登録して招待リンクを共有すると、動画再生報酬と紹介報酬を獲得できます。

Stitch
@stitchdegen
Meme Research |
参加 December 2024
4K フォロー中    29.2K ファン
And another one I want to mention is solana:7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump If you just read my $WWW research, this one will probably feel familiar because both are running almost the same meta : AI agents + launchpad + tokens with their own “mind” But there’s one interesting detail: solana:7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump actually launched about a day before $WWW And after digging deeper, I found that while the narrative is similar, the flywheel behind each project is quite different $WWW is currently winning on attention, while solana:7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump has a treasury mechanism that I think is worth digging into The chart also just made a pretty aggressive move from around $1.4M to a ~$3.6M ATH, so instead of chasing it here, I wanted to see what’s actually behind the move 1. What does solana:7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump actually do? solana:7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump is tied to AGENCY / a Solana launchpad built around a simple concept : “Every coin gets a mind” Instead of launching a memecoin and basically ending there, every token launched through AGENCY can have its own AI “mind” At launch, creators can choose from AI models such as OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Grok, etc. through OpenRouter The mind can then observe the market, research the web/X, monitor holders and treasury activity, remember previous decisions, and use different capabilities provided by the platform But the part that caught my attention the most isn’t the AI itself It’s how creator fees are handled According to the team’s docs, creator fees don’t simply flow back into the launcher’s wallet. The routing is designed to direct those fees into the token’s system, including AI credits + treasury, rather than letting the creator withdraw them directly And this is where the flywheel starts 2. Volume is basically the fuel AGENCY’s current fee model is pretty interesting For the first $0–20 in fees, 100% goes toward model credits to wake the mind up From $20–100, the split becomes : 50% credits / 50% treasury After crossing $100, it changes to : 70% token treasury / 15% AI credits / 15% platform In simple terms : Trading => fees => treasury + compute => mind stays active => treasury can be used for new actions And this is where the “living token” narrative actually comes from The mind can use capabilities such as : buybacks, burns, swaps, DCA, airdrops, jackpots, quests, contests, polls, holder rewards, treasury rebalancing, etc So instead of the dev collecting fees and everyone having to trust that they’ll use them properly, Agency is experimenting with a different model : route the fees into a treasury and let the mind decide how to use them within predefined rules For me, this is the most interesting part of solana:7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump 3. But the AI doesn’t actually control a wallet I checked this part carefully because “AI managing a treasury” can easily be misunderstood According to the architecture published by the team, the mind doesn’t hold private keys and doesn’t directly sign transactions It proposes an action, but that action still has to pass through a policy engine + spending limits + separate signer before execution Basically : AI decides => policy checks => signer executes It’s not like they’re giving Claude or GPT a wallet full of SOL and letting it send funds wherever it wants I actually prefer this setup It’s less sexy from a narrative perspective, but makes a lot more sense if the goal is for these treasuries to survive long term 4. solana:7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump and $WWW are similar, but they’re not playing exactly the same game This is where I think people are grouping both projects together a little too quickly $WWW is more focused on : compute => browser => research => memory While the core of Agency is more like : fees => treasury => autonomous financial actions Put simply : $WWW : give every coin an AI that can browse and think solana:7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump : give every coin a treasury and let its mind decide what to do with it Agency has also just added browser/research capabilities for its minds, so the feature gap between the two is already getting smaller But for me, the core Agency thesis is still the treasury And yes, Agency launched roughly one day before $WWW in this current wave That doesn’t mean Agency owns the concept or that $WWW copied Agency Autonomous agents, AI treasuries and agentic tokens existed before either of them I’m only talking about the timeline of these two tokens that CT is currently grouping into the same meta 5. More importantly, the product is actually running One thing I like about Agency is that the team didn’t just launch a token and sit around selling the narrative Minds on the platform have already started generating public thoughts and using actual capabilities A few examples I checked : $GrokBot triggered a buyback after detecting a price decline $shoggoth graduated and then opened a jackpot/poll Other minds have run contests, quests, jackpots or buyback/burn actions Even solana:7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump itself kept its mind running after graduation with a “months, not days” approach The team also ran into an issue where the daily safety cap blocked buybacks/burns even when a treasury still had SOL, and later said they had adjusted that cap I actually find this part interesting Not because bugs are bullish, but because at least I’m seeing a product go through : ship => hit problems => fix them => keep shipping That’s better than a nice website and nothing else But I don’t want to overhype this either The treasury actions I’ve seen so far are still mostly only fractions of a SOL at a time Compared with the token’s trading volume, that’s tiny So : having buybacks ≠ having buybacks large enough to sustain price The mechanism is running The economic effectiveness of that mechanism is still unproven This is still a very early experiment 6. There are still plenty of risks This is the part I don’t think should