Meme-token launchpads and onchain trading tools continued to generate substantial revenue in the 30 days through Aug. 11, even as the pace of new token launches and rapid market-cap surges eased from earlier peaks. Pump.fun led the group with $34.68 million in revenue, according to DefiLlama, followed by trading platforms GMGN at roughly $19.81 million and Axiom at about $14.67 million after rebates and cashback.
The figures show that speculation in short-lived tokens remains a meaningful source of onchain fee income, with activity concentrated on Robinhood Chain, Solana and BNB Chain. The platforms earning the most are not necessarily those with the largest reported volume: their results depend on fee rates, referral programs, creator revenue sharing and whether fees continue after a token leaves its initial bonding curve.
Pump.fun leads revenue with $34.68 million
Pump.fun generated $34.68 million in revenue during the 30-day period while processing $1.718 billion in trading volume, DefiLlama data showed. The Solana-based token launchpad charges 1.25% on trades made through its bonding curve, the mechanism used to set token prices before they move to a decentralized exchange.
Of that fee, 0.95% goes to the protocol and 0.30% goes to the token creator. Pump.fun also charges a 0.015 SOL graduation fee when a token completes its bonding curve and transitions to PumpSwap.
The model gives Pump.fun multiple sources of income tied directly to the lifecycle of newly issued tokens. It collects fees during the earliest speculative phase, when traders typically enter and exit quickly, while its graduation process creates an additional charge for tokens that attract enough trading to move into the next stage.
Pump.fun’s revenue was higher than that of several trading interfaces that processed larger volumes. That gap reflects the difference between a launchpad’s control over initial token trading and an execution tool whose headline fees may be reduced through rebates, referrals or cashback programs.
GMGN and Axiom draw trading flow across chains
GMGN recorded $2.584 billion in trading volume over the same period and generated $23.87 million in gross fees, according to DefiLlama. After referral rebates, its revenue came to approximately $19.81 million.
Robinhood Chain accounted for $11.67 million of GMGN’s revenue, ahead of BNB Chain at $4.93 million and Solana at $2.41 million. GMGN charges a 1% fee for trades executed through its tools, placing the platform among the larger revenue-generating interfaces serving meme-token and onchain traders.
Axiom reported $1.337 billion in 30-day trading volume and $23.91 million in fees. Revenue after referral rebates and trading cashback totaled around $14.67 million. Nearly all of its gross fees—$23.84 million—came from Solana, while BNB Chain contributed about $66,000.
Axiom’s posted base fee is 1%, though its effective net charge falls to an estimated 0.75% to 0.95% after volume-based rebates. Such discounts can materially affect where frequent traders route orders, especially when token prices move quickly enough that execution costs become part of the trade’s risk.
GMGN’s chain-by-chain breakdown also points to a less Solana-centric distribution of meme-token trading than Axiom’s results suggest. Solana remained a major venue, but Robinhood Chain generated more than half of GMGN’s reported revenue, while BNB Chain supplied another sizeable share.
High volume does not always produce the highest revenue
Flap processed $9.08 billion in trading volume during the 30-day period, the highest volume figure among the platforms listed, while generating $5.58 million in revenue. BNB Chain contributed $5.05 million of that amount, with Robinhood Chain contributing $529,000.
Flap applies a base 1% protocol fee on BNB Chain, Robinhood Chain, X Layer and Monad. DefiLlama’s revenue figure does not include extra transfer taxes that can be set in Tax Tokens, including tokens such as MarsCoin. That exclusion makes Flap’s reported protocol revenue more comparable with standard platform fees, while leaving token-specific tax structures outside the calculation.
Pons generated roughly $4.99 million in protocol revenue from $18.76 million in total fees. Its fee structure directs a large portion of trading income to token creators: it charges a 1% trading fee, with about 70% going to creators and around 30% retained by the protocol.
The platform also charges 0.0005 ETH to create a token. Under Pons V2, the revenue model extends beyond bonding-curve trades by collecting ongoing fees after tokens graduate into Uniswap V4, using the same creator-protocol split. Using its 1% trading fee as a reference, the reported $18.76 million in fees implies approximately $1.8 billion in related trading volume.
Fomo combines spot and perpetuals activity
Fomo generated about $8.79 million in protocol revenue from $9.48 million in total fees, alongside roughly $617 million in spot volume and $360 million in perpetuals volume. Solana spot activity accounted for about $8.64 million of its revenue, compared with approximately $153,000 from perpetuals.
Its spot fee starts at 0.5% per trade and carries a $0.95 minimum charge. Perpetuals trades are subject to a 0.05% platform fee. The results suggest that Fomo’s revenue during the period was driven far more by spot trading in volatile onchain tokens than by its derivatives offering.
Across the group, the numbers challenge the assumption that declining launch frequency necessarily means weak platform economics. Fewer tokens reaching large market caps can reduce attention around individual launches, yet high turnover in the remaining active markets can continue to support fee income for launchpads and trading tools.
The revenue figures also show why gross fees and protocol revenue should be treated separately. Pump.fun retains most of its bonding-curve trading fee, while Pons shares most of its trading fee with creators. GMGN and Axiom, meanwhile, reduce their effective take through referral rewards, rebates and cashback. The resulting differences determine how much trading activity becomes recurring platform income rather than a headline fee total.
Want deeper insight into meme coins’ impact on this cycle? Explore our analysis in Are memecoins driving this bull cycle today.
Disclaimer: The content on this page is provided for general informational purposes only and does not represent the views or financial advice of Toobit. We make no guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of this information and shall not be held liable for any errors, omissions, or outcomes resulting from its use. Investing in digital assets involves risk; users should independently evaluate their financial situation and the risks involved. For further details, please consult our Terms of Service and Risk Disclosure.
