📊 See at a glance whether the dual-token models in blockchain games are being reckless: First, look at this "Reflow Ratio"
In the last round, many GameFi projects told you, "We have dual tokens,"
In reality, they just issued one more token, pushing the explosion time back.
Pixels at least has a more technically oriented promise:
The PIXEL spent in the game doesn't all disappear; a portion needs to "reflow" to the protocol treasury and reward pool.
If you want to quickly judge whether a dual-token design is reckless, you can first look at a very simple but practical detail: "Of the high-level token spending, what percentage will return to the system, rather than directly becoming someone else's selling pressure?"
In the design of Pixels, the officials have mentioned a similar structure:
The PIXEL spent by players or partners,
A portion goes into the treasury to support future development and activities.
A portion returns to the reward pool, and is then distributed to subsequent players by the RORS engine.
You don't need to memorize all the ratios, but at least when you see any dual-token project, you should ask yourself two technical questions:
1️⃣ Is there a clear statement of "how much % returns to the treasury, how much % returns to the reward pool" for this "high-level token" spending?
2️⃣ Is this reflow rule something you can actually see in the contract or official data updates, rather than just being written in the white paper?
😎☕ King Cheese wants to ask you in the comments: The next time you see a dual-token design, would you be willing to spend an extra 30 seconds to find this "Reflow Ratio"?
I'm willing: type "find"
Too lazy to check: type "lazy"
@Pixels $PIXEL #pixel #stacked #GameFi #Tokenomics #creatorpad
In the last round, many GameFi projects told you, "We have dual tokens,"
In reality, they just issued one more token, pushing the explosion time back.
Pixels at least has a more technically oriented promise:
The PIXEL spent in the game doesn't all disappear; a portion needs to "reflow" to the protocol treasury and reward pool.
If you want to quickly judge whether a dual-token design is reckless, you can first look at a very simple but practical detail: "Of the high-level token spending, what percentage will return to the system, rather than directly becoming someone else's selling pressure?"
In the design of Pixels, the officials have mentioned a similar structure:
The PIXEL spent by players or partners,
A portion goes into the treasury to support future development and activities.
A portion returns to the reward pool, and is then distributed to subsequent players by the RORS engine.
You don't need to memorize all the ratios, but at least when you see any dual-token project, you should ask yourself two technical questions:
1️⃣ Is there a clear statement of "how much % returns to the treasury, how much % returns to the reward pool" for this "high-level token" spending?
2️⃣ Is this reflow rule something you can actually see in the contract or official data updates, rather than just being written in the white paper?
😎☕ King Cheese wants to ask you in the comments: The next time you see a dual-token design, would you be willing to spend an extra 30 seconds to find this "Reflow Ratio"?
I'm willing: type "find"
Too lazy to check: type "lazy"
@Pixels $PIXEL #pixel #stacked #GameFi #Tokenomics #creatorpad