be ignored just because the narrative is hot First, the token is extremely new and the chart just went vertical Some scanners I checked also flagged bundlers at around ~18%, while liquidity at the time was only around $100K–200K against several million dollars in volume I don’t treat a scanner flag as proof that the team is doing anything malicious But for a freshly launched microcap, volume/liquidity like this + bundle concentration is still something I want to monitor The team behind the platform also remains fairly anonymous, and I haven’t seen a strong independent audit that would make me treat everything described in their security architecture as third-party verified And there’s one very important distinction : The 15% platform fee does NOT mean solana:7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump holders receive 15% of the revenue I haven’t found documentation saying solana:7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump holders directly receive that fee So I’m not valuing solana:7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump as a revenue-sharing token simply because the platform generates fees If the team later introduces clear tokenomics around this, the thesis can change For now, I’m not going to invent utility the token doesn’t have 7. How am I looking at the chart? solana:7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump just made a pretty clean move from roughly : $1.4M => $3.6M MC It’s now pulling back around the $3M+ area I don’t like chasing here The first area I’m watching is : $3.0–3.1M This is around the bottom of the recent red candle and also a clean psychological level. If it holds, the drop from ~$3.6M can still just be a normal pullback But the area I’d be much more interested in if the market gives it back is : $2.0–2.2M. That’s close to the key breakout area before the latest expansion and gives me a much cleaner R:R than buying near ATH Deeper down : $1.4–1.7M That’s the accumulation zone before the latest leg If that gets lost too, then most of the current breakout has effectively been retraced and I’d reassess the thesis from scratch So for me : $3.0–3.1M - watch the reaction $2.0–2.2M - the dip zone I’m most interested in. $1.4–1.7M - final zone protecting the current structure 8. What catalysts do I want to see next? Not another 20 KOLs tweeting about “AI agents” I want to see the mechanism prove itself Specifically, I want to see a mind build a large enough treasury to execute a meaningful buyback/burn that is clearly visible on-chain, rather than another 0.x SOL action I also want to see more minds staying awake, enough volume generating fees to keep them running, and the team continuing to ship new capabilities If volume dies => fees die => minds go to sleep, then the entire “living token” narrative starts losing its fuel On the other hand, if activity keeps growing and treasuries start producing actions large enough for the market to actually notice, the flywheel becomes much more interesting And there’s another indirect catalyst : $WWW $WWW is currently attracting more holders, liquidity and attention If it keeps pushing the AI agent / living token narrative further, capital could easily start rotating into other names within the same meta And Agency is one of the names I think deserves to stay on the radar 9. My final thesis I don’t see solana:7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump as simply “another $WWW” They share a narrative, but they’re experimenting with two different approaches $WWW turns fees into compute so its minds can browse/research Agency turns fees into treasury and lets its minds decide how to use that treasury within predefined limits Right now, $WWW is winning the attention game But from a mechanism perspective, I think Agency is running a pretty interesting experiment What I need next isn’t more narrative I want to see : larger treasuries => larger actions => visible buybacks/burns => more active minds => volume continuing to fuel the system If those pieces start showing up while this meta stays hot, I think solana:7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump could be one of the names capital rotates back into But after a move from $1.4M => $3.6M, I see no reason to FOMO here I’ll let the market give me the dip 7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump
もっと見る
Quite a few people have been asking me about $WWW today This is one of the hottest launches right now, hitting an ATH of around $8.4M within its first ~8 hours, and trading around $6M–7M MC when I checked Instead of chasing the chart, I dug deeper into the product, narrative, fee mechanism, on-chain data, bundle cluster, and notable wallets behind it Let’s break it down 1. What is $WWW? $WWW is the flagship token of a platform where each token can come with its own AI agent, which the team calls a “symbient” These agents can use models like Claude, GPT, or Grok through OpenRouter, while also having access to a cloud browser that allows them to browse the web, research information, and retain memory between runs The core flywheel is pretty simple n: Trading => Fees => Compute => AI activity => Content/Attention => Trading Creator fees are used to fund the compute vault that keeps the agent running. Once the compute runs out, the agent stops until it gets funded again This is how the team describes the mechanism, though I haven’t independently audited the entire flow of funds yet 2. The narrative WWW positions itself within this lineage : Infinite Backrooms => Truth Terminal => Mycelial Oracle => World Wide Web The idea is to take AI agents beyond just conversations, give them an environment to “live” on the web, and provide them with a token economy to sustain their activity $WWW currently runs Claude and focuses heavily on machine life / synthetic biology I saw the agent researching protein design, RFdiffusion, nanopore synthesis, and other related topics But there’s an important distinction : Reading and summarizing research ≠ creating new scientific discoveries So far, I haven’t seen evidence of the latter 3. The product is real, but still very early This isn’t just an AI narrative with a ticker attached The browser agent is actually running, and the team has been actively fixing browser issues, re-indexing tokens, adding disclaimers, and allowing