One Buyer, One Slot, Then PumpSwap

Instant versus organic-like PumpFun migrations

Migration cohort: October 1–25, 2026 UTC. PumpSwap outcomes use the same 24-hour horizon after each migration.

The fresh-token histogram raised a more interesting question than token age alone could answer. A token can reach PumpSwap in two very different ways:

1. one wallet effectively clears the curve immediately; or
2. hundreds of wallets buy through the curve before migration.

Those paths should not be pooled together. They create the same on-chain endpoint — a canonical PumpSwap pool — but the flow that gets them there is completely different.

The difference persists after migration. In our two clean cohorts, instant migrations produced 74.3% of PumpSwap transactions but only 45.7% of priced volume. Organic-like migrations produced fewer transactions, larger average trades, and more 24-hour volume per token.

“Instant” needs a mechanical definition

Creation-to-migration latency is not a smooth distribution. There is a distinct zero-second spike: 10,748 of 28,727 observed migrations landed in the same indexed second as token creation, and 10,321 of those were also in the same slot.

They were not one atomic transaction. Creation and migration had different signatures in every strict instant case. The common pattern was a short ordered sequence inside one slot: create, one dominant curve buy, then migrate.

For the primary comparison, we use two intentionally strict definitions.

Instant migration

A token is classified as instant when all four conditions hold:

creation timestamp == migration timestamp
creation slot == migration slot
successful pre-migration buy transactions <= 3
largest buyer supplied >= 50% of pre-migration quote flow

This produces 9,138 tokens, or 33.6% of the 27,208-token equal-horizon cohort.

The median instant token had:

• 0 seconds from creation to migration;
• 1 successful pre-migration buy transaction;
• 1 buying wallet;
• 100% of pre-migration quote flow from the largest buyer.

Among native-SOL launches, that median buy was 85.0 SOL.

Organic-like migration

We call the second group “organic-like,” not organic. Wallet count does not prove independent people or independent capital.

A token enters this cohort when:

creation-to-migration latency >= 10 seconds
successful pre-migration buy transactions >= 20
pre-migration buying wallets >= 20
largest buyer supplied <= 30% of pre-migration quote flow

This produces 8,055 tokens, or 29.6% of the cohort. Another 10,015 tokens remain in a transition/other bucket and are not forced into either side of the headline comparison.

The median organic-like token had:

• 401 seconds from creation to migration;
• 705 successful pre-migration buys;
• 436 buying wallets;
• only 3.7% of quote flow from the largest buyer.

For the native-SOL subset, the median buy was 0.174 SOL. The contrast is therefore not merely “fast versus slow.” It is one very large curve-clearing order versus a distributed sequence of much smaller orders.

What happened on PumpSwap

Every token receives the same 24-hour observation horizon after its decoded migration. We join PumpSwap swaps to the exact migrated mint × pool, then price quote flow with the indexer’s historical daily quote-price series.

Across all supported quote assets, organic-like tokens generated $3.04 billion of priced 24-hour PumpSwap volume versus $2.55 billion for instant tokens. That is 19.0% more total volume despite 11.9% fewer tokens. Median volume per token was 33.0% higher.

The transaction picture runs in the opposite direction. Instant tokens generated 165.1 million PumpSwap transactions against 57.0 million for organic-like tokens. The median instant token had 3.1 times as many PumpSwap transactions, but aggregate priced notional per transaction was 3.4 times larger in the organic-like cohort.

Get Onchain Divers’s stories in your inbox

Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.

Remember me for faster sign in

This is the central finding: instant migrations maximize event count; distributed migrations carry more dollars per token and per transaction.

Quote-asset mix explains part of the aggregate gap

Instant migrations were almost entirely native-SOL quoted: 99.5% of the cohort. The organic-like group was 82.2% native SOL and included more tokens quoted in USDC or other Pump-created coins.

Restricting both groups to native-SOL launches removes the aggregate-volume advantage:

• instant: 9,096 tokens, $2.543 billion of 24-hour volume;
• organic-like: 6,624 tokens, $2.561 billion;
• organic-like total-volume advantage: only 0.7%.

But the per-token result becomes slightly stronger. Median 24-hour volume was $134,886 for organic-like SOL launches versus $99,606 for instant SOL launches, a 35.4% difference. The organic-like subset produced roughly the same total volume with 27% fewer tokens.

So the careful reading is:

• quote mix contributes to the all-asset total-volume gap;
• it does not explain the higher organic-like volume per token;
• instant launches still dominate transaction count by a wide margin.

Why migration time is not enough

A simple cutoff such as “under ten seconds” catches several different behaviors. The 1–2 second cohort had a median of seven buys and seven wallets. By 11–30 seconds, the median was already 125 buys and 84 wallets. This is why the classifier combines time, transaction count, buyer breadth, and concentration.

The result is stable around the chosen boundaries:

• raising the instant cap from three to five or ten pre-migration buys leaves median 24-hour volume near $100,000;
• requiring organic-like latency of 10, 30, or 60 seconds leaves median volume between $131,000 and $134,000;
• increasing the organic-like buyer floor from 20 to 50 produces the same ranking.

The exact thresholds determine cohort size, but they do not create the main result.

What this does — and does not — measure

Pump’s documentation says canonical PumpSwap pools created through the Pump migration instruction use pool index zero.[1] Synthetic migration can let the completing buy trade against the future pool’s implied reserves before migrate_v2 creates the actual pool.[2] We therefore anchor the post-migration window to the decoded migration event, not to the final curve buy.

Several boundaries still matter:

• Organic-like is an observed flow shape, not proof of organic demand. Hundreds of wallets can belong to coordinated operators.
• Transaction count is not economic volume. The instant cohort demonstrates exactly why the two should be reported separately.
• Volume does not establish unique users or market quality. Signing wallets are addresses, and repeated automated trades can inflate activity.
• The comparison is descriptive. Migration architecture may correlate with creator type, quote asset, distribution strategy, or promotion. We have not isolated a causal effect.
• The transition bucket remains large. It contains concentrated slow launches, Mayhem-mode tokens, and hybrids that fail one or more strict conditions.
• Pricing coverage is high in the primary cohorts. Historical quote prices cover 100% of instant swap rows and 99.1% of organic-like rows over the 24-hour horizon.

Takeaway

“Fresh token” is too broad a category for PumpSwap.

One third of the equal-horizon migration cohort followed a strict instant pattern: same slot, one dominant buyer, almost immediate migration. These tokens generated enormous numbers of small PumpSwap transactions.

The organic-like group took several minutes to migrate, accumulated hundreds of pre-migration buyers, and produced fewer but larger PumpSwap trades. Its median 24-hour volume was roughly one third higher, including after controlling for native-SOL quote assets.

The follow-up question is no longer whether fresh tokens dominate PumpSwap. They do. The useful question is which migration architecture created the fresh token in the first place.

Sources

[1] PumpSwap program documentation — https://github.com/pump-fun/pump-public-docs/blob/639b87fb45c3adeffa6f7c4a1bf0cb85e392bf22/docs/PUMP_SWAP_README.md

[2] Synthetic migration documentation — https://github.com/pump-fun/pump-public-docs/blob/639b87fb45c3adeffa6f7c4a1bf0cb85e392bf22/docs/SYNTHETIC_MIGRATION.md

OnChain Divers provides decoded Solana data: launch, swap and migration data for researchers building lifecycle-aware market models. Subscribe for schema updates, reproducible SQL and delayed research examples.

Connect with us:

• Website: onchaindivers.com
• Twitter: @onchain_divers
• Discord: Join our community