Picture a scenario where the ecosystem attracted more visionary builders instead of those chasing quick profits. That meme token on the popular launch platform could have easily reached multimillion valuations. Yet what actually happens? Platform operators pocket 20% of transaction fees rather than directing 100% back to creators, allowing projects to flourish organically. It's a straightforward fix—redirect all creator fees into a dedicated mechanism that actually incentivizes participation. But greed wins, and opportunity gets buried. The math is simple: aligned incentives breed success, misaligned ones breed mediocrity. The question isn't whether it's possible, but whether anyone building these platforms genuinely cares enough to make the change.
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.
21 Likes
Reward
21
7
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
RugpullAlertOfficer
· 01-09 15:53
Exactly right, that's how it is... It's really outrageous that the platform takes a 20% fee, and creators don't get any of the money.
View OriginalReply0
BridgeJumper
· 01-09 11:06
It's the same old story again. The platform takes a 20% cut—really impressive. They call it operating costs, but it's actually just wanting to take a cut every round.
View OriginalReply0
HashRateHermit
· 01-09 04:52
To be honest, the platform's 20% cut is outrageous. The true builders have long been drained, and the remaining are all quick arbitrage opportunists.
View OriginalReply0
LoneValidator
· 01-09 04:50
Basically, it's the platform greedily draining the creators' blood, no wonder the ecosystem is dead and dull.
View OriginalReply0
YieldHunter
· 01-09 04:47
ngl this is just cope. if you look at the data, most "visionary builders" are just degens with better marketing. that 20% fee? yeah it sucks but platforms gotta pay devs somehow. the real issue is nobody's actually aligned on risk-adjusted metrics that matter... sustainable returns require skin in the game, and most projects don't have it
Reply0
WalletDetective
· 01-09 04:45
Exactly right, the ecosystem has been ruined by these unscrupulous platform operators.
View OriginalReply0
tx_or_didn't_happen
· 01-09 04:32
It's that same old story... The platform deducts 20% just because they don't want the project to succeed, to put it plainly.
Picture a scenario where the ecosystem attracted more visionary builders instead of those chasing quick profits. That meme token on the popular launch platform could have easily reached multimillion valuations. Yet what actually happens? Platform operators pocket 20% of transaction fees rather than directing 100% back to creators, allowing projects to flourish organically. It's a straightforward fix—redirect all creator fees into a dedicated mechanism that actually incentivizes participation. But greed wins, and opportunity gets buried. The math is simple: aligned incentives breed success, misaligned ones breed mediocrity. The question isn't whether it's possible, but whether anyone building these platforms genuinely cares enough to make the change.