Depth research
How much selling a young pool can absorb, with and without fee-funded depth. A hypothetical model with sourced pool snapshots; not a forecast.
The difference depth makes
Additional spot-price index points retained · fee-funded minus no additions
Same starting pool. Same tokens sold. The shaded difference is the benefit of added liquidity—not a price forecast.
50 SOL initial reserve · 10 SOL-equivalent sold · $100,000.00/day × 0.25% to LP × 7 days
Adjust the assumptions ↓How much selling can a young pool absorb?
Trading fees build depth. More depth means less damage from the same selling. See exactly how much under your assumptions.
Starting two-sided pool: 100 SOL-equivalent. These are editable illustration inputs, not typical launch statistics or observed Rhea activity.
Sell capacity at 1%, 5% and 10% average price impact
SOL-equivalent at each state’s spot price. Limits apply to the next sale, before fees—not the total sell wave.
| Pool state | 1% impact | 5% impact | 10% impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Initial pool | 0.51 | 2.63 | 5.56 |
| After selling · no additions | 0.42 | 2.19 | 4.63 |
| After selling · fee-funded | 0.49 | 2.58 | 5.44 |
Fee-funded case adds 7.52 SOL + matching token value before the sell wave. Budget = daily volume × net LP rate × days; split equally using the saved $116.32 SOL reference. The rate is an assumption, not a promised fee tier.
What fee-funded depth changes
Identical starting pool. Identical token sale. Only the funded case receives the disclosed liquidity addition.
Spot-price decline
Lower is better · common 0–100% scaleSOL received by sellers
Higher is better · same token quantity soldNext-sale capacity at 5% impact
Higher is better · USD-equivalent at each post-wave spot priceThe same sale pays sellers 0.19 more SOL ($21.60). Dollar values use the saved $116.32 SOL reference, not a live quote. Funding is added before selling; it is not appreciation.
Same selling. More price retained.
Spot-price index · starts at 100 · zoomed axis 65–100
This comparison uses a zoomed price axis. The lead difference chart starts at zero. Both use the same assumptions.
8.33 SOL received
16.67% average sell price impact
8.52 SOL received
14.81% average sell price impact
Assumptions and limits
Both cases start with identical reserves and spot price. The funded case receives balanced liquidity at that price before either sell wave begins. Both then sell the exact same token quantity, valued at the original spot price. No intervening buys, arbitrage, trading fees, withdrawals, dip buys or additional fee collection during the wave. Accumulation is a separate budget assumption, not a simulation of the trades that generated it.
For starting SOL reserve R, balanced addition A and cumulative token sale S in initial SOL-value units: remaining SOL = (R + A)² / (R + A + S). Spot price index = 100 × ((R + A) / (R + A + S))². Average execution price impact = 100 × S / (R + A + S). Next-sale capacity at p% impact = remaining SOL × p / (100 − p).
This ideal constant-product pool does not model a launch bonding curve or concentrated liquidity. Deeper liquidity reduces price impact for the same sale; it does not create demand or appreciation, and it is not a price floor. Set volume or recycling to zero to see the cases coincide.
Established-market references · WIF, POPCAT, BONK
Established-market references
These pools can handle small trades comfortably. They are context—not evidence that every coin has a liquidity problem.
Reference pools
Estimated sell price impact5 SOL-equivalent
Comparison uses a constant-product model before fees. Concentrated pools can execute very differently.
What if fees stayed in the market?
Model a contribution to liquidity—not a prediction of price or demand.
dogwifhat WIF
Raydium · View source ↗Size versus average price impact
Constant-product illustration · not an executable quote
Pool observation: 2026-10-07 · saved, not refreshed. Sell size is valued at the starting spot price; the symmetric model gives the same average price impact for equal-value buys and sells.
With Rhea
Choose the assumptions. See the liquidity contribution.
The net contribution rate is your assumption, not a quoted creator-fee tier. Total contribution = volume × rate × days, split 50/50 into SOL and tokens at the saved $116.32 SOL reference. Constant prices and volume; no trading costs, reserve spending, withdrawals, yield or compounding. External coins are examples, not Rhea integrations.
Sources, model and coverage
DexScreener is queried for each covered mint. When available, the largest returned SOL-quoted pool is selected. This is not aggregate market depth. A saved observation is used if the provider fails or returns no supported pool; the original date remains visible.
Average price impact (%) = 100 × size / (SOL reserve + size). This measures average execution price impact against the starting spot-price benchmark in an ideal constant-product pool, not post-trade spot movement or slippage tolerance. Orca and concentrated-liquidity pools require tick-aware quotes for executable results.
The graph is a model, not historical data. No wallet, routing, transaction submission, or recurring agent is connected.