在 Pump.fun 和 Twich 做直播,哪个更赚钱?

深潮Published on 2025-09-14Last updated on 2025-09-15

Pump 为小型创作者提供了过去只有 Twitch 顶尖 1%创作者才能享有的收入机会。

作者:Kunal Doshi

编译:深潮TechFlow

近来,关于 CCM(深潮注:creator capital market,创作者资本市场,与内容创作者经济相关)的讨论很多,所以我计算了一些关于创作者收入的数据@pumpdotfun 对比 @Twitch。Pump 不仅仅是在与 Twitch 竞争,它还在抢占 Twitch 的市场份额。

创作者收入

Twitch 上的创作者通过订阅和广告赚钱。订阅费每月 4.99 美元、9.99 美元或 24.99 美元,创作者和 Twitch 各占 50%。广告平均每千次展示费用为 3.50 美元,创作者获得广告收入的 50% 至 70%。实际上,这意味着小型主播每月只能赚几百美元,中型主播可以赚 5,000 至 3 万美元,而顶级主播每月可以赚到 10 万美元以上。

Pump 彻底颠覆了这一模式。创作者不再通过订阅和广告赚取佣金,而是通过其代币赚取交易费。在早期阶段(市值 8.8 万美元至 30 万美元),每笔交易的费率约为 0.95%,当市值超过 2000 万美元时,费率逐渐降至 0.05%。

仅在昨天,就有 9,000 个钱包领取了 280 万美元的创作者费用。这意味着平均每位创作者每天可获得约 300 美元的报酬,如果持续下去,每月可获得约 9,000 美元的报酬。

看看 Pump 首页上的 10 个创作者币,大多数都已经产生了可观的日收益。在 Twitch 上,要达到六位数的收益需要 1 万+ 的同时在线观看人数。而在 Pump,创作者通过规模更小的社区就能实现类似的收入水平。

市场估值

从估值角度来看 @Twitch 在 2024 年 10 月的价值为 450 亿美元,当年的收入为 18 亿美元,相当于 25 倍的估值倍率。 @pumpdotfun 根据其 8 月份的数据,其估值倍率接近 14 倍。

更重要的一点是激励机制。Pump 上的早期创作者可以拿到高达 80% 的费用,而且随着他们的发展,平台才会逐步提高抽成比例。这正是 Twitch 的不足之处,也是 Pump 看起来如此具有颠覆性的原因。

核心竞争力

Pump 为小型创作者提供了过去只有 Twitch 顶尖 1%创作者才能享有的收入机会。如果 Twitch 的创作者群体中哪怕只有一部分迁移到 Pump,整个流媒体经济可能会被彻底重塑。而不仅仅是 Twitch,TikTok 和 YouTube 的创作者也可能成为迁移的一部分,这使得未来增长空间更为巨大。

可持续飞轮

最大的问题在于可持续性。Pump 的发展取决于创作者如何使用他们赚取的费用。如果他们将收入重新投资到自己的代币或更好的内容上,就能推动飞轮效应。

我们还需要看到更多直播观众,以吸引更顶流的主播。目前感觉更像是投机取巧,而非真正的内容消费,但这是一个充满希望的开端。向 Pump 致敬!

 

