Interview with Blockworks Research Head: From Pump.fun to Believe, Memes Are Becoming a New Way to "Monetize Ideas"
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
Interview with Blockworks Research Head: From Pump.fun to Believe, Memes Are Becoming a New Way to "Monetize Ideas"
The key is whether an idea can succeed; memecoins can price ideas more quickly.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsCompiled & Translated: TechFlow
Guest: Ryan Connor, Head of Research at Blockworks
Host: Jack Kubinec
Podcast Source: Lightspeed
Original Title: The Solana Token Launchpad Coming for Venture Capital | Ryan Connor
Release Date: May 16, 2025
Key Takeaways
We invited Ryan Connor to discuss the launch of the Believe app. This conversation covered several hot topics, including whether Believe could become a new form of venture capital, the meme-ification of capital markets, how to achieve product-market fit (PMF), and the sniping issues on Pump platforms.
Highlights Summary
-
The tech industry's norm is to act ahead of regulation. The key is to get a head start and force the regulatory system to adapt to you. If you wait, someone else will seize the opportunity.
-
Believe issues genuinely scarce units of value—cash flow, for instance, is a scarce resource.
-
Believe is not a social app; it's more of a financial app and doesn't require daily active users like a social platform does.
-
Consumer crypto has already become an objective reality—it’s very concrete and highly financialized. Consumer crypto has arrived, and as regulations gradually clarify, the outlook for this space becomes even more promising.
-
Pump is extremely successful—I'm a big fan—but not everyone wants to participate in such a hyper-competitive model. A segment of the market is looking for platforms with better curation. If you can combine independent developers’ innovation with users’ demand for high-quality experiences, Believe could become a highly promising platform.
-
Believe helps independent app developers issue their tokens, typically launching them alongside their indie projects. On the supply side, there’s latent demand to monetize equity or raise small amounts of capital; on the demand side, there’s clearly strong appetite for venture-like returns from these small-scale projects.
-
The success of an idea is what truly matters, and memecoins offer a very fast, immediate way of capital formation. Founders can “vibe code” an app or propose an idea, and memecoins allow faster pricing of that idea.
-
Whether token issuance is appropriate depends on the context. If you decide to issue a token, you must clearly manage community expectations and develop a long-term strategy to continuously create value for the token.
-
A proper launch platform must be able to issue units of value, support trading, provide price charts and grid views to evaluate different tokens’ ROI. However, Zora removed these features, creating a mismatch between its design and the actual needs of a token launchpad, making its product logic untenable.
-
We’re currently in a phase where regulation isn’t fully clear. This puts token issuers in a difficult position—they need to stay compliant while knowing that issuing tokens benefits their product, users, and holders. They want to add more utility to tokens but are constrained.
-
Pump is an interesting “chicken game” and has achieved strong product-market fit (PMF); people will keep playing. Believe, on the other hand, attracts those who prefer investing in “growth-hacking-style” startups—betting on ultra-low-cap tokens with real potential.
-
The pipeline of curated projects on Believe could indeed dry up. Poor market timing, insufficient users, or lack of capital and creativity could all lead to fewer projects.
-
From a developer’s perspective, all these apps have problems, but ultimately, the core functionality is what matters. For Pump.fun, that core function is enabling user participation in the game.
-
Novelty isn’t the deciding factor. Pump.fun didn’t invent anything new—it simply packaged the past decade’s strong demand in crypto for arbitrary asset issuance and trading into an easy-to-use product, lowering barriers to entry, and thus succeeded.
-
Consumer apps work this way—they don’t create demand but optimize how existing demand is fulfilled.
Solana’s Latest Project Incubation Platform
Jack:
We want to talk about the recently popular Believe app. It’s a new Solana-based application, a new memecoin launchpad offering startups a sort of “pseudo-equity” model.
This morning I tweeted that out of the 25 new tokens launched on Solana this week, 14 were issued through Believe, while Pump.fun accounted for only 7. Compared to memecoin trading over the past year, this is clearly a significant shift. According to data from the community-built tracking tool Believe Screener, Believe has achieved $724 million in 24-hour trading volume over the past few months.
This is undoubtedly a major success for founder Ben Pasternak. He previously founded an alternative food startup that launched Nuggs, a chicken nugget alternative—very creative. Now he’s back with Believe.
Ryan, I think you might like Believe more than I do. Let’s start simple: Believe is a memecoin launchpad, and there are many such platforms. What makes this one special?
Ryan:
Great question. I often remind myself not to easily conclude that a startup will fail. More importantly, we need to distinguish between fundamentally flawed “bad ideas” and projects that could succeed if executed well.
