Pump.fun Acquisition and Integration, 1Keeper Enters with Post-Launch Advantages: Structural Changes in the On-Chain Trading Tools Sector

The on-chain trading market in 2026 is undergoing a structural reshaping initiated by “traffic sources.” Once, independent trading terminals were essential tools for Meme traders, but now they face strong pressure from token issuance platforms. In February, the leading Meme issuance platform Pump.fun in the Solana ecosystem completed the acquisition of the trading terminal Vyper, marking another key integration following the October 2025 acquisition of Padre and its rebranding as Terminal. Meanwhile, a new player, 1Keeper, with a background in MPC multi-signature wallets, transitioned into the space at the beginning of the year and launched a new “Smart Money” signal system at the end of February, aiming to carve out a position in an already crowded track by leveraging institutional-grade security and architectural advantages.

This upstream and downstream integration, extending from “issuance” to “trading,” along with the differentiated entry of new forces, jointly signals that the on-chain trading terminal race has officially entered the “second half.” This article will analyze this ongoing competitive revolution from timelines, data breakdowns, public opinion divergence, and endgame projections.

Integration and Entry: Key Timeline and Event Recap

To understand the current competitive landscape, it’s essential to review several landmark events in this track over the past six months.

In October 2025, Pump.fun pioneered acquisitions by acquiring the trading terminal Padre and transforming it into an embedded platform terminal. This move initially drew little attention but laid the groundwork for token issuance platforms to venture into trading tools.

In January 2026, Pump.fun established an investment arm, Pump Fund, and launched a $3 million developer hackathon, attempting to extend its reach into broader Web3 scenarios.

In February 2026, the pace of integration accelerated. Pump.fun made another move by acquiring the trading terminal Vyper. Vyper announced it would gradually shut down its standalone product starting February 10, migrating core infrastructure into the Pump.fun ecosystem. In the same month, Pump.fun introduced a trader cashback mechanism, allowing token creators to choose between “creator fees” and “trading cashback” models, directly incentivizing traders via the embedded Terminal.

By late February 2026, new entrant 1Keeper officially entered the scene. This trading terminal, spun off from the MPC multi-signature wallet team, announced the launch of a new “Smart Money” signal system, featuring visual bubble alerts, market cap range filters, signal positioning, and quick trading access, aiming to improve signal recognition and execution efficiency.

These events outline a clear evolutionary path: token issuance platforms are rapidly filling trading gaps through acquisitions to build an integrated “issuance + trading + analysis” closed loop; meanwhile, new entrants leverage technological and architectural advantages to find breakthroughs in functionality and user experience.

Data and Structural Analysis: The “Cutoff” Effect of Upstream-Downstream Integration

The suddenly crowded and crisis-prone on-chain trading terminal track fundamentally stems from structural differences in customer acquisition costs.

Independent trading terminals rely heavily on external channels for user acquisition. Whether through Twitter KOL recommendations, community word-of-mouth, or incentivized airdrops, each user must be “bought” via marketing expenses—a high-cost traffic procurement model.

In contrast, token issuance platforms like Pump.fun have inherent traffic sources. Data shows thousands of tokens are created daily on their platform, with each token creator and early buyer being potential users of trading terminals. When Pump.fun integrated Padre and Vyper into its embedded Terminal, these users’ entire “issuance to trading” process was locked within the same ecosystem, eliminating the need to jump to external tools.

This is the logic of “cutoff”: when user traffic sources are absorbed internally, the external traffic pools that independent terminals depend on risk drying up. This competitive pressure, driven by upstream-downstream integration, is far more lethal than mere feature comparisons—it strikes at the very foundation of the business model.

Public Opinion Breakdown: Divergence and Consensus on the “Second Half”

Market opinions on this dramatic shift show clear polarization but also some emerging consensus on the endgame.

One mainstream view: independent terminals as a “category” may disappear. Some analysts interpret Pump.fun’s continuous acquisitions as a strong signal—that trading terminals might not exist as a standalone category for long. Similar to how Web2 platforms integrated third-party tools into internal modules, future trading tools could become just an embedded tab within token issuance platforms or decentralized exchanges (DEXs).

Another mainstream view: differentiation is the only survival path. Facing the risk of being integrated, existing players are betting on different strategies. Public sentiment generally notes that GMGN bets on “network effects,” trying to build a data moat through user density; Axiom bets on “platformization,” aiming to become an on-chain Binance offering spot, derivatives, and financial products; Photon bets on “ultimate experience,” focusing on making the fastest performance within the Solana ecosystem.

