2 Days, 20x: A Quick Look at the Automated Market Making Mechanism of the New Gem Snowball

深潮2025-12-22 tarihinde yayınlandı2025-12-22 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

Snowball, a new meme token launched on pump.fun on December 18, gained significant traction in the English-speaking crypto community by introducing an automated market-making mechanism designed to create a self-sustaining "snowball effect." Unlike typical meme coins where creators take a fee (usually 0.5%-1%) from each transaction, Snowball redirects 100% of this fee to an on-chain bot. This bot uses accumulated funds to buy back tokens, add liquidity to the pool, and burn a small portion of tokens periodically. The goal is to create continuous buy pressure and improve trading depth, theoretically allowing the token to grow organically through increased trading activity. Within four days, Snowball reached a $10 million market cap with over 7,000 holders and relatively decentralized ownership. However, the mechanism relies heavily on sustained trading volume to fuel the buyback bot. In a cold market with low on-chain activity, this "flywheel" could reverse if new buyers diminish. While the structure reduces developer exit risk, it doesn’t eliminate other meme coin dangers like large holder dumps or narrative fatigue. Similar projects like FIREBALL are emerging, indicating interest in "mechanism-driven memes," but past examples like OlympusDAO and Safemoon show that mechanisms alone don’t guarantee long-term value. Snowball remains primarily a meme experiment—interesting, but high-risk.

The crypto market in December is as cold as the weather.

On-chain transactions have been dormant for a long time, and new narratives are hard to come by. Just look at the drama and gossip in the Chinese CT (Crypto Twitter) space these past few days, and you'll know hardly anyone is playing in this market anymore.

But the English-speaking community has been discussing something new.

A meme coin called Snowball launched on pump.fun on December 18th. In four days, its market cap surged to $10 million and is still hitting new highs; yet it's barely mentioned in Chinese circles.

In the current environment, devoid of new narratives and where even memes are considered unplayable, this is one of the few things that catches the eye and shows some localized wealth effect.

And the name Snowball itself tells the story it wants to convey:

A mechanism that allows the token to "roll and grow larger by itself."

Turning Transaction Fees into Buy Pressure, Rolling the Snowball for Market Making

To understand what Snowball is doing, you first need to know how tokens on pump.fun typically make money.

On pump.fun, anyone can create a token in minutes. The token creator can set a "creator fee," essentially taking a cut of every transaction into their own wallet, usually between 0.5% and 1%.

This money could theoretically be used for community building or marketing, but in practice, most Devs choose to: accumulate enough and then run.

This is part of the typical life cycle of a shitcoin. Launch, pump, harvest fees, rug. Investors aren't betting on the token itself, but on the developer's conscience.

Snowball's approach is to not take this creator fee money.

To be precise, 100% of the creator fees do not go into anyone's wallet but are automatically transferred to an on-chain market-making bot.

This bot performs three actions at regular intervals:

First, it uses the accumulated funds to buy tokens on the market, creating buy-side support;

Second, it adds the bought tokens and the corresponding SOL to the liquidity pool, improving trading depth;

Third, it burns 0.1% of the tokens with each operation, creating deflation.

Additionally, the percentage taken as the creator fee is not fixed; it fluctuates between 0.05% and 0.95% based on market cap.

It takes a higher percentage when the market cap is low, allowing the bot to accumulate ammunition faster; it reduces the fee when the market cap is high, decreasing transaction friction.

In one sentence, the logic of this mechanism is: every time you trade, a portion of the money automatically becomes buy pressure and liquidity, instead of going into the developer's pocket.

Therefore, it's easy to understand this snowball effect:

Transactions generate fees → Fees become buy pressure → Buy pressure pushes the price up → Higher price attracts more transactions → More fees... theoretically, it can roll on its own.

On-Chain Data Situation

Now that we've covered the mechanism, let's look at the on-chain data.

Snowball launched on December 18th, so it's been four days now. Its market cap grew from zero to $10 million, with a 24-hour trading volume exceeding $11 million.

For a shitcoin on pump.fun, these results mean it's already one of the longer-lasting ones in the current environment.

In terms of token distribution, there are currently 7,270 holder addresses. The top ten holders combined hold about 20% of the total supply, with the largest single holder holding 4.65%.

(Data source: surf.ai)

There's no address holding 20-30% of the supply; the distribution is relatively decentralized.

