The protocol could've been straightforward: allocate fee sharing to the top 10-15 wallet holders, then take a modest dev cut. Simple. Instead, what we're seeing now? A dozen accounts hoarding the rewards while the rest scramble for scraps. Every allocation attempt triggers a new round of FUD. People are frustrated—the mechanism's become a spectacle rather than an incentive. Community members want fairness baked into the fee structure, not endless fighting over who deserves what. It's a missed opportunity to design something that actually aligns interests.

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.
  • Reward
  • 4
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
MEVvictimvip
· 01-09 22:45
Another failed distribution mechanism... so centralized.
View OriginalReply0
AirdropSkepticvip
· 01-09 22:41
Another typical case of centralized design failure... Do these people really not understand what fair distribution means?
View OriginalReply0
LiquidationSurvivorvip
· 01-09 22:41
It's the same old trick again—centralized distribution with a different name, and they think it'll pass the review? Wake up, brothers.
View OriginalReply0
EyeOfTheTokenStormvip
· 01-09 22:36
According to my quantitative model analysis, this fee distribution mechanism has already formed a clear negative feedback loop. From a technical perspective, it has broken out, and I advise everyone to be cautious of systemic risks.
View OriginalReply0
  • Pin

Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)