Blockworks Research Director: Believe is the crypto version of Kickstarter, and the capital market is increasingly meme-driven.

Original Article Title: The Solana Token Launchpad Coming for Venture Capital | Ryan Connor

Original Source: Lightspeed

Compilation, Compilation: DeepTech TechFlow

Guest: Ryan Connor, Blockworks Research Director

Host: Jack Kubinec

Podcast Source: Lightspeed

Original Title: The Solana Token Launchpad Coming for Venture Capital | Ryan Connor

Air Date: May 16, 2025

Key Points Summary

We invited Ryan Connor to discuss the launch of the Believe app. This discussion covered several hot topics, including whether Believe could become a new venture capital model, the meme-ification of the capital markets, how to find the Product-Market Fit (PMF), and the race-to-the-bottom issue on Pump platforms.

Highlights Summary

· The tech industry convention is to act ahead of regulations. The key is to be ahead and make the regulatory system adapt to you. If you wait, the opportunity may be seized by others.

· Believe issues actual scarce units of value, such as cash flow being a scarce resource.

· Believe is not a social app; it's more of a financial app that does not require daily active users like social apps.

· Consumer crypto has become an objective reality, very tangible, and highly financialized. Consumer crypto is here, and as regulation becomes clearer, the future looks even more promising in this space.

· Pump has been very successful, and I am a loyal fan of it, but not everyone is willing to participate in that intense competitive model. A part of the market is looking for a more curated experience platform. If you can combine the innovation power of independent developers with the user demand for high-quality experiences, Believe could be a platform with great potential.

· Believe can help independent app developers launch their token, which these developers usually release alongside their independent app projects. The supply side has potential demand, hoping to achieve some equity profit or raise small amounts of capital; while the demand side clearly has a strong desire for investment-like returns in these small projects.

· The key to whether an idea can succeed, and Memecoin is a very fast, immediate way to form capital. Founders can "vibe code" an app or come up with an idea, and Memecoin can quickly price the idea.

· Whether token issuance is suitable needs to be assessed based on specific circumstances. If you decide to issue a token, you need to clarify how to manage community expectations and develop a long-term strategy to continuously create value for the token.

· A qualified issuance platform needs to be able to issue units of value, support transactions, provide price charts and grid views for evaluating the return on investment (ROI) of different tokens. However, Zora has removed these features, leading to a mismatch between Zora's feature design and the actual needs of a token issuance platform, rendering its product logic unsustainable.

· We are currently in a stage where regulations are not yet fully clear. This puts token issuers in an awkward position - they need to remain compliant while also knowing that issuing tokens benefits their product, users, and token holders; they want to give more functionality to the token but are restricted.

· Pump is an interesting "chicken game" and has found good product-market fit (PMF), so people will continue to play this game. Meanwhile, Believe has attracted some people who are more willing to engage in "growth hacker-style" startup investments, such as investing in tokens with ultra-small market caps but a genuine future.

· Projects at the planning level on Believe's side do indeed run the risk of drying up. Unfavorable market timing, insufficient users, or a lack of capital and creativity can all lead to project downsizing.

· From a developer's perspective, all of these applications have their own issues, but ultimately, what really matters is the core functionality. For Pump.fun, this core functionality is to allow users to participate in this game.

· Novelty is not the key to success. Pump.fun has not created anything new; it has simply packaged the strong demand in the crypto space over the past decade for issuing and trading any asset into an easy-to-use product, reducing the user's barrier to entry, and as a result, has been successful.

· Consumer apps are like this, they don't create demand, they optimize the way existing demand is met.

Solana's Latest Project Incubation Platform

Jack: We want to talk about the recent hot app, Believe. This is a new Solana app, a new Memecoin launchpad that offers a pseudo-equity model to startups.

This morning, I tweeted that out of the 25 tokens launched on Solana this week, 14 were through the Believe platform, with Pump.fun only accounting for 7. If you compare this to Memecoin trading activity over the past year, this is a significant shift. According to data from the community-developed tracking tool Believe Screener, Believe's 24-hour trading volume in the past few months has reached $7.24 billion.

This is undoubtedly a huge success for the platform's founder, Ben Pasternak. He previously founded an alternative food startup and launched a creatively named chicken nugget alternative called Nuggs. And now, he has launched Believe.

