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
KMacš ā©
@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. Itās a flexible set of options but once set itās 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