I firmly believe Believe falls into the latter category. I think this project can succeed.
There are two main reasons why it differs from other memecoin launchpads. First, it has a clear market positioning targeting independent app developers and growth hackers—groups historically unable to monetize their projects. By enabling token issuance, Believe offers them a novel monetization method, which is a compelling innovation for developers.
The second reason is the added curation layer. Many past launchpads lacked quality filtering, leading to poor user experience. Believe’s curation addresses the demand from users who want exposure to higher-quality projects.
Pump is very successful, and I believe it will continue to be. I’m a loyal fan, but not everyone wants to engage in such a cutthroat competitive model. A segment of the market is seeking a more curated experience. If you can combine independent developers’ innovation with users’ desire for high-quality experiences, Believe could become a highly promising platform.
A New Model for Venture Capital?
Jack:
To briefly explain, Believe works by allowing anyone to issue a token. You simply tag a token at launch, input its name and ticker. The Believe team curates all launched tokens, displaying only those tied to interesting startups or app concepts.
The complexity here is that it feels somewhat like equity investment, yet it’s not traditional equity—you’re investing in a company. I’m curious why projects like this should be funded via memecoins. To me, it doesn’t seem like a good fit.
Ryan:
The interesting part is that many independent developers can’t access traditional venture capital, and VCs aren’t particularly interested in them. So the appeal lies in Believe helping these independent app developers issue tokens, typically launching them alongside their indie projects.
Who are independent app developers? They usually don’t work at large companies, often run side projects, and release apps annually to generate income—even substantial returns. Take Steam, for example: data shows most indie developers earn less than $1,000. Only the top 10% make $150K–$180K per app, and the top 1% reach $7M. From an indie developer’s standpoint, very few projects qualify for venture funding. Thus, they typically don’t raise capital or conduct large-scale marketing, instead relying on precise marketing to make their apps go viral.
I find this business model acceptable. If you build an app generating hundreds of thousands or even millions in annual revenue, even if it won’t become the next Facebook, that’s already a great outcome. You likely won’t profit from equity value. But if you look closely, you’ll see the platform’s future potential. This is a niche overlooked by capital markets. On the supply side, there’s latent demand to monetize equity or raise small capital; on the demand side, there’s clearly strong appetite for venture-like returns from these small projects. This demand was evident during the pandemic-era trading and crypto markets. So both sides have clear demand, which excites me.
Jack:
I actually have many concerns about Believe, but I still want to give these projects a chance. Being skeptical about everything is easier—and keeps you right most of the time. But I wonder, what fun is there in that?
My understanding is that this represents a capital formation model for the “vibe coding” era. In the past, you’d have an idea, possibly raise funds, spend months coding, build a usable app, then launch it. Interacting with users and understanding what they truly want was difficult, so building apps involved a lot of friction. Now, if tools like Cursor improve, you can create a new app in minutes—so human capital, like the ability to build things, matters less.
Now, the success of an idea is what matters, and memecoins offer a very fast, immediate way of capital formation. Founders can “vibe code” an app or propose an idea, then launch a token on Believe to test market resonance. If the token trades well, I’ll build the app and launch it to see how it performs. If the token doesn’t gain traction, I know it’s time to pivot. So in this case, “vibe coding” accelerates further, and memecoins enable faster pricing of ideas.
I also want to add that memecoin traders often behave wildly—their demands can overwhelm founders, potentially leading to net losses. Last week, for example, Jeffy Yu faked his own death, seemingly to escape his environment. My guess is that once you accept funding from memecoin investors, they may impose excessive demands, and these people may not be ideal investors. So I can’t help wondering: is this approach fun enough to justify such a high cost?
Ryan:
Indeed, issuing tokens brings many complexities. In some deep projects, founders must not only manage business, sales, development teams, and marketing but also manage a community—whose members may not be the mature, patient investors you’d ideally want.
Additionally, token issuance can send negative signals. In traditional stock markets, a falling stock price usually signals bearish sentiment about the company’s prospects. But in crypto, that’s not always the case. Unpredictable price swings often occur—like extreme moves due to high leverage. So token issuance adds extra stress and burden for founders.
I believe whether token issuance is suitable depends on the specific case. If you decide to issue a token, you must clearly manage community expectations and develop a long-term strategy to continuously create value for the token.
Currently, there’s confusion—for example, Believe’s documentation is sparse, clearly indicating it’s in a very early stage, having launched just months ago, with the latest version running only days or weeks. How will the platform evolve? Will token distribution follow standardized rules? Will vesting periods be standardized? I’ve noticed the team publicly discussing these issues on X, signaling they’re moving in the right direction.