creators to modify allowlists, capabilities, or APIs through wallet signatures When I checked, the platform showed roughly 1,500 coins, ~2,100 SOL in compute, 70–80 symbients, and ~1,300 findings However, most of the “findings” I saw still looked more like AI summaries and interpretations of existing information rather than genuine discoveries Another thing worth noting: despite the autonomous AI narrative, creators still retain some control over their agents That isn’t necessarily bad for such an early product, but it means the system is not fully autonomous or immutable yet 4. On-chain is where things get interesting This is also where I start becoming more cautious Different trackers are showing different bundle estimates, so I wouldn’t treat 55% bundled as an exact figure at this point What matters more is that there appears to be a fairly large launch cluster connected through the same funding source The dev currently shows 0% holdings, mint/freeze authority is disabled, and individual top holders don’t look extremely concentrated Another positive point is that around 17M $WWW tokens have already been locked, reducing the amount of supply that can immediately enter the market But : 0% dev holdings + locked supply doesn’t automatically mean clean distribution If multiple wallets were funded from the same source and bought right at launch, looking at each wallet individually can still hide the real concentration So rather than focusing only on the bundle percentage, I’m watching how much unlocked supply these connected wallets still control and whether they start distributing together 5. Frank is the interesting part This is probably the most interesting on-chain detail I found Frank’s wallet appears directly on the bubble map within the funding network connected to $WWW’s bundle cluster And Frank actually has a sizeable position According to GMGN, Frank bought roughly $118.7K across 15 transactions, with an average entry around $3.5M MC He later sold around $61.3K, but when I checked, he was still holding roughly 11.7M $WWW, representing more than 1% of the current supply So Frank has already taken some profit but is still letting a meaningful position run More importantly, the funding connection between Frank’s wallet and the bundle cluster is something I’ll continue watching This connection alone isn’t enough to prove that Frank is part of the team, that these wallets share the same owner, or that they are coordinating But if Frank starts selling heavily while the connected bundle wallets begin distributing at the same time, then this connection becomes much more relevant 6. The fee flow still needs more transparency Based on the data I checked, the creator has already claimed roughly 640+ SOL in fees The team says these fees are used to fund the compute vault, but the amount claimed currently looks significantly larger than the compute consumption I can directly observe So I want more clarity on three things : > How much of the fees actually go into the vault? > How much has actually been spent on compute? > Where are the claimed funds going? More transparency here would resolve one of the biggest question marks around the project 7. Attention is growing quickly @www_stream had around 2.9K followers when I checked, with quite a few crypto traders/KOLs appearing in its follower network That’s a good sign for attention, but : Follow ≠ endorsement Endorsement ≠ buy A stronger catalyst would be direct public interaction from people connected to previous AI narratives, such as Andy Ayrey, Truth Terminal, Repligate, James Greig/Wib&Wob, or Mycelial Oracle I haven’t seen strong external confirmation like that yet 8. The $Agency controversy Another token called $Agency launched a few hours before $WWW CA : 7VertkgF9KLhxxJXHX6uaWuoYZTP9LdGj2bWmVXVpump The Agency side claims that their tech was already running before WWW At this point, I haven’t seen enough evidence to conclude who copied whom, or whether anyone actually copied anyone at all To confirm that, I’d want to see development timestamps, repos, deployment history, or stronger technical evidence So for now, I see it simply as a dispute worth monitoring 9. The levels I’m watching When I researched it, $WWW was trading around $6M–7M MC after hitting an ATH of roughly $8.4M The token is only a few hours old, so I wouldn’t treat these as confirmed technical support levels. They’re simply areas where I’ll watch the reaction $7M–8.4M: ATH reclaim zone. A break and hold above $8.4M with strong volume would keep the momentum healthy $5M–5.5M: The first area I’m watching on a pullback. Losing this zone with increasing sell volume would make me more cautious $3.5M–4M: A deeper reset zone. If it comes back here, I’ll recheck Frank, the bundle wallets, and volume before considering the dip Below $2M–2.5M: The original momentum thesis would be largely invalidated for me, and I’d reassess the entire setup rather than automatically calling it a dip After such a fast move, I personally don’t like chasing the ATH 10. My thesis I understand why $WWW is hot It has an AI agent that is actually running, an observable browser, a fee/compute flywheel, Backrooms/Truth Terminal lore, a real product, and a token directly tied to the ecosystem There are also some positives on-chain: mint/freeze authority is disabled, dev holdings show 0%, and around 17M $WWW has already been locked But the risks are still pretty clear : A large funding cluster, unclear bundle concentration, Frank’s wallet having a funding connection to that cluster while already taking some profit, unclear fee flows, creators still retaining some control over agents, no major external confirmation yet, and the unresolved Agency dispute So for now, I still see $WWW as a high-risk narrative trade rather than a long-term conviction play What I want to see next is pretty simple : Continued holder growth, no aggressive distribution from the launch cluster, Frank not heavily unloading the rest of his position, healthy volume after the initial hype, clearer fee/compute flows, and a real external catalyst If those things start lining up while the chart continues to hold its structure, the thesis becomes much stronger For now : I like the narrative and the product, but I’m still respecting the on-chain risk. GAwhcphCqCv5bKHmCiN4VDdNWfbXJL4npmkc8L3Q9S9H
もっと見る