Ryan, I think you might enjoy Believe more than me, so let's start with a simple question. Believe is a Memecoin launchpad, and there are many similar launchpads in the market. What makes this one stand out?

Ryan: That's a great question. I often remind myself not to prematurely conclude that a startup project will fail. More importantly, we need to distinguish between "bad ideas" that are destined to fail and projects that could succeed if executed well.

I firmly believe Believe falls into the latter category, and I think this project has the potential to be successful.

Its key differences from other Memecoin launchpads are primarily twofold. Firstly, its market strategy is very clear, targeting independent app developers and growth hackers. These individuals have historically struggled to monetize their projects. By issuing tokens, Believe provides them with a new way of monetization, which is a very attractive innovation for developers.

The second reason is that it has an additional filtering layer. Many past launch platforms suffered from a lack of project quality filtering, resulting in a poor user experience. Believe's filtering layer is designed to meet the needs of users who want to participate in high-quality projects.

Pump has been very successful, and I think it will continue to be very successful. I am a loyal fan of it, but not everyone is willing to participate in that kind of intense competitive mode. There is a part of the market that is looking for a more curated experience. If the innovative capabilities of independent developers can be combined with the user demand for a high-quality experience, Believe might become a very promising platform.

A New Model for Venture Capital?

Jack: To put it simply, Believe operates in a way where anyone can issue tokens through it. You just need to mark a token at launch, enter the token's name and code. The Believe team will filter all launched tokens, only showcasing those tokens related to interesting startups or app ideas.

I think the complexity here lies in the fact that it's somewhat like equity investment, but not in the traditional sense where you can invest in a company. I'm curious why a project like this should be funded through a Memecoin? To me, this doesn't seem like a very good fit.

Ryan: The interesting aspect here is that many independent developers cannot access traditional venture capital, and venture capital is also not very interested in this group. Therefore, the attractiveness of this project is that Believe can help these independent app developers issue their tokens, which these developers usually launch alongside their independent app projects.

So, what are independent app developers? They usually don't work in big companies or have side projects, launching some apps each year to earn income, and they may even receive significant returns. Take Steam, for example, their data shows that the majority of independent app developers earn less than a thousand dollars. Only the top 10% of high earners have app revenues between $150,000 and $180,000 each, while the top 1% earners can reach $7 million. Therefore, from the perspective of independent developers, there are very few projects that can receive venture capital. So they usually don't raise funds or engage in large-scale marketing, but instead use targeted marketing to make their apps popular.

I believe this business model is acceptable. If you can create an app that generates tens of thousands or millions in revenue annually, even if it may not become the next Facebook, it is already a very nice outcome. You are unlikely to profit from equity value. If you do thorough research, you will discover the future potential of this platform. This is a niche market overlooked by the capital markets. The supply side has potential demand, hoping to realize some equity gains or raise small-scale capital; while the demand side clearly has a strong desire for returns akin to venture capital in these small-scale projects. This demand was evident in transactions and the crypto market during the COVID period. Therefore, there is a clear demand from both the supply and demand sides, which makes me very excited.

Jack: I actually have many concerns about Believe, but I still want to give these projects a chance. Because it's much easier to be skeptical about everything, and most of the time, you're right. But I wonder, what fun is there in doing that?

My understanding of this matter is that it is a capital formation model in the era of 'vibe coding.' In the past, you had an idea, might raise funds for it, spend a few months coding, create a usable app, and then launch it to the market. Interacting with users, understanding what they really want is quite challenging, so there is a lot of friction in actually creating the app. And now, if tools like Cursor become better, you can create a new app in minutes, so actual human capital, like the ability to create things, is no longer as important.

Now, the key is whether the idea can succeed, and Memecoin is a very fast, immediate way of capital formation. Founders can 'vibe code' an app or propose an idea, based on which they launch a token on Believe to see if it resonates with the market. If the token's trading goes well, then I will create the app and launch it to the market to see how it performs. If the token for this idea doesn't trade well, then you know maybe you should shift focus elsewhere. So, in this case, I think 'vibe coding' becomes faster, and Memecoin can quickly price the idea.

