Love the big debate on which rev model is better:

- Lock and redistribute tokens to stakers (veModel)

- Buy back & burn

- Other?

Curve's research concludes veCRV locking "superior impact on token scarcity."

True, but ve tokens are only temporarily out of circulation.

Eventually they CAN unlock and CAN hit the market again (though Convex et al. protocols DO PERMANENTLY lock those tokens)

(although crypto. com scammors unburnt the burnt tokens anyway).

I still like staking and locking because non-participants subsidize the active ones.

If CRV makes $10m and only 50% is staked, only stakooors get paid.

CEX holders get nothing.

Buybacks are more fair since every holder benefits through spot price.

Also more tax efficient for most people. And they carry stronger retail narratives. Just look at HYPE.

So people understand buybacks instantly.

And not all buybacks are equal.

Fluid and Lido (proposal stage) trigger buybacks only when revenue crosses certain thresholds.

This protects the treasury in bear markets and keeps buybacks sustainable instead of draining reserves.

I also want to see research of buybacks have stronger impact on price when liquidity is thin (or this balances out when traders dump post buyback?)

Maker and Lido (proposal stage) go one level deeper by pairing bought tokens with ETH or stables which grows liquidity and still shrinks supply.

While locking (veCRV) makes the market thinner and more volatile.

Anyway, just thinking out-loud here but love that debate is switching from "should we turn the fee switch on" to "which rev sharing model is better?"..

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。