Another angle on revenue distribution worth analyzing—direct cash or USDC payouts to holders instead of relying solely on token buybacks. The model's actually pretty compelling from an incentive perspective. Obviously though, it hinges on several factors: how strong the underlying revenue numbers are, the total value of assets staked, and whether the mechanics actually hold up under different market conditions. If structured right, this approach could genuinely align holder interests with protocol success rather than just creating token pressure. Curious to see how this plays out in practice and whether it attracts different types of participants compared to traditional buyback models.
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.
15 Likes
Reward
15
4
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
ParallelChainMaxi
· 10h ago
ngl Direct cash distribution is much more reliable than burning tokens, finally someone brought this up
View OriginalReply0
FromMinerToFarmer
· 10h ago
Directly distributing USDC? Sounds good, but the real test is whether on-chain data can support it.
View OriginalReply0
GoldDiggerDuck
· 10h ago
Directly send stablecoins to token holders? This idea is indeed fresh and much more honest than simply repurchasing tokens.
View OriginalReply0
HappyMinerUncle
· 10h ago
NGL directly issuing USDC is much more honest than buyback; it all depends on whether the team has real revenue to support it.
Another angle on revenue distribution worth analyzing—direct cash or USDC payouts to holders instead of relying solely on token buybacks. The model's actually pretty compelling from an incentive perspective. Obviously though, it hinges on several factors: how strong the underlying revenue numbers are, the total value of assets staked, and whether the mechanics actually hold up under different market conditions. If structured right, this approach could genuinely align holder interests with protocol success rather than just creating token pressure. Curious to see how this plays out in practice and whether it attracts different types of participants compared to traditional buyback models.