I would also like to add that Memecoin traders' behavior is often very crazy, their demands may be overwhelming for founders, and it may not be worth the hassle in the end. For example, something strange happened last week when Jeffy Yu pretended to pass away, seemingly to escape from the environment he was in. My guess is that once you accept funding support from Memecoin investors, they may have many excessive demands, and these people may not be your ideal investors. So I can't help but wonder if, although this approach is fun, is it worth paying such a high price?

Ryan: Indeed, issuing a token can bring about many complex issues. In some deep-dive projects, founders not only need to manage the business, sales, development team, and marketing, but also have to additionally manage a community. And the members of this community may not be the mature or patient investor group you envision.

Furthermore, issuing a token may also bring about some negative signals. For example, in the traditional stock market, if a company's stock price drops, people usually interpret it as the market's negative evaluation of the company's prospects. But in the cryptocurrency field, the situation may not be the same. Unpredictable price fluctuations often occur here, such as drastic changes caused by high leverage trading. So, issuing a token may add a lot of extra pressure and burden to founders.

I believe that whether issuing a token is suitable needs to be judged based on specific circumstances. If you decide to issue a token, you need to clearly define how to manage the community's expectations and develop a long-term strategy to continuously create value for the token.

There are currently some confusing aspects, such as the lack of documentation about the Believe platform. Evidently, it is still in a very early stage, having been online for only a few months, and the latest version has only been running for a few days or weeks. So, how will this platform develop in the future? For example, will there be a uniform standard for token distribution? Will vesting be standardized? I noticed that the team has openly discussed these issues on X platform and stated that they are pushing for these standardization measures, indicating that they are heading in the right direction.

It is worth mentioning that the Believe team has provided some best practices guidance and expected management for token issuers, which is unique in the current market. They have clearly conducted very in-depth research on this issue. It is important to remember that Believe's main clients are professionals from the traditional Web2 domain who are not familiar with cryptocurrency. Therefore, Believe needs to help these clients adapt through guidance and education. I have seen some signs that they are taking this task seriously.

Memefication of the Capital Markets

Jack: JellyJelly experienced a sudden surge overnight, but then quickly plummeted. This morning, I saw that its price, although still far below the previous high, has rebounded in recent days with the popularity of the Believe app. Part of the reason may be that the market had set overly high expectations for it, but in reality, it has very poor liquidity, with almost no one willing to trade it. So, I'm wondering, when creating a Memecoin, is any publicity good publicity? Or could this approach potentially have a negative impact on its performance after the video app is launched?

Ryan: I don't know much about JellyJelly's specific situation. However, I believe that the close connection between the cryptocurrency market and the Memecoin market has indeed brought some issues. The Memecoin market is often filled with "game theory of chicken," market manipulation, and irrational behavior of retail investors. Therefore, some strange phenomena can occur in the market. For example, when certain tokens are listed on centralized exchanges (CEX), the price experiences extreme fluctuations. Just like when Bonk was listed on Coinbase, the price briefly spiked to 50 cents. Although not as outrageous, these kinds of crazy price swings are indeed common because many investors always buy first and learn the details later.

However, the market is gradually moving towards normalization. Extreme cases like Jelly are becoming rarer, the phenomenon of Layer 1 (L1) tokens trading at a high premium is decreasing, and it is no longer as common to see projects launching Layer 2 (L2) and immediately reaching billion-dollar valuations. Although the market cannot completely normalize in the short term, it is indeed heading in the right direction. While there will be plenty of topics for discussion or complaints on platform X during this process, overall, the market is gradually standardizing, which is a good thing.

Does the Zora Model Have Real-World Significance?

Jack: Ryan, I have a question for you. When you were on a podcast before, you raised some criticisms of the Zora model. Your view at the time was that the value of the content itself tends towards zero, so issuing tokens on Zora is meaningless. In theory, the value of most startups or creative endeavors can also be considered to tend towards zero. So why are you optimistic about Believe but pessimistic about Zora?

Ryan: My pessimism towards Zora is mainly due to the nature of content. Content is highly abundant and non-scarce, so the value should not belong to content creators but to aggregators because they are responsible for the curation and integration of content.