Regarding trading data, there have been over 58,000 cumulative transactions since launch, with 33,000 buys and 24,000 sells. The total buy volume is $4.4 million, and sell volume is $4.3 million, resulting in a net inflow of about $100,000. Buying and selling are basically balanced, with no one-sided selling pressure.

The liquidity pool holds about $380,000, half in tokens and half in SOL. For a market cap of this size, the depth isn't very thick, and large orders would still experience significant slippage.

Another notable point is that Bybit Alpha announced listing the token less than 96 hours after launch, which to some extent confirms the short-term hype.

Perpetual Motion Meets a Cold Market

Looking around, you can see the English community's discussion about Snowball mainly focuses on the mechanism itself. Supporters' logic is straightforward:

This is the first meme coin that locks 100% of the creator fees into the protocol; developers can't take the money and run, making it structurally safer than other shitcoins, at least.

The Dev is also playing into this narrative. The developer wallet, market-making bot wallet, and transaction logs are all public, emphasizing "verifiable on-chain."

@bschizojew labels himself as "on-chain schizophrenia, 4chan special forces, first-generation meme coin veteran," radiating a self-deprecating degen vibe that really appeals to the crypto-native community.

But a safe mechanism and making money are two different things.

The snowball effect relies on the premise that there is sufficient trading volume to continuously generate fees to feed the bot for buybacks. More trades mean more ammunition for the bot, stronger buy pressure, higher prices, attracting more people to trade...

This is the ideal state for any meme coin's so-called buyback flywheel to spin up in a bull market.

The problem is, the flywheel needs external momentum to start.

What is the current crypto market environment? On-chain activity is sluggish, overall meme coin hype is down, and there's simply less capital willing to chase shitcoins. In this context, if new buy pressure doesn't keep up and trading volume shrinks, the fees the bot receives will become less and less, buyback strength weakens, price support falters, and trading willingness declines further.

The flywheel can spin forward, but it can also spin in reverse.

A more realistic problem is that the mechanism solves only one risk point—"developers taking money and running"—but meme coins face far more risks than that.

Whales dumping, insufficient liquidity, narratives going out of style—if any of these happen, 100% fee buybacks can only do so much.

Everyone is tired of being rugged. As one Chinese crypto brother aptly summarized:

Play if you want, but don't get in over your head.

More Than One Snowball Rolling

Snowball isn't the only project telling this automated market-making story.

Within the pump.fun ecosystem, a token called FIREBALL is doing something similar: automatic buybacks and burns, packaged as a protocol other tokens can plug into. But its market cap is much smaller than Snowball's.

This shows the market is currently responsive to the direction of "mechanism-based meme coins."

The traditional玩法 (playbook) of shilling, pumping, and community hype is finding it harder to attract capital. Using mechanism design to tell a "structurally safe" story might be one of meme coins' latest tricks.

That said, artificially creating a specific mechanism isn't a new玩法 (play) either.

OlympusDAO's (3,3) in 2021 was the most classic case, packaging a staking mechanism with game theory, telling the story "if everyone holds, we all profit together." It reached a peak market cap of several billion dollars. The ending, as everyone knows, was a death spiral, dropping over 90%.

Even earlier, there was Safemoon's玩法 of "taxing every transaction and distributing it to holders," also a narrative of mechanism innovation, which ended with the SEC suing and the founders charged with fraud.

A mechanism can be a great narrative hook, capable of gathering capital and attention in the short term, but the mechanism itself does not create value.

When external capital stops flowing in, even the most精巧 (ingenious) flywheel will stop.

Finally, let's recap what this little gem is actually doing:

Turning the meme coin's creator fees into an "automated market-making bot." The mechanism itself isn't complicated, and the problem it solves is very clear: preventing developers from directly taking the money and running.

Developers not being able to rug doesn't mean you'll make money.

If after reading this you find the mechanism interesting and want to participate, remember one thing: it is first and foremost a meme coin, and only secondly an experiment with a new mechanism.

Trend Kriptolar

İlgili Sorular

QWhat is the core mechanism that makes Snowball different from typical meme coins on pump.fun?

ASnowball's core mechanism is that 100% of the creator fees from each transaction are automatically sent to an on-chain market-making bot instead of going to the developer's wallet. This bot uses the accumulated funds to buy back tokens, add liquidity to the pool, and burn a small portion of tokens, creating a self-sustaining 'snowball effect' of buying pressure and liquidity growth.

QHow does the 'snowball effect' theoretically work in this token's economic model?

