And the second token I want to cover today is solana:8sWe4GzK1YqG3vyzKHf8ZyB1WB5asofw2o6TqgFePtPo Pretty impressive to see @solana interact with the project shortly after launch, dropping a 🔥 emoji. Of course, that doesn't mean Solana officially endorses the project, but it's still a nice bit of attention I've spent quite some time digging into the product, team background, tokenomics, upcoming game launches, and onchain data Personally, I think Loadout has a pretty interesting concept, but there are also a few things worth understanding before putting money into it 1. What exactly is Loadout building? @loadoutprotocol is a launchpad and trading platform designed for actual indie and AA game studios, rather than focusing on memecoins like Pump.fun. Behind the project is @KieranWarwick, co-founder of Illuvium, someone with experience in both gaming and crypto The problem Loadout is trying to solve is pretty straightforward Smaller game studios often struggle to raise funding. They usually have to rely on publishers, VCs, or Kickstarter, sometimes giving up equity or control over their projects Loadout offers a different approach Studios can launch tokens to raise capital, traders can participate from the beginning, and a portion of trading fees goes directly back to the studios The trading fee for game tokens is 5%, with 4% going to the studio treasury and 1% to the protocol After referrals and rebates, 50% of the protocol's net fee revenue is allocated to buying back and burning solana:8sWe4GzK1YqG3vyzKHf8ZyB1WB5asofw2o6TqgFePtPo This is probably the part I like most about the model If more games launch and generate consistent trading volume, solana:8sWe4GzK1YqG3vyzKHf8ZyB1WB5asofw2o6TqgFePtPo could benefit from activity across the entire ecosystem However, the 5% fee is also a double-edged sword It provides studios with a meaningful revenue stream, but it also increases trading costs, especially for traders who frequently enter and exit positions The team has acknowledged this and said they'll monitor the fee structure and adjust it if necessary Compared with Pump.fun, Loadout's advantage is connecting tokens to games that already have actual products behind them But Pump.fun already has an established user base and deep liquidity, while Loadout still needs to prove it can attract sustainable trading activity 2. The game pipeline looks pretty interesting According to Kieran, the team has spoken with more than 500 games and currently has around 40 games in its curated pipeline What's interesting is that some of these games already have Steam pages, playable demos, and decent wishlist numbers They're not just concepts created for the sake of launching tokens The first three scheduled launches are : > October 15–16: The Signal : Stranded on Sirenis ($GOOSE) by Goose Byte. A survival crafting game set on an alien planet, reportedly with around 40–50K Steam wishlists and an existing demo > October 18–19 : Cosminers ($GCU) by Gravity Rifters. A game combining co-op mining, tower defense, and survival, reportedly with around 18K wishlists > October 21–22 : Lo and Behold ($SOUL) by Soulcraft Games. An action/adventure roguelite, with a team reportedly bringing experience from Gears of War and Halo Infinite, and around 12K wishlists There are also several other titles in the pipeline, including Psychotic Descent, Block Trucks, The Cascadier, and Clash of Adventurers I see this as a positive At least Loadout is trying to bring actual gaming products and existing communities into crypto But there's one important distinction : 40–50K Steam wishlists don't automatically translate into 40–50K token buyers Gamers and crypto traders behave very differently Bridging those two audiences is probably one of the biggest challenges Loadout will face 3. Tokenomics and how solana:8sWe4GzK1YqG3vyzKHf8ZyB1WB5asofw2o6TqgFePtPo captures value The total supply is approximately 1 billion tokens, distributed as follows : > Bonding Curve : 30% > Trading Rewards : 25% > Team : 18.2% > Staking : 10% > Treasury : 8.5% > Illuvium Ecosystem : 5% > Investors : 3.3% According to the team's October 13 update, team tokens are locked for 12 months, followed by another 12 months of linear vesting Investors receive only 5% of their allocation at TGE, with the remaining 95% vesting over six months Trading rewards also include mechanisms intended to reduce immediate selling pressure Another interesting detail is the 5% allocation reserved for the Illuvium ecosystem, with plans involving staking contracts and a 12-month vesting period This could create a bridge between the Illuvium and Loadout communities However, I wouldn't consider it genuine demand for solana:8sWe4GzK1YqG3vyzKHf8ZyB1WB5asofw2o6TqgFePtPo until we see actual staking participation and user activity The 25% allocation for