Does capital actually rotate back to Solana? On volume it looks like it does. On fees it mostly doesn't. Last week Solana did $21.2bn in DEX volume and Robinhood Chain did $10.6bn. Solana's share went from 57% to 67% in one week. Solana gained $3.1bn of volume. Robinhood lost $2.9bn. Almost dollar for dollar. Robinhood's drop was mostly Uniswap, down $2.7bn, which is cheap RWA and stablecoin flow. Solana's gain was mostly prop AMMs and Orca, trading SOL and stables. That's mainly bot and market-maker volume. Fees tell the other half. Robinhood lost $30.5mm in the last 7 days. Solana gained $4.9mm. The fees came from Pons. At 1% per trade, Pons fees halved from $39.2mm to $19.0mm. Pump and Stonk added $0.9bn of volume, nowhere near enough to replace that. This shows that there was no big rotation to Solana. It was a decrease in trading activity entirely.

There are no research firms covering data trenchers actually care about. Everything published is aimed at funds. majors, unlocks and protocol revenue won't move a low cap trade. That's why we founded @sparsitydata. We cover the other side. daily wallet flows, holder strength, attention and much more. Everything that helps you navigate the trenches

"Fartcoin of this cycle" But are these comparisons to memes from last cycle accurate? The current combined market cap of all RWA related tokens is 1/12 of the combined meme market cap of last cycle. $808M today vs $10B last cycle. In the graphs below you can see where the current market sits in comparison to last cycle. Understand where we are Understand where we are headed

There is a reason why coins launched on LONG do better than on PONS. It's not about the narrative or traders but rather the mechanism itself. LONG launches coins through a dutch auction meaning everyone pays the same price pre-bond and snipers have no edge. PONS uses a normal bonding curve mechanism. This excludes the snipers and bundles to an extend which is healthy. LONG also routes a majority of fees collected from tokens directly into a vault that accumulates the underlying RWA. This vault is token-holder-governed meaning its up to the community what happens to the underlying RWAs. PONS uses fees to buyback its native token. To incentivize devs to launch on PONS they distribute a large amount of fees to the creator. On LONG you can launch normally and earn a slight percentage of the fee as creator or do it in community mode and route all fees to the vault. The supply of LONG coins is shrinking by system because the vault mechanically burns supply from fee revenue. The supply on PONS coins is fixed. Both launchpads have the option to launch tokens backed by RWAs. On PONS this pairing is a cosmetic because the token owns nothing. On LONG the tokens actually accumulate a share of the underlying RWA which creates vault NAV per token that acts as the floor. LONG also grows the LP with the accumulated fees systematically. PONS doesn't. These launchpads serve different purposes. PONS brought an old system to a new chain. LONG came up with a concept to make coins stronger with every trade that is made.

There is a pattern in every single $100M runner on Robinhood. There is initial traction on the coin that pulls in a lot of capital from everywhere. Once that euphoria slows down it shakes all the short term buyers out. The flush from -60% to -95% migrates the supply to holders that won't sell and a "team" to pick up supply for another run. When new demand comes in, it hits a thin sell side with maybe a catalyst to accelerate. This is when it gets parabolic. Once you understand that this pattern repeats over and over again you can search for these spots. Robinhood is a holders chain. Not a flippers chain.