#ArcMainnetDay1Stats

Arc mainnet went live and almost immediately turned into a launchpad laboratory. More than 50 platforms appeared in the first wave. But that number is a little misleading. They are not all competing for the same users, using the same launch mechanics, or even trying to build the same business. And now that the initial speculation is cooling, the market is starting to answer the more important question: Which launchpads can actually retain liquidity once attention moves on? Here’s how the @arc launchpad landscape is beginning to separate. — ● The first split is in how tokens reach the market Some platforms are skipping the traditional bonding-curve model entirely. Direct-to-liquidity launchpads send tokens straight into locked DEX liquidity from launch. Examples include: • @TollyLabs • @arcpad_meme The advantage is simplicity. There is no graduation event or liquidity migration later. The token effectively begins life as a DEX market. That makes LP structure, fee design and liquidity retention much more important from day one. — ● Others still use the classic bonding-curve model Platforms such as: • @circlewarp • @arcfunapp • @ArcToolsBackup use a more familiar flow: Launch -> bonding curve -> price discovery -> liquidity threshold -> DEX market Here, the curve acts as the initial bootstrapping mechanism before the token transitions into normal secondary-market liquidity. So the competition is partly about where price discovery should happen: inside the launchpad first, or directly inside the DEX. — ● A second group is competing on distribution instead of mechanics Some launchpads are treating attention itself as part of the product. That includes: • @Archemistdotfun • @focidotfamily • @Ayooclub • @TheArchfun These platforms lean more heavily into social discovery, communities and attention-driven launches. That is a different moat. If launching a token becomes commoditized, then controlling where users discover the next token can become more valuable than the launch contract itself. In other words: Launch infrastructure gets copied but distribution is harder to copy. — ● Then there is the RWA / stock-linked category This is where Arc starts becoming more interesting than a generic memecoin launchpad ecosystem. Platforms such as: • @ellipsefun • @Longdotsupply • @BaseStonk are extending token launches into stock-linked or tokenized-asset markets. That creates a different economic model from pure memecoin issuance. Instead of only launching speculative assets, these platforms can potentially connect new tokens with: • Stock pairs • RWA treasuries • Tokenized collateral • Asset-backed liquidity So their success depends less on launch velocity alone and more on whether they can turn speculative demand into persistent RWA activity. — ● NFTs and collectibles are developing their own lane Not every platform is competing for fungible-token launches. @akadotfun, @Omni_Hub and @SharcFun are building around NFTs and collectibles. That matters because Arc’s launchpad layer is already fragmenting by asset type. The market is not becoming one giant launchpad category. It is becoming several specialized distribution markets sitting on the same chain. — ● Some protocols want to own the whole trading lifecycle Another group is combining issuance with exchange infrastructure. Examples include: • @circlewarp • @ArcadeSwap • @ArcDEXScan Instead of stopping at: create token -> send it elsewhere to trade the model becomes: create -> bootstrap liquidity -> trade -> retain volume That potentially gives these platforms more ways to monetize each successful launch. And over time, this distinction could matter more than launch count. The valuable venue may not be the one that creates the most tokens. It may be the one that keeps users trading after the launch is over. — ● Then comes the long tail Arc also has a much broader group of launchpads experimenting around the same opportunity: @Arguspad , @liftdotfun , @fazedotfun , @TradePools , @minarafun , @synthra_finance , @arclaunchfun , @Fliptfun , @eve_dot_fun , @Arcanedotfi , @Zyoradotfun , @sashimidotfun , @hopium_gg , @Bullcheese_fun , @actfunxyz , @mysphere , @ubi_fun and others. That tells you how low the barrier to entry became during the first wave. But it also creates the market's biggest problem where 50+ launchpads can exist but 50+ launchpads cannot all have deep liquidity. — ● And liquidity is already starting to make that distinction The first phase rewarded almost anything associated with the Arc launch. The second phase has been much less forgiving. Several early tokens saw sharp drawdowns: • $LIFT: ~$12M to ~$1.4M • $LONG: ~$20M to ~$2M • $MINARA: ~$6M to ~$928K That does not necessarily mean those platforms are finished. But it does show how quickly launch-week valuations can disconnect from durable demand. The market initially priced: novelty + attention + scarcity Now it is beginning to price: users + volume + liquidity retention That is a much harder test. — And this is probably where Arc’s launchpad market gets more interesting. The first wave was about how many venues could launch. The next wave will be about how many deserve to survive. Bonding curves will compete with direct liquidity. Social launchpads will compete on distribution. RWA platforms will compete on asset utility. DEX hybrids will try to retain trading activity after launch. And the long tail will fight for whatever liquidity remains. Because ultimately, launchpads are not scarce rather liquidity is. The first Arc wave priced attention while the next one will price durability. And that repricing will determine which launchpads become real infrastructure and which ones were simply products of the launch cycle.