Notably, the Believe team provides best-practice guidance and expectation management for token issuers—an unprecedented move in today’s market. They’ve clearly done deep research on this. Remember, Believe’s primary customers come from traditional Web2 backgrounds unfamiliar with crypto. So Believe must guide and educate them. I see signs they’re taking this seriously.
The Meme-ification of Capital Markets
Jack:
JellyJelly surged overnight but then crashed quickly. This morning, though still far below its peak, its price rebounded slightly as Believe gained popularity. Partly, this may reflect inflated market expectations, but in reality, its liquidity is poor, and almost no one wants to trade it. So I wonder, in memecoin launches, is any publicity good publicity? Or could this harm the performance of his video app after launch?
Ryan:
I don’t know JellyJelly’s specifics well. But I think the tight link between crypto capital markets and memecoin markets does create issues. Memecoin markets are often filled with “chicken games” (a game theory concept), market manipulation, and irrational retail behavior. So strange phenomena emerge. For example, when certain tokens list on centralized exchanges (CEX), prices show extreme volatility. When Bonk listed on Coinbase, its price briefly spiked to 50 cents—not absurd, but such wild swings are common because many investors buy first and ask questions later.
Still, the market is gradually normalizing. Extreme cases like Jelly are becoming rarer, Layer 1 (L1) tokens trading at high premiums are decreasing, and launching a Layer 2 (L2) project to instantly reach multi-billion valuations is no longer common. While full normalization won’t happen overnight, the trend is correct. Though there’ll be plenty of topics to discuss—or complain about on X—the overall market is moving toward normalization, which is positive.
Does the Zora Model Make Practical Sense?
Jack:
Ryan, I have a question. Previously on a podcast, you criticized the Zora model. Your point was that content itself tends toward zero value, so issuing tokens on Zora makes no sense. Logically, the value of moststartupsor creative projects could also be argued to trend toward zero. So why are you bullish on Believe but pessimistic about Zora?
Ryan:
My pessimism toward Zora stems primarily from the nature of content. Content is abundant and non-scarce, so value shouldn’t belong to creators but to aggregators who curate and organize it.
More importantly, Zora is essentially a token launchpad. But to appeal to certain Ethereum community users—those focused on “big vs. small” narratives and creator monetization—Zora removed critical launchpad features. A proper launchpad must issue units of value, support trading, provide price charts and grid views to assess different tokens’ ROI. Yet Zora removed these, emphasizing visual features that look nice but offer no help in evaluating financial returns. This creates a mismatch between Zora’s design and the actual needs of a token launchpad, rendering its product logic invalid.
Believe is entirely different. It issues genuinely scarce units of value—cash flow, for example, is scarce. Looking ahead, we can imagine revenue-sharing mechanisms or rights for token holders. Crucially, Believe provides price charts and tools enabling users to assess tokens’ financial characteristics. It’s a true token launchpad with the functions needed for trading and evaluating potential financial outcomes. So Believe and Zora are fundamentally different.
Believe is very different because it deals with genuinely scarce value units. Cash flow is scarce. Looking forward, you can imagine revenue sharing or rights tied to token holders. And most importantly, I can view price charts on the Believe app to evaluate the relative financial traits of tokens within it. So Believe is a launch platform equipped with the tools needed for trading and assessing potential financial outcomes—that’s the difference from Zora.
Zora could fix these issues anytime. They could honestly admit they’re a token launchpad instead of pretending to be a social media tool or creator monetization platform. They’re fully capable, but so far, I haven’t seen action.
The Opportunity and Challenge of Regulatory Arbitrage
Jack:
I want to add that memecoins represent a huge opportunity. For example, visiting Pump’s site, I dislike its content—most memecoins look absurd. But on Believe, all tokens are curated, making them feel more meaningful. Clicking on a token reveals interesting startup projects. I saw one—an AI agent that accesses your social media history—and wondered why Grok can’t do that. Maybe privacy issues, but I always want Grok to give advice based on my tweets, and it can’t.
Still, I want to speak for crypto users: is this model somewhat unethical?
From a broader view, founders launch memecoins, attract investors to buy tokens without granting real equity rights. We all know memecoin values eventually trend to zero—the key is timing entry and exit. While Believe offers anti-snipe mechanisms, I’m unsure how effective they are, and insiders might still find ways to trade. I checked Believe’s creator docs: if founders don’t promise returns, ownership, or financial rights, and tokens are clearly for entertainment, they may occupy a legal safe zone. This avoids legal risk but seems to encourage ordinary investors to participate without real rights, while founders potentially profit handsomely.
