Article: LFG winners overview; Details, Remarks and Suggestions

1/ Summary

In the past few weeks, our community has started to have more frequent discussions about the projects recently launched by the LFG launchpad. These have prompted new proposals from Catdets on the LFG forum, such as a new category for Establishing Projects, Tokenomics as mandatory requirement, etc.
In alignment with the community’s POV, our group would like to present comprehensive details about the LFG winners. This includes a comparative analysis of the pre and post-TGE scenarios, and we’ll conclude with a summary in key points.

Our team proceeded with the following steps:

  • Gathering data from LFG winners, such as tokenomics, VC funding and pre-mined tokens, among others
  • Evaluation of token performance for certain timeframes
  • Community aspects and project conduct after the TGE
  • Analysis/correlation of all the data and conclusions of the current system

This study, developed by Catdets @Aro, @buddlestraws and @Morten, is crucial for understanding and evaluating the latest projects launched by LFG Launchpad. It will allow us to draw conclusions and encourage the community to discuss/evaluate upcoming projects in a more objective and technical way, resulting in a positive impact for the entire ecosystem. We will add some suggestions for specific points that can be improved in the next rounds.

2/ Goal

To conduct a detailed overview of the LFG winners, both pre and post-TGE, to gather insights from the process. This will also serve as a talking point within the Jupiter community for potential process enhancements.

3/ Overview of LFG winners

Our research kicked off with gathering data from each LFG winner, which included everything from general aspects to the parameters utilized in the DLMM. The data is presented in tables and further illustrated with charts to optimize the visualization of the entire context. All data was collected from the official pages of each project, as well as from the LFG launchpad page and Dexscreener for details about DLMM parameters and price action.

Based on the collected data, we have drawn some points. These will be divided into sections for easier understanding:

3.1/ General

  • 80% of projects presented their tokenomics pre-voting
  • Only UpRock adopted a token incentive program for voters (rewarding who voted in Round #1 and #2)
  • 100% projects already had a point system that would be converted into tokens at TGE

3.2/ VCs + Circulating Supply and FDV analysis

  • 100% of LFG winners have VC investment in a $4-8M range (Average $5.52M and Median $5.5M)
  • 100% of LFG winners are established projects with a high VC funding
  • VC allocation makes up 11.8% of tokenomics on average in a 4-17% range
  • VC allocation unlocked at TGE represented 10% of circulating supply and could create more sell pressure at listing
  • 100% of LFG winners used a low float model in a 10-18% range at TGE
  • 2/3 of projects are down comparing FDV listing to FDV now; All projects are down comparing FDV 1st min to FDV now
  • FDV listing is unrealistic for a common user, which is why we used FDV (1st min) for traders
  • Average performance (listing vs. now) is -35.6% and -74.447% for (1st min vs. now)

3.3/ Price evaluation

  • 100% of projects are in a downtrend in a major loss compared with the price (1st min)
  • Sharky presented the worst performance with a -95% loss comparing 1st min x now
  • All projects have performed very poorly after a few weeks without any unlocking event

3.4/ DLMM and Alpha Vault analysis

  • If the price action is near initial price before 72 hours, there’s a natural tendency to see a downtrend tendency after backstop removal (UpRock and Sharky)
  • Tokens had their volume peak in the 1st week: Sharky on the 1st, Zeus on the 5th and UpRock on the 3rd day
  • Jupiter introduced a new system to combat sniper bots at listing called Alpha Vault, where users can deposit in Meteora Vault earlier and have a guarantee to be the 1st buyers (with a linear vesting system)
  • UpRock was the 1st project using this system and users had a ~61M FDV entry. Even using this system, users would be in a loss before completing the vesting (~5 days)

3.5/ Community

  • Townhalls and pre-TGE events have been informative for the community
  • There’s a lack of details on how projects will proceed post-TGE and their short-term plan
  • We observed that part of the community had problems to understand/analyze technical aspects, such as tokenomics
  • The extra reward from UpRock caused a misunderstanding for part of the community (extra reward x ASR)
  • Negative sentiment due to UpRock’s conduct post-TGE, which reflected in Jupiter’s discord with FUD

