The news that Pump.fun is preparing to raise $1 billion at a valuation of $4 billion has spread like wildfire. Interestingly, the community's attitude has become polarized. The Solana establishment believes that Pump.fun is a cancer in the Solana ecosystem. The team is making a lot of Sol but keeps dumping the market, and they don't even do staking. They have no faith in Solana. At the end, they want to squeeze out the last bit of liquidity. They really eat it all up. In a word, they are ugly and don't care about the lives of others. The "drinking water and remembering the well digger" faction believes that Pump.fun has created a new paradigm for asset issuance, saving many retail investors from the endless suffering of the evil VC coins, giving retail investors the opportunity to make big money, and creating many A7, 8, 9, 10. Pump,fun can be said to have great merit in saving the suffering. Pump.fun's coin issuance will not only not bring down Soana, but will bring the .fun paradigm to a higher level, making the issuance of assets on the Solana chain more prosperous. Anyway, who of the two factions is more reasonable? Yijian believes that both factions have said part of the truth. Pump.fun has indeed created a new paradigm for asset issuance, allowing some people to get rich first, and the merits are indeed great. However, the team has indeed been selling coins crazily. Do you think the valuation of 4 billion US dollars is high? It is indeed quite high at this stage, but if it was in October-November last year, let alone 4 billion, there would be people who would pay for 10 billion. However, this year, especially in May-June, the liquidity is indeed much less, and everyone is a little tired of P. There are too many Rugs and the wealth effect is reduced. The sudden opening of 4 billion US dollars, coupled with the fact that Sol is sold crazily, is really uncomfortable. It is hard not to suspect that the team is just going to harvest the last one. However, no matter what the Pump fun team thinks, whether everyone will pay or not in the end, the market will give the answer, but the implicit question behind this incident is more worthy of discussion: If Pump.fun really raised 1 billion US dollars, and then the opening of 4 billion was smashed into shit, then can Solana continue to play on the chain? Is the .fun paradigm of pump.com really coming to an end? I think this question is worth thinking about. Will the .fun paradigm die out like the previous NFT, inscription and other asset issuance paradigms? My answer is, probably not. From 2017 to 2024, there are essentially two asset issuance paradigms for Crypto. One is the VC-led VCM paradigm (Venture Capital Market), and the other is the community-led ICM paradigm (Internet Capital Market). VCM is easy to understand. It is a market dominated by risk institutions. The team raises money, makes products and does business, and then issues coins and goes public. This is the same as the traditional capital market. However, VCM is not the native asset issuance paradigm of Crypto. It is an imported product. The real native asset issuance paradigm of Crypto is ICM, which is asset issuance driven by community capital, and eventually forms a huge market around these assets. Bitcoin is an ICM. Bitcoin has no VC investment. The initial community capital is everyone's investment in computing power mining. Bitcoin, an asset, has grown up by relying on the issuance of the Internet community. Including Ethereum, it is actually an ICM. In the early days of Ethereum, there was no institutional investment (the $500,000 from Professor Xiao Feng can only be regarded as a donation at most), and then everyone used Bitcoin to participate in Ethereum's ICO, and then slowly built Ethereum. Including, many ICO projects in the Ethereum ecosystem in 2017, basically no VC investment, all driven by community capital. Which of the top Crypo OGs in the East and the West is not a participant in the early ICM of Bitcoin or Ethereum? Therefore, ICM is the native asset issuance paradigm of Crypto. Since 2018, especially after DeFi in 2020, the VCM paradigm has gradually gained the upper hand in the Crypto market, and eventually became a mainstream asset issuance paradigm in the Crypto market. A VCM project basically cannot be on the table without raising $10 million. However, by 2023, especially in 2024, the VCM paradigm gradually had problems, and more and more retail investors were unwilling to pay for VCM tokens. VC coins became something that everyone hated and ignored. Why has the VCM paradigm been popular in the traditional capital market for so many years and has always been the mainstream, but it is difficult to sustain in the Crypto field? What is the reason? In fact, the reason is very simple, because in the traditional capital market, retail investors have no choice, and grassroots entrepreneurs have no choice. Because, in the traditional capital market, the right to issue assets is monopolized by class, and only top resources and top entrepreneurial teams can get the right to issue assets (approved by the China Securities Regulatory Commission for listing), and capital naturally pursues these top targets, and weak retail investors can only become the last link in the traditional capital market. A large number of ordinary entrepreneurs cannot get the right to issue assets, and a large number of ordinary retail investors have no opportunity to participate in the early asset casting. Because once the right to issue assets is monopolized, ordinary people only have the last chance to take over. However, in