PUMP drops 11% in 24 hours – How likely is further downside?

ambcryptoPublicado em 2025-09-18Última atualização em 2025-09-19

Key Takeaways

What triggered the recent price decline for PUMP?

The price drop was primarily driven by heavy selling from whales and a negative Funding Rate, with short positions dominating the market.

Could PUMP experience a rebound despite the current bearish sentiment?

Yes, there is potential for a rebound if it reaches lower liquidity zones, which could serve as demand areas and push the price higher.


In the past 24 hours, Pump.fun [PUMP]  recorded one of the steepest outflows, with liquidity draining fast and forcing an 11% squeeze that brought its press-time value to $0.007.

Market analysis revealed that derivative investors played the central role in the decline. AMBCrypto reviewed the data to uncover what is happening.

Whales at the center of the decline

Whales have been the main contributors to the price slump witnessed in the market over the past day, according to fresh insights from CoinGlass.

Hyperliquid’s Whale Tracker shows that derivative selling volume made up the largest share of overall trading activity.

Short whales represented over 52% of the market’s trading volume at the time, while longs held a smaller share of 47%, according to the report.

With this imbalance, long whales now face potential liquidation as selling pressure builds and bears maintain control of the market.

PUMP whale trackerPUMP whale tracker

Source:CoinGlass

One whale with an $18 million long position has already come under heavy pressure. The position still remains in profit, but it could face steep losses if PUMP continues to fall.

Retail traders add to bearish sentiment

The bearish mood is not limited to whales, retail investors have also turned negative on PUMP.

CoinGlass data shows that the Funding Rate turned negative in the past day, dropping sharply to -0.0056, at press time.

A negative Funding Rate means short traders are driving the majority of capital flows needed to maintain the balance between long and short positions.

However, this short-dominated inflow has been shrinking, while overall outflows have risen significantly over the past 24 hours.

PUMP open interestPUMP open interest

Source:CoinGlass

Approximately $20.59 million worth of contracts in the perpetual market were closed, as Open Interest declined, reflecting broader bearish sentiment.

With the majority of capital still concentrated in shorts, continued downward pressure could trigger an even sharper plunge for PUMP.

Direction remains split

Despite the heavy selling, the liquidation chart indicates that PUMP’s direction is still two-sided, with the asset either likely to extend its drop or stage a rally.

AMBCrypto analysis shows that PUMP could first slide toward the lower liquidity clusters visible on the chart.

However, these zones may serve as demand areas, which could drive a rebound and push the token higher once again.

PUMP liquidation chart.PUMP liquidation chart.

Source:CoinGlass

For now, the overall market sentiment remains bearish, with both whales and retail traders aligned on the likelihood of more downside pressure.

Share

Leituras Relacionadas

The Danger of Old Bookmarks: How an Expired Tornado Cash Domain Cost a User 1,000 ETH

A user lost over 1,010 ETH (worth millions) due to a phishing attack via an expired official domain of the Tornado Cash protocol. As reported on August 20, 2026, the domain `tornado.cash` was not renewed by the original developers amid U.S. OFAC sanctions and was subsequently registered by malicious actors. They deployed a fake frontend mimicking the legitimate Tornado Cash interface. Through this site, the attackers gained access to the user's deposit notes—the data required to withdraw funds from the protocol's pools—and drained the ETH within 12 hours. On-chain data shows the stolen funds (e.g., wallet 0xd8B356...) were withdrawn from Tornado Cash pools. However, on-chain analyst Specter cast doubt on the victim's story. He suggested the individual might be involved in illicit activity, noting that a large sum of BTC was received from a coin-mixing service (Whirlpool) and converted to ETH before being sent to the fake Tornado Cash site. The victim's explanation of urgently moving funds due to a compromised hardware wallet was questioned, as the fund trail indicated deliberate obfuscation. Specter speculated this might be a conflict between malicious actors rather than a simple phishing case. The incident highlights the danger of expired domains for major protocols, where old bookmarks can lead to compromised sites. WHOIS records show the domain was registered in March 2025. Broader analysis notes that in 2025, over $1.8 billion was lost to scams and exploits, largely through social engineering like phishing via familiar but hijacked links. This case underscores the persistent risk when a domain's legal status changes but user trust and search engine reputation remain.

cryptonews.ruHá 40m

The Danger of Old Bookmarks: How an Expired Tornado Cash Domain Cost a User 1,000 ETH

cryptonews.ruHá 40m

You'll Be Surprised How Much WeChat's Architecture Differs from Telegram's

An article compares the core architectural philosophies of WeChat and Telegram, highlighting fundamental differences in data storage, monetization, and developer ecosystems. **Data Storage:** Telegram offers unlimited, synchronized cloud storage for seamless access across all devices. In contrast, WeChat stores chat history locally on each device, requiring a manual migration process for transfer and tethering desktop sessions to an active smartphone. **Features & Ecosystem:** Telegram's open Bot API allows for easy, free bot creation, while WeChat's massive ecosystem of over 4.8 million "mini-programs" operates within a closed, curated, and more regulated platform. Commenting also differs: Telegram uses integrated discussion threads for channels, whereas WeChat relies on pre-moderated comments for official accounts and separate chats for interaction. **File Sharing & Payments:** Telegram supports large file transfers (up to 4GB for Premium), while WeChat limits most files to 200MB. A key divergence is in payments: WeChat Pay is deeply integrated into daily life and commerce in China, whereas Telegram lacks a comparable built-in fiat payment system, focusing instead on third-party bots and crypto. **Analysis:** The comparison reveals two distinct models: WeChat is a tightly integrated, closed ecosystem deeply embedded in the real economy, while Telegram prioritizes open protocols, flexible data handling, and low barriers for developers. An added perspective notes that WeChat's fusion of messaging and payments in a single interface without end-to-end encryption for chats potentially broadens the attack surface, raising security questions as more functions converge.

cryptonews.ruHá 6h

You'll Be Surprised How Much WeChat's Architecture Differs from Telegram's

cryptonews.ruHá 6h

Trading

Spot
活动图片