For new entrant 1Keeper, market attention centers on its “latecomer advantage.” As a new face in the space, its disadvantages are evident: small user base, weak brand recognition. But its MPC multi-signature wallet background signifies a deeper understanding of asset security and institutional needs. More importantly, as a latecomer, it can bypass the product architecture compromises and technical debt accumulated by early movers rushing to market, adopting a more optimal design directly. The “Smart Money” signal system launched at the end of February exemplifies this latecomer advantage—integrating signal recognition and trade execution more smoothly.

Reality Check on the Narrative: Is “Integration” the Ultimate Solution or a Transition?

The narrative of “issuance + trading” integration promoted by Pump.fun sounds powerful, but its actual effectiveness warrants cautious analysis.

Factually, Pump.fun has completed technical acquisitions and integrations, launching a trading cashback mechanism to incentivize use of its embedded terminal. However, market feedback indicates that these moves are occurring amid a sharp decline in platform revenue. Data shows Pump.fun’s fees plummeted by 75.6% month-over-month in January 2026, down to $31.8 million. This suggests that the push for integration coincided with a downturn in platform traffic and revenue.

Therefore, while the “integration” narrative is logically consistent, its effect may be more of a “lifeline” than a “cure-all.” It could be a defensive strategy against market cooling or a strategic move to reshape industry structure—its true impact remains to be seen.

Additionally, exchange-level variables exist. If top DEX aggregators like Jupiter or Raydium decide to enhance trading terminal features on their frontends, the space for independent terminals could be further squeezed. In such a scenario, trading entry points might no longer be centralized in a single tool but dispersed across issuance and trading endpoints, creating a multi-polar landscape.

Industry Impact Analysis: From “Function” Competition to “Ecosystem Niche” Positioning

With Pump.fun’s integration and 1Keeper’s entry, the competitive dimension of on-chain trading terminals is shifting fundamentally.

Previously, competition focused on feature completeness: supporting more chains, tracking more wallets, faster execution. Now, the competition has elevated to ecosystem positioning.

• Traffic niche: Pump.fun occupies the “issuance-to-trade” source ecosystem—no longer needing to compete for external users but serving its vast internal creators and buyers.
• Data niche: Leading players like GMGN leverage “network effects”—more users generate better data, attracting more users in a virtuous cycle.
• Scenario niche: Photon focuses on “extreme performance,” serving professional traders sensitive to latency.
• Architecture and security niche: 1Keeper aims to occupy the “late-stage architecture + institutional security” niche, leveraging its MPC wallet technology for asset safety, multi-signature collaboration, and flexible new features.

For Gate users, understanding this elevation in competitive dimensions is crucial. Future on-chain trading tools will no longer be just “order placement software” but carriers of different ecosystem philosophies and traffic logics.

Multi-Scenario Evolution and Endgame Projections

Based on the above analysis, we can logically project the future evolution of on-chain trading terminals. Drawing from Web2 tool development experience, three potential scenarios emerge:

Scenario 1: Integration (Platform Merges Tools)

This continues the current path of Pump.fun’s acquisitions. Most independent terminals will become embedded modules within token issuance platforms or DEX frontends. The independent brand disappears, but their tech teams and some features remain within a larger ecosystem. Only those with unique but non-essential functions will be targets for acquisition.

Scenario 2: Platform Formation (Tools Evolve into Ecosystems)

A few top terminals, leveraging their user base and data, expand upstream or downstream, evolving from single tools into comprehensive platforms. For example, Axiom’s attempt to build an “on-chain Binance” is a typical example. If successful, it becomes a traffic and ecosystem entry point, no longer subordinate to others.

Scenario 3: Vertical Champions (Niche and High-Quality Survival)

In highly specialized fields where platform players cannot cover, a terminal might become the absolute leader—e.g., Photon’s focus on ultra-low latency trading on Solana. Such terminals may have a small but highly loyal user base with rigid and specialized needs, making full platform integration less attractive due to cost-benefit considerations.

Note that the low user migration costs in crypto mean these evolutions could be faster and more volatile than in Web2. Opportunities for reversal always exist, as Blur quickly displaced OpenSea’s dominance.

Conclusion

From Pump.fun’s aggressive acquisitions to 1Keeper’s quiet entry, the “second half” of on-chain trading terminals has sounded. This is no longer just a contest of features and speed but a deep strategic game involving traffic sources, ecosystem positioning, and business model survival. For on-chain traders, understanding the underlying logic of this transformation may be more valuable than obsessing over which terminal will launch the next “golden dog.” The winners of this track’s endgame remain to be seen, but one thing is certain: the era where “full-featured” alone could ensure survival is over.