Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2609.18975

Sniper Cohorts and Algorithmic Filter Rejections in Solana Memecoin Markets: Two-Window Replication of Lifecycle-Stage Population Separation

Arati Uday Kamat
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Prior empirical work on Solana memecoin markets has often conflated pre-graduation (bonding-curve) and post-graduation (open-market) token populations. We test the assumption of population overlap between two independent algorithmic detection streams operating on the same underlying market: sniper-cohort detection and algorithmic filter rejection. Using two non-overlapping observation windows (June 11 to June 25, 2026, and June 29 to July 16, 2026) and two independent versions of the cohort-detection pipeline (v1 and v2), we compute set overlap between cohort-detected mints and rejection-stream mints in each window. Overlap remains under 1 percent of the cohort population in both windows despite substantial variation in cohort detector selectivity (v1: 20,162 mints; v2: 623 mints) and rejection-stream coverage (v1 window: 83 mints; v2 window: 1,743 mints). The lifecycle-stage separation is structural rather than statistical: cohort detection operates at the pump.fun bonding-curve stage, while rejection filtering operates on PumpSwap and other post-graduation venues. Cross-window cohort overlap is zero, confirming that different time windows detect distinct token populations. We systematically rule out four alternative explanations: time-window artifact, data-source mismatch, DEX venue asymmetry, and pipeline-version artifact. Implications for filter design, coordinated-behaviour research, and cross-stage token surveillance are discussed. All datasets are released under CC-BY-4.0 for replication.

Explore related subjects

q-fin.TRq-fin.CPq-fin.ST

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Arati Uday Kamat. 2026-07-16. Sniper Cohorts and Algorithmic Filter Rejections in Solana Memecoin Markets: Two-Window Replication of Lifecycle-Stage Population Separation. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21399918

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

The Marginal Effects of Ethereum Network MEV Transaction Re-Ordering

Two MEV builders now produce nearly 80\% of Ethereum blocks. Block builders have the ability to reorder transactions on the blockchain in a way that can be harmful to participants. We estimate participants would pay in the aggregate nearly \$7.2 million per month to guarantee that they remained in the first quartile of the block. Sandwich attacks, in which a transaction is front run, are frequent, averaging more than one every two blocks. Gas fees on these transactions pay for nearly 9.6\% of the MEV payments to the validator. Reforms such as gas fee priority or private transaction pools might be helpful.

q-fin.TR↗
arXiv2026

Computable Countermarkets and the Limits of Universal Trading

We explain why no trading algorithm can guarantee profit in every market. For each deterministic program that always returns a finite-precision position, we construct a fixed, algorithmically generated price path on which every active position loses and inactivity earns nothing. This holds with positive, continually changing prices, costless trading, and unlimited computation time. Separate arguments limit learning market rules, certifying future events, and establishing randomness from finite data. Useful strategies may exploit market structure, information, or compensation for risk, while benchmark performance need not imply profit. Reversing and rearranging price histories within the assumed market class provide practical stress tests, distinguishing conditional success from universal guarantees.

q-fin.TR↗
arXiv2026

Adapting the Actor Model of Concurrency for High-Frequency Trading: Synchronous Message Delivery (fast_send) and a Tick-to-Book Latency Study

The actor model - state isolation, data-race freedom, deadlock resistance, and sequential single-message reasoning - has long been dismissed as unsuitable for high-frequency trading (HFT): actors seem to imply many threads, a mailbox per actor, and a heap-allocated message plus a context switch per interaction, overhead incompatible with a microsecond budget. This paper argues the dismissal is wrong for co-located actors, and supports it both analytically and with a deployed, measured implementation: kaspar-hft, an open-source C++20 framework. Four extensions adapt the model for HFT: fast_send, a synchronous delivery mechanism in which the sending thread runs the receiver's handler inline and returns the reply as a value; actor groups, which co-schedule actors on one thread behind a shared mailbox; per-actor selectable mailbox queues; and a memory pool. fast_send has receiver transparency: the handler cannot tell whether delivery was synchronous or asynchronous, or which thread runs it. A grouped synchronous chain runs on one thread, cutting scheduler context switches from O(N) to O(1), and a thread-local call-chain test catches cyclic invocation before any lock is taken. Microbenchmarks put the synchronous round trip at tens of nanoseconds. On a live CME market-data feed (ES, NQ, ZN futures), socket-to-book latency decomposes into a ~7 microsecond decode-and-book floor plus a per-message slope; the framework's own contribution is under 1% of the floor. The tail is set not by the actor machinery but by the market's non-Poisson, clustered arrival process, characterized in a companion paper. The shared-queue group also yields a production/simulation duality: the same actor code runs unchanged in live trading and deterministic backtest.

q-fin.TR↗