One interesting mechanic worth exploring: developers can calibrate their fee structure anywhere from 0.0% to 1.0%. Here's how it plays out—if a dev opts for 0.2%, the remaining 1.8% (which is 0.8% plus the standard 1% holder allocation) gets distributed to token holders. This creates a flexible incentive layer where fee selection directly impacts holder rewards. Lower dev fees mean a bigger slice goes to the community, while higher fees give developers more breathing room for protocol maintenance and development. It's a straightforward way to align interests between builders and stakeholders.

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.
  • Reward
  • 7
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
GasFeeSobbervip
· 14h ago
This fee structure design is quite good. Can the interests of dev and holders truly be aligned? It still depends on how the specific project is executed.
View OriginalReply0
DaisyUnicornvip
· 15h ago
Wow, this fee mechanism design is quite thoughtful... Developers and token holders are like an automatically adjusting garden ecosystem. The more watering, the more it grows🌼 The lower the developer fees, the more robust the community becomes, and vice versa, developers can breathe easier to maintain... This kind of mutual check and balance feels much more reliable than those black-and-white governance votes.
View OriginalReply0
SatoshiHeirvip
· 15h ago
Hey, this fee structure design... The polite way to call it is "flexible incentives," but I think it's just reinventing the wheel. Satoshi Nakamoto understood a long time ago that the essence of decentralization is to eliminate trust premiums, yet now there's this game of "interest alignment" between developers and holders. It's worth pointing out that setting the range from 0.0% to 1.0% itself exposes a problem—why isn't there fully transparent on-chain governance decision-making? Why rely on developers to "calibrate" unilaterally? Isn't this just a different flavor of centralized power, just with a new wrapper? According to the spirit of the white paper, true value consensus should be guaranteed by algorithms, not by leveraging fee rates to "align interests." smh……
View OriginalReply0
TestnetScholarvip
· 15h ago
This fee design is indeed interesting, but if the dev chooses 0%, isn't that suicidal...
View OriginalReply0
AirdropSweaterFanvip
· 15h ago
This fee structure is quite clever... With a 0.2% development fee, the community can get 1.8%, which is equivalent to giving the developers all the decision-making power. The sincerity is obvious at a glance.
View OriginalReply0
CounterIndicatorvip
· 15h ago
The fee structure design is interesting, but how many projects will actually be implemented and executed?
View OriginalReply0
GamefiHarvestervip
· 15h ago
It's that kind of mechanism that looks balanced but is actually full of traps... Dev fee rate from 0 to 1%, adjustable at will. It sounds democratic, but who dares to really set it to 0? Never seen a conscientious developer.
View OriginalReply0
  • Pin
Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)