2026-01-03 05:21:32

A leading AMM protocol founder recently clashed with the CEO of another blockchain ecosystem DEX platform, with the focus on LP fee income.

The latter claimed that their platform's "income" is five times that of the former, but the former responded: these figures are inflated. Their approach is to take all LP fees and then incentivize or compensate LPs with tokens, making the income look particularly impressive. However, whether this model can be sustainable in the long term remains a question.

In contrast, a top AMM's fee distribution logic is different—the protocol takes a portion, but the majority still goes to LPs. The goal of this design is very clear: sustainable development. Both models have their strengths, but the concept of "income" is indeed open to interpretation. The true test will be who can last longer.

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.

16 Likes

Reward
16
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

ForkThisDAO

· 01-06 05:14

Basically, it's a numbers game: take the money first and then give rebates. It sounds good, but in reality, it's just a game of pass-the-buck. Sustainability > short-term vanity. This is true long-term thinking. Real competitiveness depends on whether LPs are truly willing to stay, not how aggressive the incentives are today.

View OriginalReply0

screenshot_gains

· 01-05 22:25

Ha, it's that same trick again, as long as the numbers look good, it's fine. --- Relying on incentives and compensation to support the scene, I've seen this routine many times. Can burning money reach the ceiling? --- Honestly, it all depends on whose treasury is more resilient. It's more lively than a PPT presentation. --- Sustainable vs. short-term hype, the next two years will tell the story. --- Feels like everyone is now playing with numbers magic; no one really cares about actual returns anymore. --- As long as the pool is still there, everything else is just virtual. --- That's why I don't touch new chains or new DEXs; stability comes first. --- Five times the income? I don't believe it. Next month, it'll be another story. --- Long-term or short-term harvesting, you can tell who's greedier at a glance. --- LP fee wars will never stop. Whoever incentivizes more wins.

View OriginalReply0

BloodInStreets

· 01-03 05:51

It's the same old trick, first blowing up the numbers to look impressive, then ending up with a mess...

View OriginalReply0

CexIsBad

· 01-03 05:51

First, absorb all the costs and then use tokens for compensation. I've seen this trick too many times. It's the same routine again. The numbers look good, but what if the token price drops? Prosperity built on incentives is untrustworthy. True sustainability is the way to go. Who are you fooling in the short term? Time will tell. The ones who last longer are the winners. This "fivefold income" claim is ridiculous and incomparable. Those who get excited about rebates are probably just retail investors. The protocol also needs to sustain itself; giving the main share to LPs is the honest approach. Playing word games, counting all costs as income. You'll see the truth once the tokens are unlocked. Both are hyping, but whoever can withstand the decline wins.

View OriginalReply0

HashBrownies

· 01-03 05:45

It's the same old "digital beautification" trick... Income inflated by incentives and subsidies will eventually need to be paid back. Sustainability is the key; relying on spending money to buy users will run out of ammunition if used too much. But to be honest, LPs don't care how elegant your model is—they only care about how much money you can make. Ultimately, the real winning strategy is whoever can survive the longest.

View OriginalReply0