4/ Remarks and Suggestions
In the preceding segment, we conducted an in-depth analysis of the LFG winners covering a broad spectrum, from the basics to community-oriented aspects, in order to derive certain remarks. For clarity, we’ve structured these insights into the following points:

  • The absence of small to medium capitalization projects in the LFG winner’s list demonstrates the significant difficulty that small caps face when competing against established projects with high VC funding.
  • The LFG winners exclusively adopted the low float model, which showed poor short-term performance (-74.447% for 1st min vs. now). This can generate negative sentiment in the community towards future projects, potentially leading to a reluctance to invest in these tokens during the initial days, which could result in decreased trading volume = less fees for Jupiter.
  • The community is discussing the creation of a new category for small caps to increase diversity in the LFG launchpad.
  • Alpha Vault, when viewed isolated, made for a very smooth open on TGE. A case could be made that it should however only be used in situations in which large trade volumes are expected, as the price action in the days after TGE negatively impacted the effectiveness of the vault. However, this system, combined with pre-mined tokens and their subsequent vesting, creates a gradual increase in selling pressure. This is accelerated by removing bootstrap liquidity from the alpha vault prior to the full vesting of this mechanism.
  • The community has raised questions about the altered vesting schedule for the Alpha Vault, as the tokens become fully unlocked just a few days after the bootstrap liquidity removal.
  • A suggestion for Alpha Vaults is to create a separate mechanism that reduces the number of bins taken when a certain amount of time has passed without a deposit. This would accurately gauge the market’s sentiment and protect deposits.
  • There’s a necessity to improve the communication/explanation about bonus airdrops, Alpha Vault and other mechanisms, because this issue was noticeable in several communities (extra reward vs. ASR).
  • Townhalls and pre-TGE events have been informative. It should definitively be a requirement for the project to appear before their TGE to touch base, explain how they intend to proceed post-TGE and their short term vision to get up and running in the Solana ecosystem.
  • There’s a lack in a technical content explaining the tokenomics/other aspects from LFG candidates in a “soft” way for the public. It’s crucial to present all information objectively.
  • It’s essential to discuss with the projects and explain the next steps after the TGE to avoid the issues previously encountered in UpRock.

5/ Conclusion

We hope this study will spark more discussions about the technical details among future LFG participants, fostering improvement within our community. This initiative will be applied in every LFG round, and we rely on all Catdets to help/provide feedback to optimize this concept. In our opinion, establishing a small, educationally-focused group to distill and teach the information is highly valuable to help the community.

6/ References

Here are the references consulted in crafting this study:


Thank you guys for doing this analysis! Great and interesting work!
I hope some of your suggestions are taken into consideration. Particularly the need to improve communication/explanation about bonus airdrops. Finding a “soft” way to present info for the public will hopefully help with this.

In the spirit of improved communication, I just wanted to potentially clarify and highlight:

  • In 3.1, you mentioned that only UpRock adopted a token incentive program for voters. Do you mean their voters? I believe Zeus also rewarded all voters, and UpRock did the same, but UpRock went a step further and rewarded their voters even more (with folks who voted for them in the 1st, 2nd, or both rounds receiving greater bonus rewards at their token launch).
  • In 4, on the point regarding community questions over the vesting schedule for the Alpha Vault, I think it might be worth mentioning/highlighting that Sanctum is considering a much longer vesting period (2 months/6 months) for Alpha Vault participants. I think this speaks to the power of feedback from the community, like yours.
  • Do you plan to conduct a similar analysis after the debridge and Sanctum launches?

Yeah, I absolutely agree that we need to distinguish between Uprock and Zeus to an extent. They went for the same process, but the rewards fell differently, and as such created a different result and interpretation from the community as well.

I’m hoping we can continue to give feedback on all LFG launches as time goes by. This post is first and foremost a prompt to start a larger discussion on it.


Awesome analysis!

Your suggestions for a more structured approach to Alpha Vaults and improving overall communication are spot on. Implementing strategies like these could really enhance transparency.

Looking forward to seeing how these insights evolve and are integrated into the next rounds of LFG projects. Great work by everyone involved in this research!


