots during the memecoin surge

Practical tooling changed how I approached token launches during the recent memecoin wave.

Quick setup: scout upcoming drops, read bonding-curve parameters, and model fee drag before your first tx. This simple routine cuts dumb mistakes.

Launchpad user journey: token launches, bonding curves, and fee implications

First, identify the project and bonding curve. That tells you how price moves as buyers pile in.

Next, calculate fees. Fees affect utility: on LetsBonk a slice funds buy-and-burn mechanics. That changes long-term supply and user incentives.

“Fees aren’t just costs — they feed token utility loops that matter for holders and traders.”

Tools highlight: Telegram bots, sniping, and risk checks

I tested Telegram bots and found Snorter notable. Base fee is 1.5% and falls to 0.85% for SNORT holders. It supports sniping by launch address or Raydium pool ID.

• Risk checks: blacklist, freeze, mint detection — beta shows ~85% success.
• Execution: handles tax flags, slippage presets, and pre-approvals to shave seconds off trades.
• Economics: staking up to 199% APY and a planned DAO for SNORT holders.

I still pair bots with manual contract reads and small test buys. An 85% detector leaves room for exploits.

Practical tip: pre-fund and pre-approve tokens, journal trades, and read the fine print on fee tiers, bonding-curve exit penalties, and liquidity rules. That content habit improves outcomes.

Conclusion

After staring at the numbers, my takeaway was practical: one launchpad led on revenue while the other logged more launches. That split matters for traders, builders, and the broader market.

I expect more short swings over hours and days. If LetsBonk keeps fee intensity and buy-and-burn cadence, BONK may show more resilience during pullbacks. PUMP’s upside looks tied to shipping new utility that creates durable token sinks.

Quick FAQ: higher revenue: LetsBonk.fun ($8.4M vs. $1.37M). More launches: Pump.fun (13,690 vs. 13,392). Why the price swings? Fast profit-taking and typical post-launch repricing, with reported buybacks to stabilize.

Read the market by period, track revenue per token, and prioritize platforms that show real token sinks. Sources I rely on: Dune Analytics, Coin Edition, and Swyftx Learn for context and evidence.