AThe 'snowball effect' works through a feedback loop: transactions generate fees → fees are used by the bot to buy tokens and add liquidity → buying pressure pushes the price higher → higher prices attract more traders and transactions → which generates more fees for the bot to continue the cycle.

QWhat are some of the risks or limitations of Snowball's automatic market-making mechanism?

AThe mechanism relies on sustained trading volume to generate fees for the bot. If new buyers dry up and trading volume decreases, the bot's buying power weakens, potentially leading to a downward spiral. It also doesn't protect against other risks like large holders dumping, liquidity issues, or narrative fatigue.

QHow does the creator fee percentage in Snowball adjust, and why?

AThe creator fee percentage in Snowball fluctuates between 0.05% and 0.95% based on market capitalization. It charges a higher percentage when the market cap is low to allow the bot to accumulate funds faster, and a lower percentage when the market cap is high to reduce transaction friction for traders.

QWhat precedent exists in crypto for 'mechanism-driven' tokens like Snowball, and what were their outcomes?

APrecedents include OlympusDAO's (3,3) staking mechanism, which collapsed after reaching a multi-billion dollar valuation, and Safemoon's transaction tax redistribution model, which ended with fraud charges from the SEC. These show that while mechanisms can drive short-term hype, they don't create inherent value and often fail when external capital stops flowing in.

İlgili Okumalar

Behind the AI Scorecards Lies a Chinese 'Question Setter'

Behind the AI scorecards that dominate industry discussions—benchmarks like MMLU-Pro, MMMU, and MMMU-Pro—stands a Chinese-Canadian researcher: Wenhu Chen. As an assistant professor at the University of Waterloo and founder of the TIGER Lab, Chen has become a key "exam-setter" for evaluating large language and multimodal models. Chen first gained broader recognition with MMLU-Pro, a more challenging and stable update to the popular MMLU benchmark. As top models like OpenAI’s o3 began achieving near-perfect scores on the original MMLU, it became difficult to distinguish their true capabilities. MMLU-Pro introduced more complex reasoning questions, expanded answer choices, and filtered out ambiguous or simple items, effectively reintroducing differentiation among state-of-the-art models. His work on MMMU addressed the evaluation of multimodal models, requiring them to integrate visual information (like charts, diagrams, or tables) with textual knowledge across diverse academic subjects. Even the strongest models initially scored only around 56-59%, highlighting significant room for improvement in genuine multimodal reasoning. MMMU-Pro further refined this by preventing models from bypassing visual cues. Chen’s research focus has long been on complex information understanding and reasoning. His background—including a PhD at UC Santa Barbara, research at Google/DeepMind on Gemini, and now a role in Meta’s superintelligence lab—provides deep insight into model development and their potential weaknesses. His TIGER Lab also builds models (e.g., for video understanding and generation), ensuring his evaluation benchmarks are grounded in practical challenges. While AI headlines often spotlight company leaders and product launches, Chen’s work exemplifies the critical, behind-the-scenes contributions of researchers crafting the rigorous standards that define and drive progress in AI capabilities.

marsbit24 dk önce

Behind the AI Scorecards Lies a Chinese 'Question Setter'

marsbit24 dk önce

STRC Unpegged by 11%, Can Strategy's Perpetual Motion Machine Keep Turning?

STRC, the perpetual preferred stock of MicroStrategy, is experiencing a persistent de-pegging from its target par value of $100, with the discount recently widening to over 11%. This de-anchoring challenges the core design of STRC, which was intended as a stable, income-oriented security operating near $100. As a crucial funding engine for MicroStrategy's Bitcoin acquisition strategy, STRC's price reflects market confidence in the company's entire capital model. The company's "capital flywheel" relies on issuing STRC at or above $100 via an At-the-Market (ATM) program to raise cash for buying Bitcoin, thereby boosting company equity and theoretically supporting STRC's value. A monthly adjustable dividend mechanism was designed to maintain this peg. Despite raising the dividend to 11.5% and increasing payment frequency, the de-pegging persists. Market concerns extend beyond technical factors like leveraged arbitrage unwinding. Analysts point to MicroStrategy's limited cash reserves relative to its ~$1.7 billion annual dividend obligation for preferred shares. While the company counters that its vast Bitcoin holdings could cover decades of payments, this argument hinges on the potential need to sell Bitcoin—a shift from its longstanding "hodl" narrative. The company's recent sale of a small amount of BTC, framed as a test, amplified these liquidity and strategy concerns. If STRC remains discounted, impairing MicroStrategy's ability to raise cheap capital, fears may grow that the company could sell more Bitcoin to meet obligations. This scenario could transform MicroStrategy from a major market buyer into a potential seller, posing significant downside risk for Bitcoin. The re-pegging of STRC is thus a key indicator for the health of MicroStrategy's capital structure and its market impact.

