$PONS
Is it a fake buyback?
Yesterday, someone in a group chat posted a screenshot of DefiLlama, saying that PONS’s Holders Revenue is only one-third of Revenue, and that the “80% buyback” is a lie.
Panic spread throughout the group—on top of the market also falling these past few days. Some people have already been selling.
Xiaoshuai looked into the data: the issue is the timing of ammunition being stocked, not any ratio manipulation.
Just compare it with $STONK to see clearly. STONK promises to buyback and burn 60% of protocol revenue. On September 20, revenue was $1.05 million; $635k was bought back—almost every day it stays right around 60%. Cumulative buybacks exceed $11 million.
Why is it so steady? The operations wallet automates the claims, so it doesn’t build up. Every minute there are a dozen or so small orders to buy back, and every few minutes they get packaged and sent into the burn address. “As much ammunition is stocked in, as much is fired out.”
PONS is different. The fee requires an additional manual claim with multiple signatures, so funds often sit in the custody account. If buyback funds aren’t transferred into the buyback distributor on time, the TWAP cycle—every 15 minutes—buys less. Then when a large batch of claims happens, the burn on that day far exceeds 80%.
So the PONS curve you see on DefiLlama looks pulsed. Some days it burns much more than 80%, while other days it’s clearly less. If you stretch the timeline out, the cumulative total still approaches 80%.
Think of it like this: STONK is a machine gun that continuously feeds ammo, while PONS is a shotgun that gathers a single clip and fires one round. The total number of bullets is roughly the same, but the shooting rhythm is completely different.
If you judge PONS’s fulfillment rate by looking at “burn amount / revenue of the day” for a single day, you’re using a machine-gun standard to evaluate a shotgun.
However, this claim-fee step on both sides is not decentralized. #去中心化
Is it a fake buyback?
Yesterday, someone in a group chat posted a screenshot of DefiLlama, saying that PONS’s Holders Revenue is only one-third of Revenue, and that the “80% buyback” is a lie.
Panic spread throughout the group—on top of the market also falling these past few days. Some people have already been selling.
Xiaoshuai looked into the data: the issue is the timing of ammunition being stocked, not any ratio manipulation.
Just compare it with $STONK to see clearly. STONK promises to buyback and burn 60% of protocol revenue. On September 20, revenue was $1.05 million; $635k was bought back—almost every day it stays right around 60%. Cumulative buybacks exceed $11 million.
Why is it so steady? The operations wallet automates the claims, so it doesn’t build up. Every minute there are a dozen or so small orders to buy back, and every few minutes they get packaged and sent into the burn address. “As much ammunition is stocked in, as much is fired out.”
PONS is different. The fee requires an additional manual claim with multiple signatures, so funds often sit in the custody account. If buyback funds aren’t transferred into the buyback distributor on time, the TWAP cycle—every 15 minutes—buys less. Then when a large batch of claims happens, the burn on that day far exceeds 80%.
So the PONS curve you see on DefiLlama looks pulsed. Some days it burns much more than 80%, while other days it’s clearly less. If you stretch the timeline out, the cumulative total still approaches 80%.
Think of it like this: STONK is a machine gun that continuously feeds ammo, while PONS is a shotgun that gathers a single clip and fires one round. The total number of bullets is roughly the same, but the shooting rhythm is completely different.
If you judge PONS’s fulfillment rate by looking at “burn amount / revenue of the day” for a single day, you’re using a machine-gun standard to evaluate a shotgun.
However, this claim-fee step on both sides is not decentralized. #去中心化