More importantly, Zora is fundamentally a token launchpad. However, to cater to certain user groups in the Ethereum community—those who typically focus on the "big company vs. small company" narrative and the monetization of creators—Zora removed the key features of a token launchpad. A qualified launchpad needs to be able to issue value units, support trading, provide price charts and grid views for assessing the return on investment (ROI) of different tokens. However, Zora removed these features and instead emphasized some visual features that, while aesthetically pleasing, are of no help in evaluating financial returns. This mismatch between Zora's functional design and the actual needs of a token launchpad has rendered its product logic untenable.

Believe, on the other hand, is entirely different. It issues an actual scarce unit of value, such as cash flow, which is a form of scarce resource. Looking ahead, we can imagine it introducing some form of revenue-sharing mechanism or token holder rights. Most importantly, the Believe app provides price charts and other tools that allow users to assess the token's financial characteristics. This is a true token issuance platform with the functionality required for trading and evaluating the potential financial outcomes. Therefore, Believe is fundamentally different from Zora.

Believe is very different in that it is actually a scarce unit of value. Cash flow is scarce. If you look to the future, you can imagine some form of income sharing or rights relationship with token holders. And most importantly, I can view price charts on the Believe app to evaluate the relative financial features of the tokens in the app. Therefore, Believe is an issuance platform with the functionality required for trading and evaluating potential financial outcomes, and that is where it differs from Zora.

If Zora so desires, they can address these issues at any time. They could openly acknowledge that they are a token issuance platform without needing to disguise themselves as a social media tool or creator monetization platform. They are entirely capable of doing so, but so far, I have not seen them take action.

Opportunities and Challenges of Regulatory Arbitrage

Jack: I would like to add that Memecoin is actually a significant opportunity. For example, when visiting the Pump website, I don't like its content; most Memecoins seem absurd. But in the Believe app, all tokens are curated, making them more meaningful. Clicking on a token, you will find some interesting early-stage projects. I saw a project that is an AI entity that can access your social media history, which made me wonder why Grok couldn't do that. Perhaps due to privacy issues, but I always want Grok to give me suggestions based on my tweets, but it can't.

However, I also want to advocate for users in the crypto community: Is this model somewhat unethical?

From a higher perspective, founders launch Memecoins, attracting investors to invest in these tokens without actually receiving any equity rights. We all know that the value of Memecoins will eventually trend towards zero, and the key is the timing of entry and exit. Although Believe offers an anti-sniper mechanism, I am not sure of its effectiveness, and insiders may still find ways to trade. I reviewed Believe's creator documentation, which mentions that if the founder did not promise a return, ownership, or financial interest, and the token is clearly just for entertainment, it may be in a legal safe zone. This does indeed mitigate legal risks but seems to encourage ordinary investors to participate without giving them actual rights, while founders may profit handsomely.

Ryan: I believe this requires a case-by-case analysis. If the capital market is freely open and someone issues a unit of arbitrary value, I trust the market will appropriately price it.

However, we are currently in a stage where regulation is not yet fully clear. While we can see a trend towards clearer regulation, it has not been concretely established. Even though lawmakers and regulatory bodies have signaled intent, we still lack a solid legal framework. This puts token issuers in a difficult position — they need to stay compliant while knowing that issuing tokens benefits their product, users, and token holders. They want to give their tokens more utility, but they are restricted.

So, what should they do? Wait for the day when regulations become clear? Yet, the tech industry's custom is to act before regulations are set in stone. Think about it, if Uber or Airbnb had strictly adhered to rules from the start, these companies might not even exist. The key is to be proactive, to make the regulatory system adapt to you. If you wait, opportunities might slip away to others. For instance, if Believe hadn't seized the opportunity to become a developer's token issuance platform, someone else might have taken their place.

Of course, application developers who choose to wait might also fall behind. Therefore, I believe it heavily depends on the specific circumstances. Clearly, each case needs a thorough evaluation because there will indeed be bad actors trying to take advantage of this open market. But I see Believe offering planning tools, and a future with clear regulations is not too distant, which excites me. I am willing to trust most issuers.