the field of Crypto, the right to issue assets is not monopolized by any center. It is open to everyone. It is permissionless, and anyone can issue assets. I had no choice in the traditional capital market before, but now in Crypto, I also have the right to issue assets, and I want to get back everything I lost. Some people will definitely ask, since Ethereum invented smart contracts, asset issuance has indeed become a right that everyone has, and asset issuance has indeed achieved complete equality. However, ICO, NFT, and inscriptions are all community-driven, permissionless asset issuance paradigms, and are also early prototypes of ICM, but why did they all die? So, why is the .fun paradigm pioneered by pumu.fun sustainable? This is a good question! For ICM to be successful and sustainable, it must have at least two conditions: the first is the issuance of assets without permission, and the second is an excellent place for liquidity without permission. Both are indispensable. Let's take a look. Although ICO can issue assets without permission, the trading of ICO tokens requires permission, because there was no DEX at that time. After ICO, it needs to be listed on Huobi, Binance, and OK, and it needs CEX review and approval. Although NFT and inscriptions do not need to go through the cumbersome review and approval of trading venues such as opensea and unisat, NFT and inscriptions are not good assets. The liquidity is too poor, and it is easy to have a situation where there is a price but no market. Therefore, although ICO, NFT, and inscriptions are also early prototypes of the ICM paradigm, they are unsustainable due to the limitations of the times and the problems of the assets themselves. However, the .fun paradigm pioneered by Pump.fun, through the trench market + open market model, cleverly combines the issuance and trading of unlicensed assets into one, and invisibly integrates the primary market and the secondary market of asset issuance. Through the steep Bonding Curve, the price difference of asset issuance has become the driving force for the community to spontaneously drive the distribution of tokens. The most important thing is that pump.fun has completely revitalized grassroots entrepreneurs and ordinary retail investors, which is the biggest source of market momentum. Therefore, the .fun paradigm is a culmination of traditional ICM paradigms such as ICO, NFT, and inscriptions. In addition, at the end of 2023 and the beginning of 2024, after Crypto users experienced years of repeated abuse of VCM tokens, the accumulated indignation and funds with nowhere to go were all poured into pump.fun, which completely detonated the .fun paradigm. At this time, someone said, however, the tokens on the .fun paradigm are mixed and there are more and more RUG disks, and the wealth effect is gradually decreasing. Is the .fun paradigm really sustainable? Everyone is tired of playing, will they return to VCM tokens? I said earlier that ICM is the native asset issuance paradigm of Crypto, but it does not mean that ICM has no market in Crypto. Some projects may continue to follow the VCM paradigm, but who says that VCM cannot be integrated into the ICM paradigm? (Here is one more sentence. As of now, if Crypto does not have a new round of paradigm innovation similar to DeFi, VC will not continue to invest.) Most of the early projects on the .fun paradigm are pure memes, or ordinary early entrepreneurial projects that cannot follow the VCM paradigm. However, with the development of the market, high-quality ICM projects with good products and great teams have begun to appear on the .fun paradigm. These projects work steadily and make good products. They can directly go through ICM to complete asset issuance. Not only that, even if some projects take VC money, they can also go through the ICM paradigm. There are too many tools on the market that can help teams get the part of the chips that belong to VC in the trench market. Then, the team and VC can unlock the part of the tokens that belong to you according to the agreed rules. These are not noticeable to retail investors, because everyone is fair in the trench stage and grabs the chips based on their own abilities. This does not change the rules and experience of ICM at all (in fact, in fact, many .fun paradigm tokens have always done this). I know that some good projects that have received VC financing have started to operate in this way, so VCM can also be combined with the ICM paradigm. Therefore, in the future, whether it is pure meme, ordinary entrepreneurs, or excellent top projects, they can all follow the ICM paradigm. Then, will the ICM paradigm officially become the mainstream asset issuance paradigm of Crypto? So, will the ICM paradigm still die? So, back to our title, will Pump.fun's coin issuance really bring down Solana? Obviously not, although it will continuously withdraw some liquidity, the fundamentals of Solana and even the entire crypto have not changed. There is no evidence that without ICM, everyone will willingly return to VCM. Moreover, in the future, there will be more and more new .fun paradigm asset issuance platforms that will continue to emerge, and these will continue to carry forward the ICM paradigm. Some people say that liquidity will always be exhausted one day, yes, but that is the whole industry's business, not ICM's problem. At that time, everything may have to start over again, and then wait for a new cycle to come. Finally, I still say that VCM is not a native asset issuance paradigm that truly conforms to the characteristics of Crypto. ICM is