2026-01-10 20:35:23

A co-founder of a popular project on the Solana blockchain recently reflected publicly, admitting that while its Dynamic Fees V1 version successfully attracted creators and doubled bonding-curve trading volume, the overall ecosystem was built on low-risk creation, making it difficult to generate sustainable trading activity. To reverse this situation, the project team decided to switch strategies—from creator-driven to trader-led—allowing market forces to directly determine the fee distribution mechanism.

The new version brought significant technical upgrades: the fee distribution logic was optimized to cover 10 wallets, and ownership could be transferred flexibly. However, the project also became embroiled in legal controversy. According to the lawsuit, the project’s cumulative revenue has exceeded $722 million, but retail investors suffered losses of up to $4-5.5 billion. This huge discrepancy has sparked deep market questions about the fairness of its mechanism.

SOL2,03%

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.

13 Likes

Reward
13
9
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

FastLeaver

· 1h ago

Is there a new trick to cut the leeks again? Behind the doubling growth are retail investors' blood and tears. 722 million vs 5.5 billion in losses... how many bitcoins could that difference buy? Turning towards trader dominance? Basically, still trying to cut more. Switching from creator-driven to trader-driven, the logic is just absurd. Regarding the legal controversy, I think it's uncertain. This trick is old and stale, why bother optimizing fee distribution?

View OriginalReply0

BlockImposter

· 20h ago

Basically, it's shifting from exploiting creators to exploiting traders... 7.22 billion in revenue compared to 5.5 billion in retail investor losses. Can you even do the math?

View OriginalReply0

ProbablyNothing

· 01-12 00:16

Uh... 722 million in revenue compared to a loss of 4-5.5 billion? How is this math problem calculated? Someone explain it. --- Both bonding curve and fee mechanisms, in essence, are just tricks to fleece retail investors with a different appearance. --- Shifting from creator-driven to trader-led, it sounds like just another way to continue harvesting. --- Legal controversies layered on mechanism doubts, it looks like it’s going to cool off. --- The fee distribution logic for 10 wallets? The higher the complexity, the easier it is to hide tricks. --- Doubling growth sounds great but it still collapsed, indicating that low-risk creation itself is a false proposition. --- Why is it always much more loss than income... this doesn’t seem right. --- Strategy switch = the old plan doesn’t work anymore, don’t hold too much hope for the new one.

View OriginalReply0

0xSunnyDay

· 01-10 21:05

7.22 billion in revenue versus 5.5 billion in losses? That number is a bit outrageous, feels like there's some foul play. --- It's another shift from focusing on creators to traders, in plain terms, they just changed their tune because their previous approach was too ugly. --- With legal troubles coming, all the technical upgrades seem a bit ironic—wallet optimization, what a joke. --- Bonding curve doubling sounds great, but retail investors are losing their shirts—that's just ridiculous. --- Looks like the old trick of "we've listened to feedback" is about to play out again. --- 40 to 55 billion in losses? How many people got cut? Just thinking about it makes me uncomfortable. --- Switching to a trader-driven approach is probably just to make the market take over the previous pitfalls. --- Every time they talk about optimizing mechanisms, people end up losing money, when will they ever learn? --- The idea of flexible ownership transfer sounds very "flexible," but I don't buy it.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropGrandpa

· 01-10 21:03

722 million in revenue compared to retail investor losses of 4-5.5 billion? This number is way off, feels like another good show.

View OriginalReply0

OldLeekMaster

· 01-10 20:58

It's another bonding curve and fee distribution—basically just a new way to cut the leeks. 7.22 billion in revenue versus a loss of 4 to 5.5 billion—no matter how you do the math, it doesn't add up. From creator-driven to trader-driven, it sounds like swapping one pit for another. Legal troubles are already here, yet they're still optimizing the mechanism—too optimistic. Why didn't anyone claim it was unsustainable when it was doubling? Only now, when losing money, do they start reflecting.

View OriginalReply0

MetaDreamer

· 01-10 20:54

Wait a minute, these numbers don't add up... The project earned 722 million, retail investors lost 4-5.5 billion? That gap really can't be sustained anymore. It's the same old "adjustment strategy" talk, heard it too many times... Ultimately, it's still a problem with the mechanism. Really, no matter how much fee distribution there is, it can't save the bag, people's confidence has dispersed, and the team is hard to lead. Even the co-founder admits that the ecosystem is fragile, yet they still want to rely on trader-driven models? Feels like they're just throwing a tantrum. 722 million vs. over 5 billion, this is truly a grand art of wealth transfer.

View OriginalReply0

ApeShotFirst

· 01-10 20:40

$4 billion to $5.5 billion loss?? The spread is outrageous, brother. Who swallowed this money? --- It's another strategy switch to save the day, creator-driven to trader-led... This routine is so familiar. --- $722 million in revenue versus $5.5 billion loss, how can the math be so "harmonious" haha. --- V1 doubling growth sounds great, but when legal troubles hit, it's all for nothing. Truly impressive. --- Cost distribution across 10 wallets? Basically, it's a game of利益分散 (interest dispersal). --- Hey, isn't this another old trick of "We've corrected it, come buy the dip"? --- Retail investors' losses don't match their income at all. I seriously suspect someone is secretly scheming. --- Can switching to trader-led rescue work? What about the promises made to attract creators? --- The black holes of $722 million and $5.5 billion, does anyone dare to keep playing... --- Bonding curve and flexible transfer again, sounds fancy but what about the underlying logic?

View OriginalReply0