Ryan:
I think it depends on the case. If capital markets are open and free, and someone issues an arbitrary unit of value, I believe the market will price it appropriately.
But we’re currently in a phase where regulation isn’t fully clear, though we can see a trend toward clarity—it just hasn’t materialized yet. Though lawmakers and regulators have signaled intent, we lack a clear legal framework. This puts token issuers in a tough spot—they need to stay compliant while knowing token issuance benefits their product, users, and holders. They want to add more utility to tokens but face constraints.
So what should they do? Wait for regulations to clarify? But the tech industry’s norm is to act ahead of regulation. Consider: if Uber or Airbnb had strictly followed rules from day one, they might never have existed. The key is to move first and force the regulatory system to adapt to you. If you wait, others will seize the opportunity. For example, if Believe doesn’t capitalize on becoming a token launchpad for developers, someone else will.
Of course, app developers who choose to wait may fall behind. So I think it’s highly case-dependent. Clearly, each case needs individual assessment, as some will try to exploit this open market for fraud. But I see Believe offering curation tools, and a clear regulatory future isn’t too distant—this excites me. I’m willing to give most issuers the benefit of the doubt.
Jack:
But the risk seems shifted to users. Founders could add commitments—like offering future equity access to memecoin holders. Trump’s memecoin, for example, offered securities-like perks—dinner invitations for the top 220 holders. Yet Trump himself likely faces no legal issues. So Believe might be fine too, but you’re transferring legal risk to users. They hold tokens with no real rights or returns, yet seem to accept it. Even Zora, repeatedly stating tokens won’t have value, still sees trading activity.
Ryan:
If you visit Trump’s token website, they explicitly state the tokens are “purely collectibles.” Many token issuers avoid legal issues by offering “tiered access”—designing tokens as membership cards, not securities. As long as tokens don’t involve future cash flow rights, there’s legal room to defend.
But ultimately, I won’t blame founders or platforms. The issue is the lack of a clear legal framework over the past few years. Regulatory clarity should’ve happened eight years ago but didn’t.
Jack:
When browsing Believe, I noticed “New Projects” and “Featured Projects” tabs. As you mentioned, Believe’s curation of memecoins gives it an edge over Pump, improving user experience. But if so, your core users might quickly exhaust investable tokens. And while the “vibe coding” era enables rapid creation of mini-apps or projects, it still can’t match Pump’s simplicity of “upload a JPEG and launch a token,” which fueled Pump’s explosive growth.
Does Believe have a ceiling? Could users lose interest in new ideas within days and return to Pump?
Ryan:
I don’t think so. Early adopters will position each platform differently. Pump is clearly an engaging “chicken game” that’s achieved solid product-market fit (PMF), and people will keep playing. Believe appeals to those preferring to invest in “growth-hacking-style” (growth hacking refers to innovative, low-cost, high-efficiency strategies to rapidly scalestartups. This approach focuses on user growth, market expansion, and product optimization, emphasizing data-driven decisions and unconventional marketing to achieve breakthroughs) startup projects—like betting on ultra-low-cap tokens with real futures. Of course, there’s overlap, as many crypto users aim for 10x or even 1000x returns.
I think these market caps should remain low. For example, a $20M cap is already excellent for a reasonably valued project. That’s ideal. The current trend of tokens reaching hundreds of millions or billions in market cap is clearly too high for the niche Believe targets. So any market cap correction for Believe tokens, I believe, is healthy—it aligns better with financial reality.
As for whether curated projects on Believe could dry up, yes, it’s possible. Poor market timing, insufficient users, or lack of capital and creativity could reduce project flow. If Believe cools down due to lack of users, capital, or ideas, I wouldn’t be surprised. But I welcome any market adjustment to current token valuations, as they’re clearly inflated. These tokens’ market caps should resemble small startups, not reach much higher valuations.
Has Believe Achieved Product-Market Fit?
Jack:
I think most social media apps have “infinite scroll,” algorithms constantly feeding users content, seemingly endless. But Believe has an endpoint. I wonder, could it become something we discuss for a week and then forget, like Zora?
Ryan:
Believe isn’t a social app—it’s more of a financial app. So it doesn’t need daily active users like a social platform. I think ideal engagement is weekly or monthly, not daily use. Without targeting daily users, you don’t need “infinite scroll.” That’s why many financial apps lack this feature—users shouldn’t trade every day. In these niche markets, such design makes no sense.
