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

marsbitОпубліковано о 2025-12-22Востаннє оновлено о 2025-12-22

Анотація

The meme token Snowball" launched on pump.fun on December 18 and gained significant traction in the English-speaking crypto community, reaching a $10 million market cap within four days while largely flying under the radar in Chinese crypto circles. Its core innovation is an automated market-making mechanism: instead of the typical "creator fee" (usually 0.5%–1% per transaction) going to the developer’s wallet—a common setup that often leads to rug pulls—Snowball directs 100% of this fee to an on-chain bot. This bot periodically: 1. Buys back tokens to create buy pressure, 2. Adds the purchased tokens and corresponding SOL to the liquidity pool to improve depth, 3. Burns 0.1% of tokens to induce deflation. The fee rate also adjusts dynamically based on market cap (0.05%–0.95%) to balance accumulation and transaction friction. The idea is a "snowball effect": trading generates fees → fees fuel buybacks → buybacks may push price up → higher prices attract more trading. On-chain data shows 7,270 holders, with the top 10 holding ~20% of supply. Trading volume has been relatively balanced between buys and sells. However, the token remains highly speculative. While the structure reduces dev exit risk, it doesn’t eliminate other meme coin risks like low liquidity, narrative fatigue, or large holder dumps. Similar projects like FIREBALL are emerging, suggesting a trend toward "mechanism-driven memes." But as past examples like OlympusDAO and Safemoon show, complex t...

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 circulating in the Chinese CT (Crypto Twitter) 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, lacking 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 bigger by itself."

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

To understand what Snowball is doing, you first need to know how pump.fun tokens 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 and marketing, but in practice, most Devs choose to: accumulate enough and then rug.

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 to 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 buying 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 of creator fees this coin charges 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 buying pressure and liquidity, instead of going into the developer's pocket.

Therefore, you can easily understand this snowball effect:

Transactions generate fees → Fees become buying pressure → Buying pressure pushes up the price → Higher price attracts more transactions → More fees... theoretically, it can roll on by itself.

On-Chain Data Situation

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

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

For a shitcoin on pump.fun, this performance is considered relatively long-lasting in the current environment.

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

(Data source: surf.ai)

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

Regarding transaction data, there have been over 58,000 transactions since launch, with 33,000 buys and 24,000 sells. The total buy volume is $4.4 million, and the 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 noteworthy 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

After looking around, you can see that 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, preventing developers from rugging, 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 schizophrenic, 4chan special forces, first-generation meme coin veteran," radiating a self-deprecating degen vibe that strongly 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 buying pressure, higher prices, attracting more people to trade...

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

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

What is the current crypto market environment? On-chain activity is sluggish, overall meme coin hype is down, and there's already little capital willing to chase shitcoins. In this context, if new buying pressure doesn't keep up and trading volume shrinks, the fees the bot receives will become less and fewer, buybacks will weaken, price support will diminish, and trading willingness will decline 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 the money and running"—but meme coins face far more risks than that.

Whales dumping, insufficient liquidity, narratives going out of style—any one of these happening would render the 100% fee buyback largely ineffective.

Everyone is tired of being rugged. A Chinese crypto brother summarized it quite well:

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

More Than One Snowball is 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 indicates the market is currently responsive to the direction of "mechanism-based meme coins."

The traditional玩法 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 the recent trends for meme coins.

That said, artificially creating a specific mechanism isn't a new玩法.

The most typical case in 2021 was OlympusDAO's (3,3), which used game theory to package a staking mechanism, telling the story "if everyone holds, everyone profits," reaching a peak market cap of billions of 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 charging the founders with fraud.

Mechanisms can be great narrative hooks, 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designed flywheel will stop turning.

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.

The developer not being able to rug doesn't mean you will 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.

Пов'язані питання

QWhat is the core mechanism that Snowball uses to create a 'self-rolling' effect?

ASnowball uses a mechanism where 100% of the creator fees from each transaction are automatically sent to an on-chain market-making bot. This bot periodically uses the accumulated funds to buy tokens (creating buy pressure), adds the purchased tokens and corresponding SOL to the liquidity pool, and burns 0.1% of the tokens to create deflation.

QHow does the creator fee in Snowball differ from a typical pump.fun token?

AIn a typical pump.fun token, the creator fee (usually 0.5% to 1%) goes directly into the developer's wallet, which they can withdraw and potentially abandon the project with. In Snowball, 100% of this fee is automatically sent to an on-chain market-making bot instead of going to any individual, making it structurally harder for the developer to 'rug pull'.

QWhat are the potential risks of investing in a meme coin like Snowball, according to the article?

AThe risks include a general decline in market activity and meme coin hype, which could lead to reduced trading volume. If new buying pressure doesn't materialize, the bot's funding from fees decreases, weakening buy support and price stability. Other risks not solved by the mechanism include large holders (whales) dumping, insufficient liquidity, and the narrative simply falling out of fashion.

