A token that crossed $1 million in daily revenue for the first time in its short life is now pulling in a fraction of that number, and the drop happened inside a single month.
I pulled up Pons’s own analytics dashboard on Dune to see the decline laid out chart by chart, and the picture that emerges is less a fluke and more a business model running head-first into competition and cooling demand.
The Scale Of The Drop, Chart By Chart
The dashboard tracks three metrics side by side since Pons launched on July 13, and all three tell the same story. Daily tokens created peaked at 36,449 in a single day, a number the chart marks as the highest bar on the entire timeline, roughly six weeks into the project’s life. By the most recent days shown, that count has fallen back into the 6,000-to-7,600 range, a decline of close to 80% from the top.
Daily token volume follows an almost identical shape. The chart’s peak bar clears the 800m gridline and approaches roughly $900 million in a single day, before sliding down to a recent range closer to $100 million to $190 million a day. And the revenue chart, the one this article is really about, peaks at just above the 8m gridline, then collapses toward a recent range of roughly $1 million to $2 million a day. Layered underneath the total revenue bars is a darker shaded band representing protocol revenue specifically, and that band shrinks even faster proportionally than the total figure above it, which lines up with the reported 90% drop in PONS protocol revenue from its all-time high.
I think seeing all three charts together is the useful part here. Tokens created, trading volume and revenue didn’t decline independently. They rose together during the same six-week window and fell together just as fast, which tells me this wasn’t a revenue-specific problem. It was a demand problem that touched everything built on top of it.
Competition Arrived Fast And Took Share
The most direct explanation is competition. Uniswap launched its own launchpad on Robinhood Chain in August, and it moved quickly enough to out-launch Pons on its very first day. That’s a serious statement about how thin the loyalty is in this market. Pons had spent weeks establishing itself as the default venue on a fast-growing chain, and one competitor with distribution and brand recognition was enough to dent that position almost immediately.
I think this is the core problem with launchpads generally. Being the default venue only works until a bigger name shows up with a similar product. Pons had already benefited once from a competitor’s exit, when rival launchpad Noxa stopped accepting new launches in July and Pons absorbed the displaced activity within days. Uniswap’s entry worked the opposite way, pulling some of that same activity back out.
Launch Volume Is Real, But Graduation Isn’t
Here’s a detail that changed how I read this whole situation. Reported lifetime launch counts on Pons range from roughly 124,000 to more than 500,000 depending on the source, but only about 1% of those launches ever reach graduation, the point where a token clears the liquidity threshold to trade normally. Graduation isn’t even a quality signal on its own; the platform’s own documentation says so directly.
That matters because revenue on a bonding-curve launchpad depends on trading activity before and after graduation, not just on how many tokens get created. The dashboard’s own daily-tokens-created chart backs this up: the huge spike to 36,449 tokens in one day wasn’t matched by a proportional, lasting rise in revenue once that spike passed. Most of that activity produced a burst of early trading fees and then went quiet, which is exactly what you’d expect from a market living on constant new-token mania that eventually cools.
The Treasury And Burn Mechanic Depend On Steady Revenue
Pons runs on a flywheel where a large share of protocol fee revenue goes into buying back and burning PONS through its Treasury. As of early September, roughly 29% of the token’s one billion total supply, about 288 million tokens, had already been burned. That mechanic is a major reason PONS ran up to its all-time high price of $0.97 on September 5, even as the volume and revenue charts were already sliding down from their late-August peak.
The problem is that a buyback engine funded by protocol revenue slows down exactly when revenue slows down. Less daily revenue means smaller buybacks, which means a slower burn rate, which weakens the scarcity story that pushed the price up in the first place. Revenue and price support are tied together here in a way that cuts both directions.
What This Says About Launchpad Economics Broadly
I’d put Pons in a category with most bonding-curve launchpads: extremely responsive to whatever the hottest chain or narrative is at a given moment, and just as quick to lose that response once the narrative or the competitive landscape shifts. The token-creation and volume charts both peaked in the same narrow window, right around when Robinhood Chain itself was posting record daily activity, which tells me the two were directly connected. When chain-wide activity cools even slightly, a launchpad that captures a percentage of that activity feels it immediately and disproportionately, and all three of its core metrics fall in lockstep, as the dashboard shows.
There’s also a valuation angle worth noting. Even after the revenue decline, PONS was trading at a multiple of its trailing annualized protocol revenue that sat above the multiple cited for its closest peer. A 90% drop in daily revenue without an equivalent drop in that multiple would leave the token looking expensive relative to what it’s actually earning today.
Disclosure: This is not trading or investment advice. Always do your research before buying any cryptocurrency or investing in any services.
Follow us on Twitter @themerklehash to stay updated with the latest Crypto, NFT, AI, Cybersecurity, and Metaverse news!
Be the first to comment