The criticism around platform creator fees has been persistent, but there's an interesting angle worth examining. If the math checks out, higher fee allocation toward ecosystem rewards might actually drive more capital circulation than having those fees concentrated with a single entity. It's like questioning whether centralized fund extraction actually benefits the network—when fees get redistributed back into the protocol, they theoretically fuel more activity and participation. Compare that to systems where revenue flows upward exclusively: who's really getting richer off the ecosystem? The mechanics matter more than the narrative.
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.
19 Likes
Reward
19
7
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
BoredRiceBall
· 01-08 01:24
Wake up, cost allocation is really not better the more centralized it is.
View OriginalReply0
DancingCandles
· 01-05 20:14
Basically, it's about observing the flow of fees—concentrated in one hand vs. dispersed incentives. The math is right there; it's obvious which one can really turn around.
View OriginalReply0
LiquidatedThrice
· 01-05 07:44
Hmm... That's right. Reallocating the fees back into the protocol is the only way to truly activate the ecosystem. The system of purely centralized extraction should have been phased out long ago.
View OriginalReply0
ColdWalletGuardian
· 01-05 04:55
Fee allocation is all about who is benefiting—centralized extraction versus ecosystem feedback, the difference is significant.
View OriginalReply0
ResearchChadButBroke
· 01-05 04:54
It sounds like they're just whitewashing high-fee platforms... but the logic does have some merit; redistributing the fees is definitely better than having them all drained by vampires.
View OriginalReply0
MechanicalMartel
· 01-05 04:47
Really, instead of bragging about ecological narratives, it's better to dig into where the money is actually flowing. Centralized siphoning vs. return incentives, these accounts just don't add up the same way.
View OriginalReply0
SighingCashier
· 01-05 04:46
Hey, this logic seems solid... Reallocating costs is indeed better than a monopoly.
The criticism around platform creator fees has been persistent, but there's an interesting angle worth examining. If the math checks out, higher fee allocation toward ecosystem rewards might actually drive more capital circulation than having those fees concentrated with a single entity. It's like questioning whether centralized fund extraction actually benefits the network—when fees get redistributed back into the protocol, they theoretically fuel more activity and participation. Compare that to systems where revenue flows upward exclusively: who's really getting richer off the ecosystem? The mechanics matter more than the narrative.