QWhat precedent does the article mention for meme coins with innovative mechanisms, and what was their outcome?

AThe article mentions OlympusDAO's (3,3) staking mechanism, which promised mutual gains if holders sold, but its市值 eventually fell over 90%. It also references Safemoon, which used a transaction tax redistribution mechanism and whose founders were later charged with fraud by the SEC. These examples show that mechanisms can be a good narrative but don't inherently create value if external capital stops flowing in.

QWhat key piece of advice does the article give to potential participants interested in Snowball's mechanism?

AThe key advice is to remember that Snowball is first and foremost a meme coin, and only secondly an experiment with a new mechanism. While the mechanism addresses developer rug pulls, it does not guarantee profits. Participants are advised to 'play but don't get too carried away' or 'don't go overboard'.

Пов'язані матеріали

Understanding CPO (Co-Packaged Optics) in One Article: Why Nvidia Is Willing to Spend $3.2 Billion on a Fiber?

NVIDIA and Corning announced a multi-year strategic partnership on May 6, 2026, with NVIDIA committing up to $3.2 billion to support Corning's U.S. expansion. This investment will triple Corning's manufacturing plants and significantly boost its optical fiber and communications production capacity. The core driver behind this massive investment is the fundamental shift from copper to optical interconnect technology within AI data centers. As GPU clusters scale, copper wires face critical limitations: severe signal attenuation over distance, high energy consumption for signal integrity, and excessive heat generation. Optical fiber, transmitting light instead of electrical signals, solves these issues with minimal loss, near-light speed, and lower power needs. The article outlines a three-stage evolution of data center interconnect: 1. **Traditional Copper Interconnects:** The mainstream solution of the 2010s, now being phased out due to scaling bottlenecks. 2. **Pluggable Optical Modules:** The current mainstream, where modules convert electrical signals to light externally. This process still introduces energy loss and latency. 3. **CPO (Co-Packaged Optics):** The next-generation technology where the optical engine is integrated directly with the GPU chip package. This drastically reduces the electrical signal travel distance to mere millimeters, slashing power consumption and latency while boosting data density. NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang has identified CPO as an essential core technology for AI infrastructure. NVIDIA's investment signifies a strategic shift from being a buyer to actively controlling its supply chain for critical components. With demand for specialized optical fiber far outstripping supply—evidenced by soaring prices—securing long-term manufacturing capacity has become a competitive necessity. While Corning's expansion may pressure some suppliers, a projected global fiber supply gap of 5-15% over the next few years creates a significant opportunity window, particularly for Chinese manufacturers competitive in optical preforms, chips, and modules. Ultimately, NVIDIA's move is not about chasing a trend but an engineering imperative. The transition to light-based interconnects like CPO is driven by the physical limits of copper, marking a definitive step in the ongoing AI computing revolution.

marsbit9 хв тому

Understanding CPO (Co-Packaged Optics) in One Article: Why Nvidia Is Willing to Spend $3.2 Billion on a Fiber?

marsbit9 хв тому

KOL's Perspective: Why Is SOL Set to Rise from This Point?

**Summary: Why SOL is Positioned for Growth at This Level** The article argues that SOL is poised for an upward move from its current price point, citing several key factors. Primarily, SOL has just broken out of a 4-month consolidation phase. This breakout signals a return of risk appetite to the broader crypto market, as SOL is seen as a key indicator of overall crypto health. The token's ownership has reportedly shifted from short-term traders and tourists to long-term accumulators, leading to low volume. Any meaningful increase in trading activity could thus trigger significant upward momentum. Fundamental strengths include strong institutional adoption, integration with DeFi and RWAs (Real-World Assets), and the potential benefits from the Clarity Act. Despite its high volatility—having dropped 70% from its all-time high but still up 12x from its bear market low—SOL is highlighted as one of the few tokens from the last cycle to reach new highs. It boasts a robust ecosystem of applications, users, and protocols. Future catalysts include the expected influx of AI developers following the Miami Accelerate conference, which focused on AI on Solana. Furthermore, Solana is positioned as the premier chain for memecoin activity, a trend expected to continue and drive network usage and fees. The article concludes that recent price action reflects a healthy transfer to long-term holders, setting the stage for growth.

marsbit59 хв тому

KOL's Perspective: Why Is SOL Set to Rise from This Point?