Related Reads

τ Scaling: Huawei's New Growth Engine Designed for the Post-Moore Era

**Tau Scaling: Huawei's New Growth Engine for the Post-Moore Era** For 60 years, progress in semiconductors was driven by Moore's Law – making transistors smaller, denser, and cheaper. This path has now stalled due to plummeting returns below 7nm, astronomical lithography costs, and rising per-transistor expenses. After six years and testing 381 production chips, Huawei’s semiconductor team proposes a fundamental shift: **stop competing on size, start competing on time**. This is the core of their "τ (Tau) Scaling" theory. It treats *time* as the key optimization metric, compressing characteristic delays (τ) across all levels – from transistor switching (picoseconds) to data center tasks (seconds), spanning 12 orders of magnitude. **What is τ Scaling?** It holistically minimizes delay/time constants (τ) across four layers: transistors (switching speed), circuits (signal delay), chips (compute/memory access), and systems (end-to-end communication). The goal is to align optimization from process and circuit design to architecture and systems using this unified metric. **Mobile Application: LogicFolding** Without advancing the process node, this technique vertically stacks chips using ultra-precision hybrid bonding, distributing critical paths across layers ("stacking floors"). Results include a 55% transistor density increase, 41% better energy efficiency, over 40% higher SRAM frequency, and a roadmap targeting 4GHz by 2029. **AI Data Center Application: Full-Link Latency Compression** With 80% of AI cluster energy and 70% cost spent on data movement, the focus is slashing communication time. Key innovations include: 1. **Unified Bus:** Cuts multi-layer protocols, reducing remote access latency from microseconds to ~100 nanoseconds – 500x faster. 2. **Hi-ONE Optical Interconnect:** Replaces copper with fiber, enabling 8Tb/s per module and scaling distances from 1m to 100m for 10,000-chip clusters. 3. **3D Folding:** Solves the "interface bottleneck" of 2.5D packaging by vertically integrating memory, power, and optical I/O alongside compute, predicting over 100x integration density gain by 2035. **Re-fusion of Logic and Memory** The AI era, where data movement is more critical than computation, demands tight 3D integration of logic and memory, shifting industry influence towards memory and advanced packaging. **Remaining Challenges** include adapting EDA tools for 3D design, optimizing wafer-to-wafer process variation and vertical interconnect losses, and establishing new energy efficiency and benchmarking standards. **Conclusion:** The era of scaling physical dimensions is over. The era of scaling time has begun. By leveraging 3D stacking, system architecture, and interconnect optimization—rather than solely chasing advanced lithography—performance and efficiency can continue to advance. This is poised to be the semiconductor industry's core roadmap for the next decade.

marsbit8m ago

τ Scaling: Huawei's New Growth Engine Designed for the Post-Moore Era

marsbit8m ago

NodeStrategy: The First Ordinals DAT Project, Bringing the Strategy Treasury Narrative to NFTs

**Summary: The Fundamental Flaws of NodeStrategy, the 'First Ordinals DAT'** NodeStrategy presents itself as the first Ordinals Digital Asset Treasury (DAT) on Bitcoin. Its model mirrors MicroStrategy's treasury narrative but for NFTs, specifically targeting the NodeMonkes collection (not officially affiliated). The project's core mechanism is a four-step flywheel: a 10% fee on all trades (90% to treasury, 10% to radFi/Bound marketplace) is used to buy NodeMonkes. These NFTs are then listed for sale on Satflow, with 100% of the sale proceeds used to buy back and burn the project's token, NODESTRAT, aiming to create a perpetual value cycle. However, the design contains critical, self-defeating flaws: 1. **Platform Lock-In:** As a Bitcoin Rune, NODESTRAT lacks smart contract functionality and cannot natively enforce the 10% fee. The fee can only be collected on the radFi/Bound marketplace itself. This makes the entire flywheel dependent on a single platform. If liquidity moves elsewhere, fee revenue drops to zero, halting the mechanism. 2. **Self-Suffocating Economics:** The 10% fee acts both as the flywheel's fuel and a major drag on demand. A buy/sell roundtrip incurs a 20% cost, creating a massive hurdle for traders. This strangles the very trading volume needed to generate fees. 3. **Ineffective Value Support:** The flywheel is starved. Low daily volume (~$9K) generates minimal fees for NFT purchases. The NFT "ladder" sales are slow and unpredictable (only 39 total sold), meaning buybacks are infrequent. While 30.77% of the supply has been burned, this supply reduction cannot lift price without corresponding demand, which is suppressed by the high transaction tax. 4. **Meaningless NAV:** The Net Asset Value (NAV), currently at a 0.46x discount to market cap, is merely a marketing figure. There is no redemption mechanism for token holders to claim the underlying NodeMonkes assets. Price is set by market liquidity flows, not by this theoretical backing. In essence, NodeStrategy's design forces its revenue source (trading fees) to simultaneously cripple the demand and liquidity required for its own success, trapping the project in a stagnant state.

marsbit14m ago

NodeStrategy: The First Ordinals DAT Project, Bringing the Strategy Treasury Narrative to NFTs

marsbit14m ago

Agentic Design Patterns: A Book That Made Me Re-Understand "What Is an Agent, Really?"

