Woofun AI reports that Pi Network is navigating a divergent trajectory, where significant expansion in its Launchpad infrastructure tests contrasts sharply with the persistent downward pressure on the native PI token. While the platform successfully mobilized hundreds of thousands of users for its second major experiment involving SLICE tokens, the native asset continues to slide toward record lows, underscoring a structural disconnect between ecosystem utility development and broader market sentiment.

The second Launchpad test, centered on the distribution of SLICE tokens, concluded with substantial participation metrics that highlight the platform’s reach. Between June 11 and June 28, more than 242,000 users committed a total of 15.92 million Test-Pi to acquire 10 million SLICE tokens. This volume of engagement demonstrates the capacity of the Pi Network to direct user attention toward new applications within its ecosystem.

However, the significance of this experiment extends beyond mere token distribution; it serves as a critical stress test for the network’s proposed liquidity mechanisms. The core objective was to determine whether assets committed during a launch phase could be converted into permanent liquidity for the token, rather than being transferred to the project team as traditional fundraising proceeds. This design aims to provide new applications with an immediate, stable market while mitigating the risk of liquidity withdrawal by project developers. Despite these structural innovations, the test does not yet provide evidence that users will continue to engage with these applications once the initial launch campaign concludes.

A critical distinction in this model is the treatment of liquidity versus fundraising capital. In conventional token sales, projects often receive the committed assets as operating capital, which can lead to sudden liquidity drains if those funds are withdrawn. In contrast, the Pi ecosystem token design mandates that committed assets are paired with tokens supplied by the project and placed into a liquidity pool, from which the project permanently disables its ability to withdraw the initial contribution. This mechanism addresses a fundamental weakness in small application tokens: the lack of a usable market. Without sufficient liquidity, even modest transactions can cause substantial price volatility, and holders may face severe slippage when attempting to sell. By directing launch commitments into the pool, the token gains a trading foundation from the moment its market opens.

However, permanent liquidity should not be conflated with permanent value. A pool can continue to operate while the token price falls sharply if holders repeatedly sell and new demand fails to replace them. The mechanism guarantees that reserves remain available under the stated design, but it does not guarantee a particular price, trading depth, or level of application usage.

Furthermore, this model imposes a cost on developers. Projects gain distribution and access to Pi’s user base but do not receive the committed Pi as operating capital. This may discourage teams primarily interested in raising money, aligning with Pi’s product-first objective, but it could also be restrictive for legitimate applications that need funding to hire developers, market a finished product, or expand infrastructure.

Woofun AI data shows, To assess the evolution of user behavior, the SLICE test must be compared with the first Launchpad experiment involving IRRA tokens. During the earlier IRRA test, more than 198,000 users committed 14.72 million Test-Pi, of which 11.71 million Test-Pi ultimately applied toward acquiring 10 million IRRA tokens. In contrast, the SLICE launch attracted roughly 22% more participants, bringing the total to over 242,000 users, while total commitments increased by only about 8% to 15.92 million Test-Pi. Consequently, average commitments fell from approximately 74 Test-Pi per participant in the IRRA test to around 66 Test-Pi in the SLICE test, a decline of nearly 12%. These figures suggest that participation became broader without becoming proportionally larger in capital terms.

This shift may align with Pi’s goal of distributing access among many users rather than allowing the largest commitments to dominate an allocation.

However, this change cannot be attributed entirely to greater interest in the SLICE token itself. Pi modified the participation process after the IRRA test revealed that some users struggled with separate staking and commitment steps. More than 478,000 users had staked Test-Pi during the first launch, but fewer than half proceeded to make a commitment. For the SLICE test, the Launchpad automatically calculated the required fair-access hold after a participant selected a commitment amount.

Additionally, Pi presented application engagement as a percentage bonus on the tokens received, rather than as a discount on their acquisition price. According to Pi Network’s explanation of the revised flow, larger commitments require proportionally larger holds. The temporary hold remains the participant’s Pi and is returned after the relevant period. This simplified process likely reduced the drop-off seen during the first experiment, but because both the interface and the application changed, the published results cannot establish whether the additional participants arrived due to SLICE’s utility, easier onboarding, or general curiosity around a second launch.

