Coverage and its limit
The vault fills at a fraction of volume, and a correction costs a fraction of reserves. Those two fractions are not close to each other. This page works out how far apart they are, at the most favourable moment a coin ever sees.
The best case, in full
Take a coin at the instant its curve graduates. It has traded all the way up the curve, every one of those trades paid the creator fee, and nothing has been spent yet. This is the richest the vault will ever be relative to the market it has to move.
| Quantity | Value |
|---|---|
| Opening market cap | $3,236 |
| Graduation threshold | $8,090 |
| Real quote absorbed by the curve | $4,854 |
| Creator fee rate | 0.70% |
| War chest at graduation | $33.98 |
| Cost of closing a 10% gap | $394.86 |
| Coverage | 9% |
9% coverage, at the best moment
A coin that has just graduated can fund roughly a tenth of a single 10% correction. After that the war chest is empty until more volume refills it, and the coin is on its own.
Where the asymmetry comes from
The vault earns a share of volume and spends a share of reserves. Volume accumulates linearly and slowly; the cost of a correction scales with the size of the market you are trying to move. On a constant-product curve:
cost(gap) ≈ marketCap × (√(1 + gap) − 1)
income(v) = v × 0.0070Setting them equal gives the ratio that actually governs the design: funding one correction takes about 143× its cost in cumulative volume. Closing a 10% gap on a $8.1K coin costs $394.86, so the coin has to trade roughly $56.4K first.
What this means in practice
- A busy coin has a real floor. Sustained volume refills the vault faster than drift empties it, and the band does useful work.
- A quiet coin has none. No volume, no war chest, no defence. The contract still behaves correctly; it simply has nothing to spend.
- The first correction is the cheap one. Coverage is at its highest before anything has been spent, and every defence lowers it until volume catches up.
Honest comparison
Pons pays the creator 0.70% of volume, against the 0.30% pump.fun pays — so the same design on Robinhood Chain fills its vault 2.3× faster than the Solana version this is modelled on. That is a real advantage and it does not change the conclusion. A 2.3× improvement on a 143× shortfall is still a shortfall.
covertskins.fun, the Solana project this borrows from, has the same structural limit and additionally cannot defend upward at all, because its vault holds no token inventory. We fixed the second problem. The first one is not fixable with a contract.
So why build it
Because a nudge is not nothing, and because the alternative on offer elsewhere is a coin with a skin's name on it and no mechanism at all. The vault makes the reference price legible, gives arbitrage a published target, and puts the fee stream somewhere it cannot be taken back out. What it does not do is guarantee a price, and the risks page states the rest of that plainly.
Snapshot data last refreshed Sep 23, 2026 UTC.