marsbit59 хв тому

Those Pre-Bitcoin PoW Protocols Have Recently Been Reimplemented

This article details a recent surge in replicating pre-Bitcoin Proof-of-Work (PoW) protocols, specifically focusing on Hal Finney's 2004 RPOW (Reusable Proofs of Work). Within five days in May 2026, multiple independent builders in the Bitcoin/cypherpunk community launched projects inspired by this early electronic cash proposal. The initiative began with Fred Krueger's `rpow2.com`, a centralized but auditable system that replaced RPOW's original IBM 4758 hardware with Ed25519 signatures. Initially a faithful replica, it later adopted Bitcoin-like features (21M supply cap, difficulty adjustment) and a controversial 5.24% founder allocation. This sparked rapid forks, including `rpow4.com` which incorporated full Bitcoin parameters, a prediction market (`rpowmarket.com`), and a DEX (`rpow2swap.com`). Concurrently, Mike In Space created a prototype of Wei Dai's 1998 b-money proposal (`b-money.replit.app`), pushing the historical exploration even further back. The article contrasts these centralized, server-dependent experiments with Bitcoin's core innovation of decentralized, trustless consensus. It also highlights a parallel development: the `HASH` project on Ethereum, which uses smart contract hooks to enable a purely fair-launch, browser-mineable PoW token with 0% allocations to team or VCs. The collective activity is framed as a meme-driven, educational exploration of cypherpunk history rather than a serious financial movement, with all projects heavily disclaiming any investment value.

marsbit1 год тому

Those Pre-Bitcoin PoW Protocols Have Recently Been Reimplemented

marsbit1 год тому

South Korean Exchanges 'Battle' Regulators, Challenging the Boundaries of Enforcement and Legislation

South Korea's cryptocurrency industry is engaged in a rare, direct confrontation with regulators. The Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU), the primary anti-money laundering (AML) watchdog, has recently imposed heavy penalties on major exchanges like Upbit and Bithumb for alleged violations involving unregistered overseas VASPs and AML procedures. However, exchanges are now actively challenging these actions in court and through industry associations. In a significant shift, the Seoul Administrative Court ruled in favor of Upbit's operator, Dunamu, overturning part of an FIU-ordered business suspension. The court found the FIU's penalty criteria and justification insufficiently clear. Similarly, the court suspended the enforcement of a six-month business suspension against Bithumb pending a final ruling, citing potential irreversible harm to the exchange. Beyond legal battles, the industry is contesting proposed legislative amendments. The Digital Asset eXchange Alliance (DAXA) strongly opposes a draft rule that would mandate Suspicious Transaction Reports (STRs) for all crypto transfers over 10 million KRW (~$6,800). DAXA argues this "poison pill" clause violates legal principles and would overwhelm the STR system, increasing reports from 63,000 to an estimated 5.45 million annually for major exchanges, thereby crippling effective AML monitoring. This conflict highlights a structural tension in South Korea's crypto governance: comprehensive digital asset laws are still developing, while regulators rely heavily on AML enforcement. The industry's move from passive compliance to active legal and legislative challenges signifies a new phase, pressing for clearer rules and more proportionate enforcement. While short-term disputes may intensify, this clash could ultimately lead to a more mature and sustainable regulatory framework for South Korea's vibrant crypto market.

marsbit1 год тому

South Korean Exchanges 'Battle' Regulators, Challenging the Boundaries of Enforcement and Legislation

marsbit1 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси

Популярні статті

Як купити QUICK

Ласкаво просимо до HTX.com! Ми зробили покупку Quickswap (QUICK) простою та зручною. Дотримуйтесь нашої покрокової інструкції, щоб розпочати свою криптовалютну подорож.Крок 1: Створіть обліковий запис на HTXВикористовуйте свою електронну пошту або номер телефону, щоб зареєструвати обліковий запис на HTX безплатно. Пройдіть безпроблемну реєстрацію й отримайте доступ до всіх функцій.ЗареєструватисьКрок 2: Перейдіть до розділу Купити крипту і виберіть спосіб оплатиКредитна/дебетова картка: використовуйте вашу картку Visa або Mastercard, щоб миттєво купити Quickswap (QUICK).Баланс: використовуйте кошти з балансу вашого рахунку HTX для безперешкодної торгівлі.Треті особи: ми додали популярні способи оплати, такі як Google Pay та Apple Pay, щоб підвищити зручність.P2P: Торгуйте безпосередньо з іншими користувачами на HTX.Позабіржова торгівля (OTC): ми пропонуємо індивідуальні послуги та конкурентні обмінні курси для трейдерів.Крок 3: Зберігайте свої Quickswap (QUICK)Після придбання Quickswap (QUICK) збережіть його у своєму обліковому записі на HTX. Крім того, ви можете відправити його в інше місце за допомогою блокчейн-переказу або використовувати його для торгівлі іншими криптовалютами.Крок 4: Торгівля Quickswap (QUICK)Легко торгуйте Quickswap (QUICK) на спотовому ринку HTX. Просто увійдіть до свого облікового запису, виберіть торгову пару, укладайте угоди та спостерігайте за ними в режимі реального часу. Ми пропонуємо зручний досвід як для початківців, так і для досвідчених трейдерів.

86 переглядів усьогоОпубліковано 2024.12.11Оновлено 2025.03.21

Як купити QUICK

Обговорення

Ласкаво просимо до спільноти HTX. Тут ви можете бути в курсі останніх подій розвитку платформи та отримати доступ до професійної ринкової інформації. Нижче представлені думки користувачів щодо ціни QUICK (QUICK).

活动图片