Market data shows PumpSwap, the decentralized exchange of memecoin launch platform Pump.Fun, processed $2.5 billion of trades last week.

DefiLlama data shows that in the week of April 6, PumpSwap saw a trading volume increase of nearly 40% over the previous week starting on March 30, with its trading volume of $1.8 billion. Since its launch in late March, the decentralized exchange (DEX) has processed $98.4 million of trades.

The news follows Pump.Fun launching PumpSwap on March 19, as a dedicated “frictionless environment” for trading memecoins. The DEX attracted considerable trading activity, exceeding $1 billion of volume in its first week of activity.

Related: Pump.fun memecoins are dying at record rates, less than 1% survive

According to Dune data, PumpSwap’s trades reached a new record high daily count of over 6.1 million on April 12, and on April 14 the platform saw over 5.7 million swaps. It also saw its highest daily active wallets, reaching nearly 264,500 — over 163,000 recurring and 101,000 new.

PumpSwap daily active wallets. Source: Dune

On April 15, PumpSwap broke its daily volume record, reaching $417.8 million at the time of publication. The previous record was reported on Monday, April 14, when the volume reached $412.7 million.

PumpSwap’s trading volume shows a clear uptrend. Source: DefiLlama

Related: Memecoins, markets and Trump: Cointelegraph’s Q1 editorial roundtable

Revenues are growing alongside volume

PumpSwap’s income is growing alongside its trading volume, with Dune data showing that daily fees reached a record of over $1.05 million on April 14. That day, $840,000 were liquidity provider fees and $210,000 protocol fees.

PumpSwap daily fees. Source: Dune

ParaSwap features a 0.25% fee, with 0.2% going to liquidity providers and 0.05% to the protocol itself. The total lifetime fees generated by the DEX stand at $14.2 million at the time of publication, out of which $3.56 million were destined for the protocol.

Pump.Fun making millionaires

The developers behind the platform are not the only ones who managed to make money on Pump.Fun. Dune data shows that 506 wallets managed to earn over $1 million on the platform, while over 9,000 made over $100,000.

Top five 30-day active Pump.Fun wallets. Source: Dune

The most profitable wallet over the past 30 days has realized gains of nearly $40.6 million, the data shows.

Magazine: Memecoin degeneracy is funding groundbreaking anti-aging research

The recent collapse of the Mantra (OM) token triggered comparisons to the infamous Terra ecosystem crash in May 2022, with some commentators referring to Mantra as the “next Terra.” Still, many in the community argue that the two projects share nothing in common besides visual similarities in price charts.

“While it’s tempting to draw parallels between OM’s recent crash and the Terra Luna collapse, they’re fundamentally very different events,” said Ben Yorke, vice president of ecosystem at the decentralized finance (DeFi) project Woo, in a statement to Cointelegraph.

Alexis Sirkia, chairman of the DeFi infrastructure project Yellow Network, agreed. “There are no real similarities apart from the visual of the price dropping,” he said.

Visual similarity — different numbers

Mantra’s OM token dropped 92% on April 13, dropping from over $6 to around $0.52 within hours. According to data from CoinGecko, OM lost $5.4 billion in market capitalization in less than four hours.

By contrast, TerraClassicUSD (formerly UST) took five days to lose a similar percentage, shedding $17.2 billion.

Mantra’s OM crash in April 2025 versus USTC (formerly UST) crash in May 2022 (seven-day chart). Source: CoinGecko

The LUNA crash was more gradual than both the OM token and USTC. It started plummeting some time before the UST token depegged on May 9, 2022.

Still, the visual resemblance of the price charts has prompted comparisons among observers, despite significant structural differences between the projects.

Terra collapse was systemic in contrast to Mantra

Woo’s Yorke and Yellow Network’s Sirkia agreed that Terra’s collapse was systemic and occurred due to the failure of its algorithmic stablecoin, while Mantra was not proven to be subject to any systemic flaws.

“OM appears to be more of a case of mismanagement or negligence,” Yorke said, adding that the Mantra crash involved a “large number of insider-held tokens” moved to exchanges, which sparked cascading liquidations.

Source: ZachXBT

“The issue wasn’t a structural flaw in the protocol, but rather a breakdown in token handling and trust,” he noted.

Related: Mantra CEO says OM token recovery ‘primary concern’ but in early stages

“Mantra is not broken. There was no peg to fail. This is a market structure issue, not a protocol failure,” Sirkia stated, stressing that only an event like a smart contract failure could indicate a serious issue in the protocol. He added:

“Terra collapsed because of how it was built. Mantra went through a market-driven correction. The team remained transparent throughout. After the drop, OM bounced over 200%, showing real demand and community belief. That kind of recovery never happened with Luna.”

Yorke and Sirkia’s Mantra comments mark the second day after the OM crash, with the token slightly recovering to $0.80 by publishing time after a brutal sell-off from above $6 to $0.50 per token on April 13.

According to the latest update by Mantra CEO John Mullin, Mantra expects to share a post-mortem report detailing the events leading to the crash of the OM token in the next 24 hours.

Magazine: Illegal arcade disguised as … a fake Bitcoin mine? Soldier scams in China: Asia Express

A crypto investment executive said the biggest problem with digital asset markets is price manipulation, claiming that collusion between market makers and exchanges distorts token prices. 

Arthur Cheong, founder of crypto investment firm DeFiance Capital, said in an X post that market makers and crypto projects work together to create artificial prices that can be sustained for long periods. Cheong wrote: 

“You don’t know whether the price is a result of organic demand & supply or simply due to projects and market makers colluding to fix the price to achieve other objectives.”

He added that if the industry’s players don’t step up and improve the situation, a big part of the crypto market will remain “uninvestable for the foreseeable future.”

Centralized exchanges turning a “blind eye” 

Cheong said it was strange that centralized exchanges (CEXs) are “turning an absolute blind eye” to the issue. He described the altcoin market as a “lemon’s market,” a term in economics that describes a market where low-quality products drive out the good due to information asymmetry.

In addition, Cheong described most token generation event pricing in 2025 as an “absolute joke” where the assets’ prices went down by 70% to 90% a few months after listing. “Anyone that bought is down massively,” Cheong added. 

Related: Binance, KuCoin, MEXC report service issues due to AWS network interruption

88% of crypto tokens listed on Binance in 2025 declined after listing 

Data compiled by crypto analyst Miles Deutscher showed that among crypto tokens listed this year on the trading platform Binance, only 3 out of 27 are performing well. This means that 88% of the tokens have declined since listing. 

The price drops ranged from 19% up to 90%. Deutscher said this was the reason why retail investors were quitting. 

Only 3 out of 27 tokens listed in Binance in 2025 are in the green. Source: Miles Deutscher 

A community member responded to the data saying that this is where the industry is currently at. The X user added that they hoped Binance would realize starting at a high valuation wasn’t good for users. 

Binance co-founder Changpeng Zhao previously admitted that Binance’s listing process needs reform. On Feb. 10, the former Binance CEO said that the current system is flawed and suggested that CEXs should automate listings similar to how decentralized exchanges (DEXs) work. 

Magazine: New ‘MemeStrategy’ Bitcoin firm by 9GAG, jailed CEO’s $3.5M bonus: Asia Express