Great research! Thanks a lot for putting it together! I love all of the suggestions, but does it make sense to formalize them into guidelines for LFG projects and discuss with CWG the possibility of enforcing them in one way or another? Is there any other launchpad the DAO could draw more inspiration/ideas from in terms of rules for applicants (e.g. Binance)? I agree that it would significantly decrease the amount of LFG candidates, but, after some consideration, I am starting to lean towards @0xSoju and @sambino opinion on this (its ok to launch nothing). I think that those relatively small amounts from not-so-succesful launches are not worth the reputation of our Launchpad and the DAO, and it’s ok to have no winners in certain rounds or to have much fewer rounds per year. Again, changes of such nature should be taken up to DAO, but it may make sense to put it up for discussion/voting.


Having the analysis we have now, and seeing back on some launches I fully agree with the ‘its okay to launch nothing’ sentiment. I think the challenge arise with convincing the majority that it is okay to do so, because I while it may be a cynical opinion, I do think some will rather vote for something rather than nothing for the sake of a reward, no matter the size. I don’t know how viable it would be to accelerate a new launch after that either because you would maybe have to establish an entirely new group of participants.

I would like to see the possibility of a vote to launch nothing counting as a guideline for projects to revise their applications and make a do-over after feedback from the community. I understand that such feedback would get communicated prior to becoming an LFG participant, but the ability to ‘vote for nothing’ would be a stern reminder that projects need to take feedback seriously.


Does not have to happen overnight, might as well be properly established only in 2025, I do not think we’re in that kind of rush. But I think it is worth it to start actively probe the sentiment and to start working on the guidelines.

Jupiter’s team once again showed today that they’re here longterm, I think that the DAO needs to align with this vision more closely as well.

I do not see anything, that could stop us from at least systematically analysing and documenting the landscape: how many projects are launched per week on Solana, what are they, how many don’t flop after 1 month, what do they have in common, which of those could be a good fit for us, how can we attract them, etc. There are many questions that we can answer for ourselves, to see if there’s even a business case, before we start acting. And if there is an opportunity - all the easier to convince others. If not - then at least we can start looking in other directions.


Wow this is a impressive overview. I particularly like the Remarks & Suggestions, very insightful. The small/medium cap section definitely caught my attention. Really like that, worth exploring that at a minimum. As well as the tokenomics & extra rewards sections. Really a sore spot for me, Catdets are left to do the leg work explaining the problem for the project. And general users do seem to have a “it’s Jupiters fault” when a project has any issues.

Would definitely be cool to reflect on this again in the future. With a larger sample size some more insights regarding correlation of price and the different variables of the projects. Would be really interesting to see if variables like airdrops, % allocation for VC/community/LFG actually have any actually significant correlation on price or other performance aspects. Pretty easy calculations to setup.

Awesome analysis, really impressed.
Thanks for all the hard work!


Here’s a question for the community tho; Is there something missing here?

Aside from some suggestions as to what could be included, do you feel that this is an accurate view of the LFG launches so far?


To be honest the analysis is good, very good. Using easy verifiable info but all compiled and distributed to the community. No way i would do all of this work on my own, but you better bet I will be reading through these analyses and forming conclusions for the future from them.

From my perspective, the remarks and presentation are accurate. At the same time though, it is ALWAYS a struggle launching tokens. There will always be the sell pressure. Alpha Vault is a good idea but as we see it’s not perfect.

I think next step is to either have this team or other people do some market analysis, cross-chain, look at other token launches, try to find ones that have succeeded and havent just tanked and flatlined, could also take some stock market tips (if there are any), and then from there look for similarities between successful launches to then add here. Not a small amount of work, i know…

That’s what is missing: information and data are good, but if nothing is done with it, it’s just there, floating in the ether… uh, jupther? Improvement=data+action (classic DMAIC methodology)


Thank you so much for a very detailed and informed response. It certainly makes it all worth it.

I agree that token launches are very difficult in general. There are limitations to how much and what we can do to affect their success as well. I hope that we can solicit some response from CWG to maybe prompt some more specific discussion on measures we can take to help put a launch in the best position to succeed.

Again, thank you for your reply. It means a lot.


I do agree with these 2 points (and much more, but wanted to highlight these) and we’re working on improving them.

Thanks for taking the time to write all fo this valuable feedback in a way that was very informative.

Love the breakdown of everything great job.

1 Like