@lated1eyoung CIS and West are 2 different worlds who won't cope much in the way of managing operator side. I had a lot of c-lvl both there and there - it's like Mars and Venus
Let’s talk about migrating $SAN to PumpSwap.
There has been a lot of discussion around this topic recently, and the community clearly has mixed feelings.
With this post, I want to clear the air, explain what a migration actually means from a structural point of view, and then share my personal view at the end.
The teams goal is to keep the token healthy, tradable, and trustworthy in the long term.
A migration is not about “new vs. old"
It’s a structural decision that mainly affects how price is formed and how numbers are displayed.
What a migration actually changes:
1. How market cap is calculated
2. How liquidity behaves in relation to price
3. Adds Creator Fees
1. Market Cap
After a migration, the displayed market cap would likely be higher. This happens because the price used for the calculation comes from a different mechanism, not because more capital automatically enters the token.
2. How liquidity behaves in relation to price:
Liquidity affects how sensitive the price is to trades.
With deeper liquidity, price changes tend to be smoother. With thinner liquidity, price reacts more quickly.
Compared to current Raydium liquidity, a migrated setup would likely make price movements faster.
3. Creator Fees
Creator Fees = Cashflow for the Project
This cashflow can be used in various ways like token buybacks, donations, covering expenses etc.
Different preferences, different participants:
Different market participants focus on different metrics.
Some care more about visibility and headline numbers like market cap. Others care more about liquidity depth and price stability.
Neither approach is inherently good or bad — they just reflect different trading styles and expectations.
The Migration process summarized:
Using @MigrateFun we could easily end up securing ~86% of the current LP if we manage to migrate 50% of the current supply.
Securing ~86% of the current LP doesn’t mean holders lose 14% of value. It mainly changes how much liquidity stands behind the price. The displayed market cap and token price could even be higher, while liquidity relative to that price would be lower.
TLDR;
A migration could make the token more momentum-driven.
It would likely result in faster price movements, higher visibility through a higher displayed market cap, and the introduction of creator fees.
This setup can be attractive for traders who prefer volatility and short-term price action
Not migrating preserves the current market structure.
Deeper liquidity supports smoother price discovery, reduces sensitivity to large trades, and maintains confidence for holders who value stability and long-term tradability over short-term volatility.
Personal opinion:
I don´t think a migration will make $SAN go to billions, its all about Kantaro & San Chan. It is simply changing the structure of the coin. San Chan is kind of in a sweetspot here because it´s small enough to profit from more volatility but established enough to prioritze organic growth. The Market cap to liquidity ratio is super healthy @ ~15%. However, i do believe that creator fees are super bullish simply because it literally is a creator coin with @kantaro0925 being the captain of this project.
I believe the project can grow without migrating but the migration makes alot of sense to me personally.
CC: @poe_real69@Pumpfun@JLKHatesYou@blknoiz06@humblenzz
Thank you for coming to my TEDtalk.