Odaily星球日报38 dk önce

STRC Unpegged by 11%, Can Strategy's Perpetual Motion Machine Keep Turning?

Odaily星球日报38 dk önce

Silicon Valley's Most Sought-After New Role Has Emerged

Silicon Valley's New Most Wanted Job: The Rise of the Forward Deployment Engineer The AI industry is witnessing a significant shift. The focus has moved from developing cutting-edge models to deploying them effectively within enterprises. This has made the "Forward Deployment Engineer" (FDE) a critical and highly sought-after role at major firms like OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google. For the past three years, the industry prioritized model scientists. However, companies are now facing a harsh reality: purchasing powerful AI tools does not guarantee productivity gains or organizational change. The biggest hurdle is not the technology itself, but integrating it into complex legacy systems, workflows, and corporate cultures. This includes challenges like data silos, compliance requirements, and internal resistance. The FDE role, pioneered by Palantir Technologies, addresses this "last-mile" problem. FDEs are deployed on-site with clients for extended periods. Their job is to deeply understand the client's specific organizational structure, processes, and pain points, then tailor and implement the AI solution accordingly. They combine skills in technology, project management, and organizational change. A clear signal of this trend emerged in May 2026 when three AI giants made major moves. Anthropic launched a $1.5B joint venture for enterprise deployment. OpenAI formed an independent deployment subsidiary, DeployCo, with over $4B in commitments and acquired a deployment consultancy. Google Cloud's CEO publicly announced a large-scale recruitment drive for FDEs. This shift represents a fundamental change in the software business model: from selling tools to selling guaranteed outcomes. FDEs are the agents of this change, responsible for delivering a working system within the production environment, not just a demo. Real-world cases, such as challenges at Goldman Sachs (compliance barriers) and Target (internal cultural resistance), illustrate that the primary obstacles to AI adoption are organizational, not technical. An FDE's value lies in navigating these human and procedural complexities to facilitate a successful "AI migration." In essence, as core AI technology becomes more accessible and affordable, the true premium is shifting to the human expertise required to understand organizations and drive change—making the FDE role pivotal for the next phase of the AI revolution.

marsbit38 dk önce

Silicon Valley's Most Sought-After New Role Has Emerged

marsbit38 dk önce

When the World Cup Collides with Agents: From Web2 to Web3, How Are Wallets Evolving into Agentic Wallets?

World Cup as a Catalyst for Agentic Wallets: From Web2 to Web3 This article explores how the World Cup provides a real-world scenario for observing the evolution of digital wallets from simple asset managers towards "Agentic Wallets"—intelligent, AI-powered interfaces. Using the example of prediction markets like Polymarket, it illustrates how AI Agents can lower the barrier to Web3 interaction. Instead of navigating complex DApps, users can express intent in natural language (e.g., "I think Portugal will win") within platforms like Discord or web pages. The Agent then interprets this intent, finds the relevant market, and seamlessly guides the user through the on-chain transaction via their wallet. The core shift is from wallets as mere "function menus" for signing transactions to "intent interpreters" that understand user goals. The article highlights parallel developments in traditional finance, such as Mastercard's "Agent Pay" and WeChat Pay's AI tests, which focus on granting AI controlled, authorized, and auditable payment capabilities. This underscores a broader trend of AI entering the financial layer. However, the article emphasizes that the primary challenge for Agentic Wallets in Web3 is not automation but establishing clear security boundaries. Unlike traditional systems with chargebacks, on-chain transactions are often irreversible. Therefore, future wallets must ensure users retain ultimate control and comprehension. They need to transparently communicate an Agent's permissions, spending limits, authorized durations, and provide easy ways to pause or revoke access. The World Cup experiments represent early steps toward wallets that are not just applications but ubiquitous, intelligent interfaces that simplify Web3 while keeping users securely in control.

marsbit2 saat önce

When the World Cup Collides with Agents: From Web2 to Web3, How Are Wallets Evolving into Agentic Wallets?

