Creator fees have become a heated discussion point across launchpads lately. The community's split on this—some backing it, others pushing back. When designing creator rewards several months back, we zeroed in on one key area: compensating those actually building (CTOs). Our thinking was straightforward. Creator fees could serve as the mechanism to reward the people doing the heavy lifting, making sure builders got properly incentivized. But here's where it gets interesting. The conversation isn't just about whether fees should exist. It's about how they're structured, who benefits, and whether the community sees them as fair compensation or an extra tax on participation. Different launchpads are experimenting with different models—some offering tiered rewards, others making it voluntary. The underlying principle though remains consistent: recognizing that creators drive ecosystem growth and deserve direct incentives for their contributions.
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.
18 Likes
Reward
18
7
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
0xOverleveraged
· 17h ago
Creator fees are just a new trick to cut leeks, to put it simply.
View OriginalReply0
ThesisInvestor
· 17h ago
ngl, creator fees are really a dilemma... Some say compensating builders is a matter of course, while others think it's a disguised way of squeezing users. I just want to see who can find the final balance.
View OriginalReply0
RugPullAlarm
· 17h ago
Real builders will first withdraw fees before running away on the chain. I've seen this logic too many times. What appears to be a fair incentive model actually just provides large address holders with an additional cash-out channel; the data speaks for itself.
View OriginalReply0
LiquidationHunter
· 17h ago
NGL creator fees are indeed a bit complicated. I think the key still depends on how to distribute them... We can't let the builders work for nothing.
View OriginalReply0
SchrodingerAirdrop
· 17h ago
The issue of creator fees essentially boils down to whether to give builders real cash. I lean towards supporting it, but the premise is that it must be transparent and fair, and not turn into a disguised form of taxation. The tiered model is actually quite good, allowing creators of different levels to benefit. The key is to prevent this from becoming a cash cow for certain platforms...
View OriginalReply0
SerumDegen
· 17h ago
ngl creator fees are just another liquidity trap dressed up as "fair compensation"—watched this play out before, always ends with whale wallets eating while retail gets cascade liquidated on the "incentive structure"
Reply0
TokenRationEater
· 17h ago
Creator fee is really an endless topic of debate... Basically, it's about how to find a balance between builders and the community. The key still depends on whether this fee structure is designed to be transparent and fair enough.
Creator fees have become a heated discussion point across launchpads lately. The community's split on this—some backing it, others pushing back. When designing creator rewards several months back, we zeroed in on one key area: compensating those actually building (CTOs). Our thinking was straightforward. Creator fees could serve as the mechanism to reward the people doing the heavy lifting, making sure builders got properly incentivized. But here's where it gets interesting. The conversation isn't just about whether fees should exist. It's about how they're structured, who benefits, and whether the community sees them as fair compensation or an extra tax on participation. Different launchpads are experimenting with different models—some offering tiered rewards, others making it voluntary. The underlying principle though remains consistent: recognizing that creators drive ecosystem growth and deserve direct incentives for their contributions.