You Can Now Vest Tokens To The Holders ๐
$JUP and Ethena taught this market that distribution design decides who stays. $BNKR is testing a version where holding is the thing that earns.
New on Arbitrum and Arc: a launch can vest tokens directly to holders rather than to the team, with a second option to route fees to holders in the quote token, the base token, or both. Both are written into the contract rather than administered by the platform.
What interests me is what it rewards.
Most token distribution pays for arrival. Airdrops reward being early, points reward activity, and neither pays anyone for still being there a year later. A vest that accrues to holders inverts that entirely.
The counterpoint deserves saying, because it is the obvious one.
Paying people to hold does not give them a reason to hold. Emissions aimed at loyalty still dilute somebody, and a token whose main attraction is receiving more of itself has a circular problem this industry has already lived through twice.
The version that survives contact with reality is the one where the payout comes from fee income rather than from supply, which is why the fees-to-holders option is the more interesting of the two.
Status matters here. These are experimental, live on two chains, with Base and Robinhood Chain described only as possible.
Before judging it I want to see one launch using it with real volume behind it, and then whether the holders it paid actually stayed.
#Arbitrum #Altcoin Season#
$JUP and Ethena taught this market that distribution design decides who stays. $BNKR is testing a version where holding is the thing that earns.
New on Arbitrum and Arc: a launch can vest tokens directly to holders rather than to the team, with a second option to route fees to holders in the quote token, the base token, or both. Both are written into the contract rather than administered by the platform.
What interests me is what it rewards.
Most token distribution pays for arrival. Airdrops reward being early, points reward activity, and neither pays anyone for still being there a year later. A vest that accrues to holders inverts that entirely.
The counterpoint deserves saying, because it is the obvious one.
Paying people to hold does not give them a reason to hold. Emissions aimed at loyalty still dilute somebody, and a token whose main attraction is receiving more of itself has a circular problem this industry has already lived through twice.
The version that survives contact with reality is the one where the payout comes from fee income rather than from supply, which is why the fees-to-holders option is the more interesting of the two.
Status matters here. These are experimental, live on two chains, with Base and Robinhood Chain described only as possible.
Before judging it I want to see one launch using it with real volume behind it, and then whether the holders it paid actually stayed.
#Arbitrum #Altcoin Season#
