I don’t really agree with the FUD I’m seeing around the
$BCHAMP liquidity pool.
It seems pretty clear to me that a significant amount of their supply is controlled in a number of top wallets, likely by the dev.
If those are genuinely project dev controlled or strategic wallets with Evernorth, that can be pretty bullish depending entirely on how that supply is managed.
Not every project needs the same LP strategy.
A thinner LP early on means buys can move price and market cap much faster. The trade off is obviously higher volatility and slippage.
A project can then progressively deepen liquidity as it grows, either adding single side tokens into the pool as the chart pushes higher, or XRP/Tokens with the team supply. This will allow them to build a much stronger floor at higher valuations.
$FUZZY has taken the deep liquidity approach from earlier on, whilst the market cap is pretty low compared to where it will eventually get to.
$BCHAMP could potentially take a completely different route: thinner liquidity > huge growth > progressively deeper LPs later on.
Both can work. Both have different risks.
What matters is distribution, who controls the concentrated supply, whether those wallets sell, how LP is managed, and whether genuine demand continues to exceed sell pressure, which it likely will due to the support
@JcRivera has.
And with
@evernorthxrp publicly collaborating with
@bearchampxrpl, I’d be very interested to see how the strategy develops.
Different projects. Different strategies.
Just as I've got my own strategy for DROP.
A thin LP by itself is not a red flag.
BIRD!