Launchpads using the token pairing model feel like they’re peaking right now. Everyone wants to spin up a token launchpad because it’s the current hot meta right now alongside perp DEXes and stablecoin infra. The token pairing model does create a nice flywheel for platform tokens (Zora, Virtual, etc.). But I don’t think it makes sense for every project to marry themselves to a platform token by launching as a paired LP with the platform token instead of using ETH or USDC. You’re effectively tying your entire project to another asset’s fate. On top of that, the pairing fragments liquidity and forces multi-hop trades, which means extra fees and more slippage for traders. This setup is great for the launchpads but not always great for the projects launching on them. If you pair with the platform token, your creator fees usually get paid out in that token, not in ETH or USDC. That’s a big risk for founders who rely on those fees to bootstrap their project. You’re accepting platform-token exposure whether you want it or not. One reason I’ve gotten more bullish on Clanker is that it’s a much more flexible, general purpose launchpad. It doesn’t force a token pairing with $CLANKER, and creators actually earn in ETH, arguably a better asset for most projects to receive fees in. I’m still a fan of Zora and Virtual. The token pairing model makes sense for them because they have clear verticals (Zora → creators; Virtual → agents). But now we’re seeing new launchpads like Noice and Fey adopt this same model without having as clear of a vertical that they're focusing on. They both have interesting mechanics and I like those teams but its less clear why I'd want to tether my project to their respective platform tokens. Token pairing creates reflexivity with the platform token. If the platform token goes up, everything paired with it gets a boost by getting more liquidity, higher prices. If the platform token goes down, every paired token gets dragged with it. Launching on a platform token essentially tethers your project to their price action. That can be great if you want to fully align with a platform and bet on its long-term success. But for most projects, I’d argue it adds unnecessary risk and complexity. Not every token needs or benefits from being tied at the hip to a platform token. Notably, the biggest launchpad (pump.fun) doesn't use this token pairing model but there's other mechanics at play with their bonding curve model and fee structure. This is a whole separate conversation since bonding curve-style launchpads haven't been as popular on Base. Still I couldn't write about launchpads without mentioning pump. Every token is different especially if you're trying to use a token to bootstrap a real product or app that hopes to generate revenue. There's a lot of things to consider based on what you're building and how a token fits into that. My thoughts will likely continue to shift and change around this but thought it was worth laying this out for anyone considering launching a token on a launchpad.

6 replies

7 recasts

53 reactions

7 replies

1 recast

45 reactions

First Friday /skycastle chat really started off with a bang

0 reply

0 recast

3 reactions

There's some under-explored mechanisms on token launches and token distribution that I'm eager to see more of: - Allowlisted launches (large whitelist of wallets allowed to purchase) - Allocations instead of airdrops - Progammatic claims or vesting - Programmatic functions tied to market cap, liqudity, FDV, etc - Two token system where projects take in USDC and levearage a floating token for rewards, marketing/incentives, etc I think a lot of these can really help build a more sustainable flywheel around revenue and cash flow.

7 replies

2 recasts

36 reactions

"Aligning masses is one of the greatest potential powers of tokens"

0 reply

1 recast

5 reactions