⚡Why watch this? Arc is built around stablecoin-focused financial activity, while USDC remains one of the major dollar-denominated assets in crypto. 👀Key things to watch: • USDC activity on Arc • Stablecoin liquidity • Arc ecosystem growth • Network adoption The bigger trend:crypto infrastructure is increasingly being built around stablecoins and faster settlement. #OKX #USDC #Crypto

Uniswap on the Arc chain, if it officially starts burning UNI, based on yesterday’s data, could burn about 60,000+ UNI per day. From the current data, this burn size is still acceptable. Going forward, it mainly depends on whether trading volume on the Arc chain can continue to pick up. If trading volume keeps growing, the rate at which UNI is burned will also increase further. $UNI This round of the bull market has huge room for imagination

JUST IN: Arc records $410.8 million in DEX volume and 7.76 million transactions on its first day of mainnet. $DYDX

JUST IN: Malachite team unveils MalaSwap, an AI-powered all-in-one platform on Arc, launching Sept. 18 at 9 PM UTC - featuring agentic swaps, staking, liquidity pools, token launchpad & Arc’s first NFT marketplace, with 80% of platform fees used to buy back & burn $MALA.

The swarm never stopped. Right now: 1,186 on-chain settlements · 2.22 USDC · 24/24 flies alive · tick 2,604 — every single one a real, verifiable EIP-3009 USDC transfer on Arc mainnet. No LLM. No simulation. · #x402 #Arc #USDC #agents

Arc went live this week with Uniswap available from day one across v2, v3, v4 and UniswapX, as the chain's preferred DEX. Circle's StableFX sits on the other side of the market, aggregating professional liquidity through RFQ for stablecoin FX execution and onchain settlement. @arc was built around stablecoin trading and settlement, which makes it a useful setting to revisit Uniswap's StablePair launch from last week: how much of the gap between a static-fee AMM and professional market making can be closed at the pool level? Stable pairs trading around a known reference rate, such as USDC/USDT, did more than $200B of DEX volume in H1 2026, while Uniswap alone handled $43.4B of stablecoin-to-stablecoin volume in Q2. In these markets, a few basis points matter. On a $10M trade, 1 bp is $1,000 - enough for relatively small differences in execution to change where an order gets routed. A static fee treats both directions the same. Say USDC/USDT moves from its 1:1 reference to 0.9995. A regular swap and an arb bringing the pool back toward 1 still pay the same fee. Set the fee low and rebalancing is cheap for the arb; set it higher and every other trade gets more expensive too. StablePair Hook separates the two. As the pool moves away from its reference, fees fall for trades pushing it further away and rise for trades correcting it back. Once the pool moves outside the band, corrective flow goes through a Dutch auction: the fee decays block by block until a searcher takes the trade. This lets LPs retain more of the rebalancing spread. How much LPs gain depends on how much was leaking to arbs in the first place. How much is actually left to tax? An analysis of 118,000 swaps across six Uniswap v4 stable pools found that USDC/USDT averaged 2.18 bp of deviation, with static LPs capturing 97.8% of the available spread. USDe/USDT averaged 8.09 bp, while LP capture was 50.5%. USDC/USDT has a reliable 1:1 reference, but LPs in the sample are already capturing most of the available spread. USDe/USDT leaves much more for arbs, but the reference becomes harder to observe at the precision that matters: its average deviation was 8.09 bp, while the Chainlink USDe/USD feed uses a 50 bp deviation threshold for updates. By the time an arb is trading an 8 bp discrepancy, the onchain feed may not have moved. Starting with USDC/USDT and USDC/USDG avoids the need for a high-frequency reference price. It also puts a ceiling on how much incremental LP revenue can come from simply taxing corrective flow. The other side of StablePair may matter more. A corrective trade profits from the pool's deviation, so StablePair charges more for it. A trade in the opposite direction may push the pool further from reference, but it is doing so at a favorable price for LPs. StablePair cuts the fee on that side, all the way to zero outside the band. For a wallet or aggregator, that lower fee improves the executable quote. StablePair is effectively giving up some fee revenue to win flow that is favorable to the pool. That trade changes inventory as well, which changes how much rebalancing is left for the next arb. For USDC/USDT, this may matter more than squeezing a few extra basis points out of corrective trades. Static LPs in the dataset were already capturing 97.8% of the available spread. There is not much left to recover from arbs, while continuous USDC/USDT flow gives directional pricing more room to influence routing. So the test for StablePair is whether giving up fees on favorable flow can improve the mix of orders enough to increase overall LP returns. Where does StablePair Hook sit on Arc? Back to Arc. A standard AMM prices from pool state with a fixed fee. StablePair adds trade direction. An RFQ market maker can go further, pricing each order around its size, the dealer's inventory, hedging costs and broader market conditions. StablePair is not live on Arc today. But Arc already has Uniswap public liquidity alongside StableFX institutional RFQ. If StablePair eventually launches there, it creates a useful comparison: how far up the size curve can an AMM pricing from pool state and trade direction remain competitive with a professional RFQ?