The technical architecture of the SLICE pool utilizes a constant-product automated market maker. When a participant swaps Test-Pi for SLICE, Test-Pi enters the pool and SLICE leaves it. The remaining SLICE becomes more expensive relative to Test-Pi because the relationship between the two reserves has changed. Selling SLICE produces the opposite result: SLICE returns to the pool, Test-Pi leaves it, and the displayed token price may fall. Pi has added a chart showing how these swaps affect the SLICE price, giving users a practical way to observe automated pricing without having to calculate the changing reserve balance themselves.

However, this chart does not establish an independent market valuation for SLICE. Its price is produced by activity within a controlled Testnet pool, and the token will never move to Mainnet. A rising price would confirm that purchases are removing SLICE from the pool, but it would not show whether buyers value the game, expect future utility, or are simply experimenting with Test-Pi that has no real monetary cost. Activity involving Test-Pi does not require users to purchase traded PI, remove it from exchanges, or spend it inside a Mainnet application. Unlike IRRA, which was connected to a demonstration application, SLICE is linked to Slice of Pi, an operating third-party game.

This allows Pi to examine how interaction with a real product affects token participation and allocation. The Launchpad may award users a percentage bonus based on their engagement with the application, intending to favor participants who have explored the product rather than distributing tokens solely according to the amount they can commit. While this is a more useful test than attaching a token to an empty interface, launch-period engagement is not the same as lasting adoption. Users may interact with an application to improve their allocation and then stop once distribution is complete.

Despite the detailed reporting on participation and commitment volumes, critical metrics regarding long-term viability remain undisclosed. Pi disclosed how many users participated and how much Test-Pi they committed, but the announcement did not provide data on repeat-user retention, post-distribution game activity, allocation concentration, liquidity depth, or swap volume. These missing figures are essential to determine whether the Launchpad is creating genuine users or only attracting temporary participants. A successful Mainnet model would require people to return because the application remains useful after the token has already been distributed. The absence of these metrics leaves a gap in understanding the true impact of the Launchpad on user behavior and ecosystem health. Without evidence of sustained engagement, the test remains an infrastructure exercise rather than a proof of concept for a thriving economy.

The Launchpad update arrives while PI remains under heavy market pressure, highlighting a similar gap between technical development and token demand that appeared around Pi Network’s Protocol v25 upgrade. That upgrade improved the network’s infrastructure while PI traded approximately 97% below its February 2025 peak. At the July 25 chart timestamp, PI traded at $0.08136 on Kraken, down approximately 1.8% on the daily candle. The price had briefly moved below the $0.0807 to $0.

0821 shelf that has held on repeated tests since the middle of July before returning to the edge of that area. The zone is being tested, but it had not been cleanly lost while the daily candle remained open. Holding around $0.08 would preserve the recent range and could support another move toward $0.086. The more consequential resistance sits near $0.10, where the rebound following July’s capitulation low previously stalled, followed by the 50-day simple moving average near $0.11244 and the 100-day near $0.

138, both sloping downward and untouched during PI’s current basing attempt. The Relative Strength Index stood at 32.31, which is low enough to reflect weak momentum but remains above the July capitulation extreme, leaving room for a relief move without confirming that a durable bottom has formed. A daily close below $0.08 would weaken the range and expose the July low around $0.07. That level represents the lowest price shown on the chart and has not been retested since the high-volume reversal.

Losing it would place PI at fresh multi-month lows without a visible prior support level beneath it. PI has already broken above the steep descending trendline that guided the decline from May into July. The break occurred during the capitulation reversal, when volume reached its highest level on the displayed chart, which removes the former trendline as the most relevant resistance. Attention now belongs on the moving averages above price instead. Defending $0.08 keeps the current basing attempt alive, while recovering $0.

10 and then the 50-day average would provide stronger evidence that demand is improving.

The SLICE test demonstrates that the network can direct hundreds of thousands of users toward a token experiment and form a working liquidity pool around it.

However, the missing evidence is whether the same mechanism can produce repeat Mainnet activity that requires real PI. That will depend less on the number of people who enter a launch and more on what they do afterwards. Persistent application use, recurring swaps, deeper liquidity, and demand that survives beyond token distribution would begin connecting Pi’s product development with PI’s market economics. Until those signals appear, the Launchpad represents a potentially useful infrastructure test while the traded token continues defending one of its weakest price levels. This marks a critical juncture where technical innovation must translate into tangible economic value to sustain long-term growth.