2026-01-15 21:26:59

A well-known project recently launched two new release mechanisms, providing differentiated options for creators and the community. The first is the classic approach—setting creator fees to zero, with a transaction swap fee of only 0.30%. This fee is almost entirely reinvested into the liquidity pool to maintain market depth and long-term stability. This model is especially suitable for projects that genuinely want to build an ecosystem, root themselves in the community, and focus on long-term development.

The other option retains the creator fee, allowing the project team to earn revenue from it. Both modes have their own focus— the former emphasizes community priority and ecosystem growth, while the latter offers creators more flexible economic space. This dual-track design enables projects at different stages and with different goals to find a suitable development path.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

17 Likes

Reward
17
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

HodlAndChill

· 01-16 12:55

0.30% fee fully invested in the liquidity pool? Now that's true community-first approach, unlike some projects that just talk but don't act --- I think the dual-track system is pretty clever. Projects that genuinely want to do things will naturally choose the first path, and you can also see who’s just trying to scalp profits --- Wait, the key is whether the fees will actually flow back into the pool later, or if it's just another empty promise --- Long-term stability sounds good, but during bad market conditions, liquidity is also useless --- Hey, this design has some substance. Giving creators the choice is much better than mandatory rules --- The 0.30% ratio is solid; it shows the project team is genuinely sincere --- I'm a bit tired of the "community first" approach; ultimately, it depends on who actually follows through --- Both paths are laid out, now it’s up to the creators to choose. A pretty democratic design

View OriginalReply0

LiquidityWitch

· 01-16 07:57

0.30% return to liquidity pools? That's truly a positive development, unlike some projects that siphon off creators every day.

View OriginalReply0

ChainChef

· 01-15 21:57

ngl this dual-track recipe is actually genius... choosing between community simmering vs creator marination. the 0.30% fee cycling back into liquidity depth hits different when you're actually trying to build something that won't half-bake in six months.

Reply0

IfIWereOnChain

· 01-15 21:56

0.30% is truly amazing. I love the idea of investing entirely in the liquidity pool. This is the kind of project that truly wants to get things done.

View OriginalReply0

ForkTrooper

· 01-15 21:53

This dual-track system is interesting, but to be honest, I prefer the first one. The zero-cost approach really makes it easier to develop leading applications.

View OriginalReply0

airdrop_huntress

· 01-15 21:52

Hey, wait a minute, 0.3% fee rate all into the liquidity pool? That's really aiming for the long term, unlike some projects that are just thinking about cutting every day.

View OriginalReply0

BlockchainBrokenPromise

· 01-15 21:30

0.30% fee fully flows back into the liquidity pool? Now that's playing for real, unlike some projects that talk about ecosystem development every day but actually just want to harvest the profits.

View OriginalReply0