Jack: But it seems like the risk of doing this is shifted onto the users. Founders could perhaps add some commitments, like providing future equity access to Memecoin holders. For example, Trump's Memecoin provides some kind of security-like function, such as offering a dinner opportunity to the top 220 holders. But it seems Trump himself might not face legal issues for this. So, Believe might be fine as well, but you are still shifting legal risks onto users. They hold these tokens without any actual rights or benefits, but they seem to accept that. Even with tokens like Zora, which repeatedly emphasize the tokens having no value, there are still people willing to trade them.

Ryan: If you visit Trump's token website, you'll find they explicitly state that these tokens are "purely collectibles." Many token issuers circumvent legal issues by offering some form of "access threshold," such as designing it as a membership card rather than a security. As long as the token does not involve future cash flow rights, there is still legal defense available.

But ultimately, I will not blame the founder and the platform. The problem lies in the lack of a clear legal framework in the past few years. In fact, regulatory clarity should have been achieved eight years ago, but it has not happened yet.

Jack: When I was browsing Believe, I noticed it has two labels: "New Projects" and "Featured Projects." As you mentioned, Believe's planning for Memecoin is indeed more advantageous than Pump, enhancing user experience. However, if that's the case, your core users may quickly run out of tokens to invest. Although the "vibe coding" era allows for the rapid creation of many mini-apps or projects, it still cannot compare to Pump's simple model of "upload a JPEG and release a token," which has driven Pump's rapid growth.

Does Believe have a ceiling? For example, will users feel that there are no more interesting ideas to invest in after three days and then return to Pump?

Ryan: I don't think so. For early users, each platform will have its positioning. Pump is clearly a fun "chicken game" and has found a good product-market fit; people will continue to play this game. Believe, on the other hand, has attracted some people who are more willing to engage in "growth hacking" start-up project investments, such as investing in tokens with super small market caps but a real future. Of course, there will be some overlap between these two markets because many crypto users aim for a 10x or even 1000x return.

I believe these market caps should remain at a low level. For example, a $20 million market cap is already a very good result for a reasonably valued project. This is an ideal state. Some tokens we currently see have market caps in the billions or even tens of billions, which is clearly too high for the niche market Believe is targeting. Therefore, any downward adjustment in Believe's current token market cap, I believe, is healthy because it aligns more with financial reality.

As for the potential depletion of projects at the planning level in Believe, I think it is indeed possible. For example, poor market timing, insufficient users, or lack of capital and creativity could all lead to a reduction in projects. If the popularity of Believe declines due to a lack of users, capital, or creativity, I wouldn't be surprised. However, I welcome any market adjustments to Believe's current token market cap because they are indeed somewhat overvalued. The market caps of these tokens should be more in line with those of small start-ups rather than reaching higher valuations.

Has the Believe App Found Product-Market Fit?

Jack: I think most social media apps have the concept of "infinite scroll," algorithms that continuously push content to users, seemingly without an end. However, Believe has a finite endpoint. I'm wondering if this could become something like Zora, forgotten a week after our discussion.

Ryan: Believe is not a social app; it's more like a financial app. Therefore, it doesn't need daily active users like social apps. I think the ideal scenario is for users to be active on a weekly or monthly basis rather than daily. If the goal is not daily usage, there's no need for a design like "infinite scroll." That's also why many financial apps don't have this feature because users shouldn't be investing every day. In these very niche markets, it doesn't make sense to do so.

Pump.fun's Flash Sale Issue Analysis

Jack: I'm not entirely sure how it works either, but I heard that Believe partnered with Meteora and introduced a bonding curve with an anti-bot mechanism. Simply put, before the token reaches a certain market value, transactions will incur higher fees, and once the market value surpasses this threshold, fees will decrease.

This design is to address a core issue of Pump.fun: the vast majority of tokens are immediately snatched up after release, even within the same block. If you're just an ordinary user looking to find a 1000x return opportunity by browsing Memecoins, you may have missed out as soon as the token is released. If increasing the cost can deter large-scale snatching, that's indeed a good improvement. However, it seems like no one is really discussing this issue. Do you think users actually care?