"Agentic Design Patterns" is a 2025 book by Antonio Gullí, a Google engineering director, which offers a systematic framework for AI Agent development through 21 design patterns. A core contribution is the "Four Levels of Agency": Level 0 (bare LLMs) are not true agents. Level 1 agents actively decide when and how to use tools. Level 2 agents engage in strategic planning, context engineering (curating and filtering information), and self-reflection. Level 3 involves multi-agent collaboration with defined communication topologies. The book introduces **Context Engineering** as a superset of prompt engineering, managing four layers of information for the agent: system prompts, external data, implicit context (user history, environment), and feedback loops for automated optimization. A key pattern is **Reflection (Producer-Critic)**, where two distinct agents with different prompts collaborate iteratively—one produces output, the other critiques it—until quality is satisfactory or a max iteration limit is reached. For **Memory**, a three-layer model is proposed: Session (ephemeral conversation context), State (temporary task data), and Memory (persistent, long-term storage). Regarding **Multi-Agent Systems**, the book advises against unnecessary complexity, recommending simple topologies like Supervisor or Peer-to-Peer based on task needs. It emphasizes perfecting a single Level 2 agent before moving to multi-agent setups. The author concludes with three actionable takeaways: 1) Add a Critic agent to existing workflows, 2) Practice Context Engineering beyond simple prompts, and 3) Avoid premature multi-agent complexity; first master a robust single agent. The book provides a practical map, codifying common challenges like reflection, memory, and coordination into reusable patterns, saving developers from reinventing foundational solutions.

链捕手1h ago

Agentic Design Patterns: A Book That Made Me Re-Understand "What Is an Agent, Really?"

链捕手1h ago

An AI Read SpaceX's Prospectus and Wrote This Investment Memo in 12 Minutes

An AI agent autonomously analyzed SpaceX's 226MB S-1 filing, purchased real-time market data on-chain for $1.87, and generated a comprehensive investment memo in 12 minutes. The memo concludes a "Hold" recommendation. Bull Thesis: SpaceX holds a near-monopoly in commercial launch (80% of global orbital mass since 2023), operates the profitable Starlink business (10.3M subscribers, $7.2B adj. EBITDA), and is vertically integrated from rockets to AI via the xAI acquisition. Starlink alone is a standout, high-margin business. Bear Thesis: The AI division is a massive cash burn ($6.4B operating loss on $3.2B revenue in 2025). True debt obligations approach ~$42B, not the headline $29B, due to bridge loans and X-related debt. Significant contingent liabilities exist, including a potential $10B fee from a Cursor option agreement. The company faces concentrated counterparty risk (e.g., a $45B Anthropic contract), slowing revenue growth, and complex governance as a controlled company with four share classes. Valuation anchors Starlink's standalone value at ~$84B (applying Iridium's 7.4x sales multiple), suggesting the current ~$500B+ IPO target prices in immense future execution risk for Starship and AI. Key risks include Starship delays, accelerating AI losses, and underwriter conflicts (the IPO's lead banks are also lenders on the $20B bridge loan it aims to refinance). Investment triggers: upgrade to "Overweight" if priced ≤$350B and Starship meets milestones; downgrade to "Pass" if priced >$510B or key risks materialize.

marsbit1h ago

An AI Read SpaceX's Prospectus and Wrote This Investment Memo in 12 Minutes

marsbit1h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures

Hot Articles

How to Buy FUN

Welcome to HTX.com! We've made purchasing FUNTOKEN (FUN) simple and convenient. Follow our step-by-step guide to embark on your crypto journey.Step 1: Create Your HTX AccountUse your email or phone number to sign up for a free account on HTX. Experience a hassle-free registration journey and unlock all features.Get My AccountStep 2: Go to Buy Crypto and Choose Your Payment MethodCredit/Debit Card: Use your Visa or Mastercard to buy FUNTOKEN (FUN) instantly.Balance: Use funds from your HTX account balance to trade seamlessly.Third Parties: We've added popular payment methods such as Google Pay and Apple Pay to enhance convenience.P2P: Trade directly with other users on HTX.Over-the-Counter (OTC): We offer tailor-made services and competitive exchange rates for traders.Step 3: Store Your FUNTOKEN (FUN)After purchasing your FUNTOKEN (FUN), store it in your HTX account. Alternatively, you can send it elsewhere via blockchain transfer or use it to trade other cryptocurrencies.Step 4: Trade FUNTOKEN (FUN)Easily trade FUNTOKEN (FUN) on HTX's spot market. Simply access your account, select your trading pair, execute your trades, and monitor in real-time. We offer a user-friendly experience for both beginners and seasoned traders.

5.0k Total ViewsPublished 2025.06.25Updated 2025.07.03

How to Buy FUN

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of FUN (FUN) are presented below.

活动图片