trading rewards is also worth watching It could help bootstrap volume early on, but if users are mainly farming rewards and selling once tokens unlock, future sell pressure could become significant The project also reports that its contracts have been audited by Hashlock, with mint and freeze authorities disabled Those are positive security measures, but an audit doesn't eliminate every possible risk 4. Team background and the pre-launch incident Kieran Warwick's background is definitely a positive, but I also think it's important to mention an incident that happened before the official solana:8sWe4GzK1YqG3vyzKHf8ZyB1WB5asofw2o6TqgFePtPo launch According to information shared around the project, a fake/test token appeared before launch and caused confusion within the community, with a team member reportedly involved Kieran later apologized, stated that the team member involved had their access revoked, and committed to a goodwill allocation for affected users I appreciate the founder publicly addressing the situation and taking responsibility However, the incident also highlights some weaknesses in the team's operational processes A strong background doesn't automatically guarantee flawless execution, especially when building something relatively new 5. Recent updates from the team On October 13, Kieran published "The Loadout Playbook: Capture Everything," outlining the project's longer-term vision Loadout plans to develop in two stages The first is curated launches, focusing on vetted studios with relatively established products The second is permissionless launches, eventually allowing more developers to launch tokens directly through the platform Over the next 4–6 weeks, the team plans to focus on improving liquidity, introducing staking, and expanding its game pipeline Another interesting development is Loadout's announced integration with @fomo, allowing graduated game tokens to be traded through FOMO I think this makes sense as a distribution strategy It could help expose Loadout tokens to more traders, although a trading integration doesn't mean FOMO will guarantee liquidity or directly support token prices Looking further ahead, Loadout has also mentioned multi-chain expansion, including Robinhood Chain If executed properly, this could help the project reach more ecosystems But at this stage, I'd rather see the team prove the model works on Solana before spreading its resources too thin 6. Onchain data and holder structure This is probably the section I'd pay the most attention to solana:8sWe4GzK1YqG3vyzKHf8ZyB1WB5asofw2o6TqgFePtPo launched through Loadout's own bonding curve, with an initial trading fee of up to 99% that gradually dropped to 5% over approximately 60 seconds to discourage snipers Despite that, the token graduated relatively quickly after reaching around 85 SOL and moved to a Meteora pool The chart shows solana:8sWe4GzK1YqG3vyzKHf8ZyB1WB5asofw2o6TqgFePtPo moving from just a few hundred thousand in MC to several million in a relatively short period I also checked the holder distribution through InsightX The top 70 wallets currently hold approximately 87.1% of the total supply The bubble map shows several connected wallet clusters, along with one particularly large wallet However, I wouldn't automatically classify the entire 87.1% as a dev bundle The tokenomics include allocations for the team, treasury, staking, rewards, and ecosystem To determine how much supply is actually controlled by potentially coordinated wallets, we'd need to examine wallet funding histories, ownership, and official allocations while excluding locked contracts and liquidity pools Still, high holder concentration is something I wouldn't ignore, especially with relatively thin liquidity Another point worth mentioning is that a rapid post-launch pump doesn't necessarily reflect the project's underlying quality It can simply be driven by bonding curve mechanics, speculative capital, and initial attention What matters more is whether volume can remain healthy after the hype cools down 7. Chart and my trading plan When I checked the chart, solana:8sWe4GzK1YqG3vyzKHf8ZyB1WB5asofw2o6TqgFePtPo was trading around an $8.3M MC after two strong pushes toward the $12–13M area, followed by corrections One relatively positive sign is that price has managed to hold around the $8M region after profit-taking, rather than continuously printing new lows However, volume has dropped significantly compared with the launch period, suggesting buying pressure isn't particularly strong right now Here are the levels I'm watching : > $7–8M MC : Immediate support area. Watching how price reacts here > $5–6M MC : A dip zone I'd find more interesting if we get another correction > $3–4M MC : Deeper retracement. Potentially better R/R, but the thesis would need to be reassessed > Below $2.5–3M MC : Bearish scenario, especially if accompanied by declining liquidity or failed catalysts On the upside, $10–11M and $12–13M are the key areas price would need to reclaim to confirm another leg higher These are only reference zones, since the chart is still very new and doesn't have enough history to establish strong support levels Personally, I'm not interested in chasing green candles while overall memecoin volume remains weak If I decide to take a position, I'd rather keep the size small and wait for a clearer reaction around support 8. Where is the real catalyst? For me, it's not the interaction from Solana, the CoinGecko listing, or even the announced FOMO integration The most important catalyst is the upcoming GOOSE launch, scheduled for October 15–16 This will be the first real opportunity for the market to test Loadout's core model : Game tokens generate trading volume, studios collect fees, and part of the protocol revenue is used to buy back solana:8sWe4GzK1YqG3vyzKHf8ZyB1WB5asofw2o6TqgFePtPo If GOOSE launches successfully, maintains liquidity, and continues attracting traders after the initial hype, it could give other studios more confidence in the platform GCU and SOUL are scheduled to follow shortly afterward I think the performance of these first three games will give us a much clearer picture of whether the platform can actually work I'll be watching trading volume over the first 24–72 hours, protocol fees generated, actual solana:8sWe4GzK1YqG3vyzKHf8ZyB1WB5asofw2o6TqgFePtPo buybacks, and trader retention A single game pumping to a few million MC before losing all its volume isn't enough to prove that a launchpad has succeeded 9. Risks I wouldn't ignore Even though I like Loadout's narrative, there are still several major concerns : > Holder concentration: The top 70 wallets control 87.1% of supply, and the amount that can actually be sold needs further investigation > Liquidity: Still relatively thin compared with market cap, which could lead to sharp price movements > Execution risk: No game tokens have launched yet, meaning the core business model remains unproven > Trading fees: The 5% fee could discourage active trading and weaken competitiveness > Trading rewards: The 25% allocation creates potential future selling pressure > Steam wishlists: These don't guarantee that gamers will become token buyers > Catalyst dependency: If the first 2–3 games fail to attract meaningful volume, the narrative could lose momentum quickly > Multi-chain expansion: Expanding too early could distract the team before the Solana product is fully established I think Loadout's biggest challenge isn't whether the team can build a functioning launchpad It's whether they can create a large enough and sustainable enough market for game tokens to support the business model over time 10. My personal take I'm fairly bullish on Loadout's concept Not simply because @solana interacted with it or because the founder previously built Illuvium, but because the project is trying to address a real funding problem in the gaming industry through a different model Instead of launching tokens and relying entirely on speculation, Loadout wants to turn trading activity into an ongoing funding source for game studios If executed successfully, that could become an interesting direction for gaming launchpads But at an $8–9M MC, I also wouldn't call solana:8sWe4GzK1YqG3vyzKHf8ZyB1WB5asofw2o6TqgFePtPo extremely cheap just because the narrative sounds good The market is already pricing in a decent amount of expectations for games that haven't launched yet Everything from protocol revenue and buybacks to ecosystem expansion still needs time and real data to prove itself I see solana:8sWe4GzK1YqG3vyzKHf8ZyB1WB5asofw2o6TqgFePtPo as an early-stage infrastructure play with a solid narrative, but also significant risks and an unproven business model In the short term, I'll be watching GOOSE and how price reacts around the support zones Over the medium term, what I want to see is the first 2–3 games maintaining volume, generating actual fees, and demonstrating meaningful buyback activity If that happens, I think Loadout has a real chance to attract more attention and build its own narrative within Solana But if the games simply pump and dump, it'll be difficult for the project to sustain its current valuation on roadmap promises alone Slightly bullish on the team's direction, but I still want to see real volume and execution before becoming more confident Curious what everyone following @Loadout, @KieranWarwick, or the Solana gaming space thinks Could funding games through token trading actually create a new narrative, or will it ultimately remain just as dependent on speculative liquidity as every other launchpad? 8sWe4GzK1YqG3vyzKHf8ZyB1WB5asofw2o6TqgFePtPo