AMMUSDT
MicroMoney / Tether USD
crypto

Two ways this happens.
Option A — They front-ran the launch
- Have access to low-latency parsed data (or parse it yourself)
Track mint instructions, not trade events — e.g. on pump.fun, the instruction is called create_2
- Enter the trade in the same slot or the next one
The wallet is buying before anyone else can. They see the token being created before the pool goes live and execute in the same slot.
Option B — They were allocated the tokens for free
Run the birth order check:
Step 1 — Check when the token account was created. If it was created before the first DEX pool, they didn't buy it on market.
Step 2 — Check who sent the first transfer into that account. Mint authority means insider allocation. An AMM program means a market buy.
Step 3 — Check if the mint authority called mintTo targeting this wallet before the pool existed. If yes, that's your proof.
Step 4 (programmatic) — Call getSignaturesForAddress(tokenAccount, limit=1) and parse the instruction. mintTo from the Token Program = mint origin. swap from an AMM = DEX buy.
Quick rule of thumb: Pull the holder on Solscan and look at their first transaction for that specific token. If it's a mint or a transfer from the deployer wallet, they never bought. If it's a swap, they bought early but they still bought.

I've been trying to learn more about **Automated Market Makers (AMMs)** lately, and I came across something called **One-Sided AMMs** (or **Single-Sided AMMs**).

Most of the AMMs I read about ask liquidity providers to deposit two different tokens into a liquidity pool. That made me wonder why more people are now talking about one-sided liquidity instead.

From what I understand, the idea is to make liquidity provision simpler by allowing someone to provide just one asset instead of a pair. It sounds like it could make DeFi easier for beginners, but I'm not sure if there are trade-offs that aren't obvious at first.

For those who have used different AMM models:

Do you think One-Sided AMMs are actually easier to use?
Does providing one asset make liquidity provision more attractive, or do traditional liquidity pools still have clear advantages?
Could this be where AMMs are heading in the future, or is it just another experiment?

I'm still learning about this topic, so I'd really like to hear different opinions from people who have more experience.