Content
@
https://warpcast.com/~/channel/revnet
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Trigs
@trigs
The beauty of this system is that there's not enough token liquidity to drive a speculative token market UNTIL there's sufficient production of value that users have 'minted' enough of the supply to push the revnet into stage 2 or something. @jango.eth @kmacb.eth curious on your thoughts here.
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
KMac🍌 ⏩
@kmacb.eth
Kinda. I like to think of it as floor & ceiling with AMM in between the two. The issuance rate & cash out fees set those. You may create a stage that changes or removes those at a future time. All the settings are fixed at project deploy. It’s a flexible set of options but once set it’s fixed forever. People may then borrow off it instead of dumping token.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Trigs
@trigs
My thought process was trying to define a stage 1 that doesn't assume an LP because there's not sufficient token issuance yet to have liquidity. The idea being for early creators they can have more of a low-volatility, organic growth cycle where supporters are regularly buying tokens or paying directly to mint publications as nfts. No LP means no value extraction from speculation at this stage. All value flows to the revnet with like 50-70% of mint splits going to the creator and 30-50% getting split to NFT holders based on the ranking system I described. That means the majority of the value is under the creator's control. They can burn tokens to redeem funds as needed, or take out loans to invest in a content production cycle that will drive new community growth that'll pay off the loan. But once a content creator gets popular enough that they get to a certain threshold of demand it moves to the next stage that opens up the LP and starts supporting more speculative behavior.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
KMac🍌 ⏩
@kmacb.eth
AMM can be deployed by anyone at anytime. Rule set changes in revnets are based on time passing like bitcoin halving. The splits can be changed by the operator.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Trigs
@trigs
Yeah but if there's not very many tokens in distribution then there's not really any incentive to do so or for traders to try to extract from it. Rule set being time based is definitely a wrench in the idea... 🤔 Just trying to ideate around a funding strategy that maximizes for token utility and creator funding early on and then growing the speculative side of the tokenomics when there's more adoption and proof of creator value production. The problem i see with funding creators/builders with something that encourages speculation too early is that it's too distracting for both the creator and the supporter during these early stages where any speculation is purely hype with no substance. Creators need more stable income in the early stages, and appealing to supporters less motivated by speculation will provide that. Once they're over that maslovian baseline and their work starts to catch, then some speculation becomes a great distribution mechanism without undermining the core process creating value
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
