2026-01-06 04:33:47

A DEX project on the Solana chain has recently demonstrated strong trading activity. According to on-chain data, the project’s buy transaction volume in the past 24 hours reached $128,722, while the sell transaction volume was $129,985, showing a relatively balanced buying and selling pattern.

From a liquidity perspective, the current liquidity pool size is $17,862, with an estimated market cap of $32,377. This data combination reflects the characteristics of an early-stage Solana ecosystem project—active trading but relatively limited liquidity.

For traders interested in the Solana DeFi ecosystem, the 24-hour trading volume data of such projects (totaling $258,707) is worth continuous monitoring. Whether seeking high-volatility opportunities or assessing project health, regularly checking on-chain trading data is the foundation for making more informed decisions. Emerging DEX projects like this on the Solana network are numerous, and capturing market dynamics requires a comprehensive assessment of liquidity, trading volume, and market cap among other multidimensional data.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

13 Likes

Reward
13
8
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

MidnightMEVeater

· 4h ago

Good morning, it's another dawn of a liquidity trap. A daily trading volume of over 250,000 with a liquidity pool of 17,000—this ratio looks like a playground for robots, a paradise for sandwich attacks.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropHunter

· 15h ago

Liquidity is only 17k, how small is that... Vampire attacks disappear in a second. The buy and sell are so balanced that it's a bit suspicious; need to see if big players are playing tricks. Early-stage projects are like this; just profit from the volatility. Wait, is the volume over 250,000? Then it's relatively okay. But I still don't trust this small market cap...

View OriginalReply0

ContractSurrender

· 01-06 05:03

With such low liquidity, the selling pressure will immediately drive the price to zero.

View OriginalReply0

ThesisInvestor

· 01-06 05:03

Wow, only 17,000 in liquidity? How easy it is to slip, I think I'll just wait and see.

View OriginalReply0

GoldDiggerDuck

· 01-06 04:56

Liquidity is only 17k, market cap is 32k... how thin is that, a big order could cause slippage to explode The buy and sell are balanced, which looks good, but how long can this trading volume last is a question There are indeed many projects like this on Solana, you need to keep your eyes sharp Early stage is early stage, and the risks are also early stage Wait, the liquidity pool is so small, still dare to enter? I think I'll just watch for now

View OriginalReply0

BitcoinDaddy

· 01-06 04:52

With such low liquidity, it's really a 🪤... Wait, the trading volume and pool ratio seem a bit suspicious? Early-stage projects are always like this, with high gambling risk Buy and sell almost equal, feels like someone is wash trading? There are so many small projects on Solana, gotta be careful

View OriginalReply0

ApeWithAPlan

· 01-06 04:48

Liquidity is so low, the smell of pulling the rug is a bit strong --- It's another early-stage project, betting on that wave, it can either skyrocket or crash to hell --- Buy and sell are so balanced... it's a bit suspicious, better to observe for a while --- With a 250,000 trading volume, it looks active, but the pool is less than 20,000 yuan? I'm a bit scared of this risk --- There are so many projects like this on Solana, only a few can really survive --- The liquidity bottleneck is so obvious, how big must the slippage be --- The data looks good, but the key is whether there are real user scenarios --- Balanced buy and sell? I always feel like it's a wash trading

View OriginalReply0

Frontrunner

· 01-06 04:44

The flow is too small, and this kind of market can be easily crushed. Be careful.

View OriginalReply0