marsbit2 saat önce

Options Don't Work in DeFi? Vitalik Might Not Agree

For years, the prevailing view has been that options struggle to gain traction in DeFi due to complexity, fragmented liquidity, and lack of natural demand compared to products like perpetual futures. However, a recent algorithmic stablecoin design proposed by Vitalik Buterin presents a different perspective, using options not as a standalone trading product, but as foundational infrastructure for other financial instruments. In this design, one unit of ETH is split into two components: a "stable" side (P) that retains value up to a specified strike price, and an "upside" side (N) that captures all appreciation above that strike. Combined, they always equal one ETH, eliminating debt, margin, and liquidation risks inherent in typical collateralized debt position (CDP) stablecoins. The stable component essentially mimics the payoff of a covered call option. To function as a stablecoin, this structure requires continuously rolling deep in-the-money calls, which introduces challenges like rollover slippage, predictable transaction flow vulnerable to front-running, and persistent liquidity needs. A core hurdle is finding consistent buyers for the leveraged ETH upside exposure (N). While it offers leverage without funding rates or liquidation, it must compete with simpler alternatives like direct call options or perpetuals. The system's scalability depends on a sustained demand for this specific form of leverage. The author draws parallels to their experience with Rysk, where earlier versions of DeFi options protocols struggled. The breakthrough came with Rysk V12, which aligns incentives: asset holders generate yield by selling covered calls against their holdings, while market makers efficiently acquire the desired option exposure. This demonstrates that options can find product-market fit when embedded as a risk distribution and pricing engine within structured products, stablecoins, or yield-generating assets, rather than marketed as a complex direct trading instrument. Vitalik's proposal reinforces this architectural approach—using fully collateralized, non-custodial, and physically settled options as a fundamental building block. The real opportunity for options in DeFi may lie not in becoming the next perpetual swap, but in powering the next generation of on-chain financial products.

marsbit2 saat önce

Options Don't Work in DeFi? Vitalik Might Not Agree

marsbit2 saat önce

İşlemler

Spot
Futures

Popüler Makaleler

QUICK Nasıl Satın Alınır

HTX.com’a hoş geldiniz! Quickswap (QUICK) satın alma işlemlerini basit ve kullanışlı bir hâle getirdik. Adım adım açıkladığımız rehberimizi takip ederek kripto yolculuğunuza başlayın. 1. Adım: HTX Hesabınızı OluşturunHTX'te ücretsiz bir hesap açmak için e-posta adresinizi veya telefon numaranızı kullanın. Sorunsuzca kaydolun ve tüm özelliklerin kilidini açın. Hesabımı Aç2. Adım: Kripto Satın Al Bölümüne Gidin ve Ödeme Yönteminizi SeçinKredi/Banka Kartı: Visa veya Mastercard'ınızı kullanarak anında Quickswap (QUICK) satın alın.Bakiye: Sorunsuz bir şekilde işlem yapmak için HTX hesap bakiyenizdeki fonları kullanın.Üçüncü Taraflar: Kullanımı kolaylaştırmak için Google Pay ve Apple Pay gibi popüler ödeme yöntemlerini ekledik.P2P: HTX'teki diğer kullanıcılarla doğrudan işlem yapın.Borsa Dışı (OTC): Yatırımcılar için kişiye özel hizmetler ve rekabetçi döviz kurları sunuyoruz.3. Adım: Quickswap (QUICK) Varlıklarınızı SaklayınQuickswap (QUICK) satın aldıktan sonra HTX hesabınızda saklayın. Alternatif olarak, blok zinciri transferi yoluyla başka bir yere gönderebilir veya diğer kripto para birimlerini takas etmek için kullanabilirsiniz.4. Adım: Quickswap (QUICK) Varlıklarınızla İşlem YapınHTX'in spot piyasasında Quickswap (QUICK) ile kolayca işlemler yapın.Hesabınıza erişin, işlem çiftinizi seçin, işlemlerinizi gerçekleştirin ve gerçek zamanlı olarak izleyin. Hem yeni başlayanlar hem de deneyimli yatırımcılar için kullanıcı dostu bir deneyim sunuyoruz.

133 Toplam GörüntülenmeYayınlanma 2024.12.11Güncellenme 2026.06.02

QUICK Nasıl Satın Alınır

Tartışmalar

HTX Topluluğuna hoş geldiniz. Burada, en son platform gelişmeleri hakkında bilgi sahibi olabilir ve profesyonel piyasa görüşlerine erişebilirsiniz. Kullanıcıların QUICK (QUICK) fiyatı hakkındaki görüşleri aşağıda sunulmaktadır.

活动图片