Analyzing Pump.fun’s Sniping Problem
Jack:
I’m not sure about the exact mechanics, but I heard Believe partnered with Meteora to introduce a bonding curve with anti-bot mechanisms. Simply put, trading fees are high until the token reaches a certain market cap, then fees decrease beyond that threshold.
This aims to address a core issue with Pump.fun: the vast majority of tokens are sniped immediately after launch, sometimes within the same block. If you’re an average user browsing memecoins hoping for a 1000x, you might miss the token the moment it launches. If higher costs can deter mass sniping, that’s a solid improvement. Yet, it seems nobody discusses this. Do users really care?
Ryan:
I think at these ultra-low market caps, users don’t care much. As a user and observer of memecoin behavior, I sense people generally invest small amounts. It’s more like sports betting—especially on Pump.fun, where users chase high returns from multiple bets. So extra fees don’t matter much. Participants usually mentally prepare to lose that money. Thus, fees don’t heavily influence their decisions. Still, the mechanism is interesting. I think Believe genuinely needs stronger “anti-sniping” measures because these tokens may involve future equity attributes, and sniping could cause severe price volatility, harming market health. On Pump.fun, sniping doesn’t seem to have major negative effects—it might even function well within that model.
Jack:
I think sniping will persist. Even with slightly higher fees, if a Silicon Valley growth hacker launches a token, someone could set up a script to buy instantly upon launch. This will likely continue. While this mechanism may prevent sniping from being as indiscriminate as on Pump.fun, it’s still feasible in memecoin launches. If you know the targeted creator is likely to be featured on Believe, gaining more attention and better market performance, paying higher fees to sniper could still be profitable. So I’m not sure this mechanism truly eliminates sniping. Of course, as you said, it might be necessary, but ultimately, it may serve more to boost social media discussion than significantly change user behavior. Many tokens still get sniped or internally traded, which personally disappoints me. But the market’s goal remains getting ahead of others to find the next 1000x.
Ryan:
From a developer’s perspective, all these apps have their own issues, even well-performing ones—bugs, unethical behavior, account abuse, etc. But ultimately, the core functionality is what matters. For Pump.fun, that core is enabling user participation in the game, because it’s fun and offers financial upside. I believe developers will try to solve these issues and find mitigations over time. It’ll be a cat-and-mouse game, but these issues won’t stop Pump.fun’s success. Just as MEV (Maximal Extractable Value) doesn’t hinder blockchain or Nasdaq success. These problems exist, but the benefits clearly outweigh them.
Summary and Future Outlook
Jack:
I want to raise one more point—Believe reminds me of Kickstarter. While we discuss Believe as novel, it’s more like a blend of Kickstarter and memecoins. Its premise is crowdfunding support for those unable to access venture capital or other funding channels. This model exists in Web2, yet oddly hasn’t truly entered Web3. And circling back to securities law, Kickstarter usually promises backers rewards—like T-shirts or funded board games—and seems to operate successfully.
What’s the essential difference between Kickstarter and Believe? If Kickstarter can operate legally under securities law, why can’t Believe?
Ryan:
I don’t know Kickstarter’s model well, but I suspect it may have KYC or accredited investor screening. Also, I think there might be a legal exemption—if fundraising is small and investor count limited, standard securities law procedures may not apply. I’m not a legal expert, just guessing, but these could be key differences.
As for novelty, I don’t think it matters. Facebook, for example, originally got its name from university Facebook directories; Snapchat’s Stories feature was later copied by Instagram as Reels and succeeded anyway. So novelty isn’t the key to success. Pump.fun is a perfect example—it invented nothing new, just observed the past decade’s strong demand in crypto for arbitrary asset issuance and trading, packaging it into an easy-to-use product. They lowered user barriers and succeeded. Many consumer apps work this way—they don’t create demand but optimize how existing demand is met. So while Believe isn’t novel, through careful optimizations, it could absolutely stand out.
Jack:
Has the recent surge of excitement around Believe changed your view on consumer crypto? Can you summarize its significance for this space?
Ryan:
I believe consumer crypto has already become an objective reality—it’s very concrete and highly financialized. I don’t see it as decentralized Instagram or Twitter, but rather as interesting consumer apps adjacent to gambling, with unique innovative capabilities. Pump.fun is a prime example—since launch, it’s generated $700 million in cumulative revenue. More and more founders are focusing on these highly financialized experiences. So consumer crypto has arrived, and as regulation gradually clarifies, the outlook for this space becomes even more promising.
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
深潮TechFlow