Ryan: I think in these ultra-low market cap scenarios, users don't really care. As a user who has also observed many Memecoin user behaviors, I feel that the amounts people put in are generally small. It's more like a sports betting-like behavior, especially on Pump.fun, where users seek high returns akin to a parlay bet. Therefore, paying an additional fee is not significant to them. Those who engage in this game usually have a mental preparedness, knowing they might lose these funds. So, this fee doesn't have much impact on their decision-making. However, the mechanism itself is quite interesting. I believe on Believe, a stronger "anti-sniping mechanism" is indeed needed because these tokens might involve future equity-like attributes, and being sniped could lead to significant price fluctuations, which is detrimental to market health. Whereas on Pump.fun, sniping behavior doesn't seem to have such a large negative impact; in fact, it can be said that it remains effective in this pattern.

Jack: I think sniping behavior will still occur. Even if the fees are slightly higher, if a Silicon Valley growth hacker launches a token, someone can easily set up a script to make a purchase at the moment of token release. This scenario is likely to persist. Although this mechanism may make sniping behavior no longer as "shotgun" as in Pump.fun, it is still viable in Memecoin launches. If you know the creator you are sniping is likely to be featured by the Believe platform, gaining higher visibility and market performance, then sniping can still be profitable even with higher fees. So, I'm not sure if this mechanism can really eliminate sniping behavior. Of course, as you mentioned, this mechanism may be necessary, but ultimately it is more about boosting discussion on social media rather than significantly changing user behavior. Many tokens have indeed been sniped or involved in insider trading, which personally disappoints me about the use of these tokens. However, the market's goal has always been to be the first to find the next 1000x return opportunity before others.

Ryan: Taking a developer's perspective, all of these applications have their own issues, even the well-performing ones are not exempt, such as vulnerabilities, unethical behavior, and account abuse. But ultimately, what really matters is the core functionality. For Pump.fun, this core functionality is to allow users to participate in this game because it is both fun and potentially financially rewarding. I believe developers will try to address these issues and find mitigation methods over time. It will be a cat-and-mouse game, but ultimately these issues will not hinder Pump.fun's success. Just as Mev (Maximal Extractable Value) does not hinder the success of blockchain or the Nasdaq. These issues do exist, but the returns are obviously greater in comparison.

Summary and Future Outlook

Jack: I would like to bring up another point; Believe reminds me of Kickstarter. Although we find it quite innovative when discussing Believe, it is more like a combination of Kickstarter and Memecoin. Its concept is to provide crowdfunding support for those who cannot access venture capital or other funding channels. This model has already existed in Web2, but strangely it has not really entered Web3. Moreover, going back to the securities law issues we previously discussed, Kickstarter usually promises some rewards to supporters, such as a T-shirt or sponsorship of a board game, and they seem to be operating well.

What is the fundamental difference between Kickstarter and Believe? If Kickstarter can operate legally under securities law, why can't Believe?

Ryan: I don't have much knowledge about Kickstarter's specific model, but I speculate that it may have some KYC (Know Your Customer) or accredited investor screening process. Additionally, I think there may be a legal exemption where if the fundraising amount is low enough and the number of investors is limited, it may not need to follow the regular securities law process. However, I'm not a legal expert, this is just my guess, but these could be the main differences between it and Believe.

As for novelty, I don't think that's very important. For example, Facebook initially got its name from university facebooks; Snapchat's Stories feature was later copied by Instagram and renamed Reels, and it also became successful. So, novelty is not the key to success. Pump.fun is a good example of this. It didn't create anything new, just observed the strong demand in the crypto space over the past decade for issuing and trading arbitrary assets and packaged these needs into an easy-to-use product. They just lowered the user's barrier to entry, and as a result, they succeeded. Many consumer apps are like this; they don't create demand, they optimize how existing demand is filled. So, while Believe may not be novel, with some optimizations in detail, it is entirely possible to stand out.

Jack: Has the recent Believe craze in the past few days changed your view of the consumer crypto space? Can you summarize the significance of this for the field?

Ryan: I think consumer crypto has become an objective reality, it is very concrete and highly financialized. I don't think it is a decentralized Instagram or Twitter, but more like some interesting consumer apps adjacent to gambling, and with unique innovation capabilities. Pump.fun is a typical example; since its launch, it has generated a total of $7 billion in revenue. More and more founders are focusing on this highly financialized experience. So consumer crypto has arrived, and as regulations gradually clarify, the future of this field looks even more promising.

Original Article Link