NFTs have cooled down like this, yet there are still people who are not here to buy at the bottom, but want to re invent how NFTs are sold. This project is called Fake World Assets, and the token is FWA. When I first started watching, I was also confused. ETH-backed position、 inverse weighting、 harmonic mean、 VRF allocation、 standing bid…… Each word looks like DeFi individually, but when connected together, it looks like a finance professor who, after drinking too much, designed an on chain claw machine for NFTs. Never mind, I'll say it in the most plain language. The following is my personal understanding, dyor。 How does the traditional NFT market sell things? The seller said: My picture is worth 10 ETH. ” The buyer said: Up to 2 ETH. ” Then the two people looked at each other affectionately across the floor, neither moving. The seller's NFT has been hanging for half a year without anyone buying it, and buyers continue to wait for a sell-off. In the end, the trading volume is quiet like a work group at 3am. FWA has changed its approach. If you want to put NFTs into the pool, you can't just throw one image in. You must put it in at the same time: One NFT, And a personal ETH backing. This ETH was not given by the project team, nor was it money from later users. It is locked in by NFT holders themselves with real gold and silver, representing: If someone draws my NFT but doesn't want it, I am willing to use this ETH to retrieve it. ” So summarize in one sentence: FWA is an NFT random trading pool where each prize comes with a buyback quote. The buyer pays the current purchase price in the pool, and Chainlink VRF randomly assigns an NFT on the chain. After winning, buyers have two choices: Firstly, keep the NFT. NFT belongs to the buyer, and the original holder retrieves their locked backing. Secondly, return the NFT to its original holder. The buyer takes 85% of this backing, the NFT returns to the original owner, and the remaining amount is collected by the agreement. We cannot leave the NFT and take the backing at the same time. It's like you're going to grab a doll. The problem with a regular claw machine is that if it catches a doll it doesn't like, it can only be carried home and dusted off. FWA's dolls are different. Each doll carries a repurchase order that the original owner has paid in advance. If you like it, take it away. I don't like it. Press the return button and the original owner will use ETH that was locked in advance to retrieve it. However, please note that. The most interesting thing here is not that the NFT can be returned, but that the backing also determines the probability of the NFT being drawn. The rules are counterintuitive: The lower the backing, the easier it is to be drawn; The higher the backing, the harder it is to be drawn. For example, there are three NFTs in the pool: A locked 0.01 ETH, B locked 0.1 ETH, C has locked 1 ETH. Most people will draw A. It's difficult to draw C, but if you really win and don't want to keep the NFT, you can choose to return it and take 0.85 ETH. So backing played two roles at the same time: On one side is the repurchase quotation, On one side is the proof of rarity. Previously, NFT projects claimed to be rare and only needed to write a sentence in the metadata: Space level SSR. ” FWA is different. You can make your NFT rarer and harder to draw. Lock ETH first. Saying it's rare is useless, just prove it with money. Even smarter, the purchase price of the pool will not be directly raised to 1 ETH just because a 1 ETH backed NFT appears inside. It uses a pricing method similar to 'harmonic mean'. Don't be scared by this word. Translated into human language, it is: The low backing position determines the majority of the purchase price, High backing positions are responsible for creating high probability outcomes. So most of the time, what you draw is a light backing NFT. Occasionally, you may hit a high backing position. This is a bit like mixing the NFT market, claw machines, repurchase agreements, and tail odds together. Why are NFT holders willing to participate? Because after NFTs are added to the pool, they are no longer just static assets waiting for orders to be placed. As long as someone initiates a purchase in the pool, active positions can share transaction fees; NFTs with high backings are theoretically able to stay in the pool for longer because they are harder to draw; Depositors and buyers can also receive FWA incentives. Of course, this is not a free lunch. The NFT holder has locked both NFT and ETH. Once the buyer accepts the repurchase offer, although the original owner retrieves the NFT, the corresponding backing will be used for settlement. Buyers are not necessarily guaranteed profits. Most of the time, low backing positions are still drawn; If you choose to return the NFT, you can only receive 85% of the backing; And backing only represents how much money the original holder is willing to lock, it does not necessarily mean how much NFT is really worth in the public market. So what FWA really changes is not 'how to make all NFTs raise prices again'. It changes the trading problem itself. The traditional market asks: Is anyone willing to buy this designated NFT at this price? ” FWA asked: Is anyone willing to pay the pool price, get a random NFT, and have a pre financed exit option? ” It turns one-on-one buyers into pooled demand. Transforming simple hanging orders into probability allocation. Transforming the fictional rarity into a funding commitment that requires locking ETH. The most difficult liquidity issue for NFTs has been repackaged as a game of probability and pricing. This is what I find interesting about FWA. It's not making another facelift OpenSea, nor is it changing the color of the trading page, adding bonus points, and then announcing a redefinition of NFTs. It has truly been redesigned: How do sellers enter the market, How do buyers make purchases, How to determine the probability of NFT, Who provides the liquidity for exiting, Where does the agreement charge from. From a product perspective, FWA is not a pure PPT. The contract has been deployed, and both NFT and ETH backing are truly locked on the chain. v2 also has an actual purchase and settlement process. However, please note that. The mechanism is interesting, but it doesn't mean FWA can be brainless. FWA v1 did indeed experience a high-value security incident: the attacker used the state change before the random number callback to obtain a CryptoPunk. V2 has redesigned FIFO queuing, random number caching, and settlement order to address this issue, but I have not yet found a complete public report published by a named auditing agency. The token level should also be viewed separately. FWA is not just a random reward coin: buyers and depositors can receive emissions, and some additional fees can also form protocol driven FWA purchases. But as of the time of my research: External natural buying is still gated; Ordinary wallet transfers are restricted; The proportion of FWA repurchases guided by the main income of the agreement is still 0%; The core parameters and transaction entry points are still controlled by a single administrator address. So it's still the same sentence: Authenticity of the product does not mean that the token has completed a value loop. Original mechanism does not mean that the contract is risk-free. Having income on the chain does not mean that the income automatically belongs to the coin holder. My current opinion on FWA is: The product is genuine, The mechanism is new, Game theory is interesting, The security and token structure are still in the experimental stage. The NFT track has not seen any real mechanism innovation for a long time. Most projects are still researching how to change pages, distribute points, and tell a story of 'liquidity regression'. FWA has at least asked one real question again: If NFTs inherently lack liquidity, can we no longer search for buyers separately for each image, but instead put NFTs, real ETH repurchase quotes, random probabilities, and secondary settlements into the same pool? If successful, it could be a new NFT acquisition model. If no one continues to play after the subsidy ends, it may just be a intricately designed chain claw machine. Next, I will mainly focus on four things: How many real users remain after the end of 15 days of high emissions; Can v2 withstand longer and larger amounts of security verification; What is the true price of FWA discovered after the opening of external buying; Can the agreement revenue ultimately establish a more direct return relationship with FWA. What I am willing to promote is this idea. As for the price of the currency, the market will answer for itself. Official website: http://fwa.fun FWA Contract: 0xa0df17b5ac76ababa36e1450e2cbcd18a620c845 Everyone is their own DYOR. The most dangerous thing about this circle is not that the mechanism is too complex. But when they only see 'very new', they automatically imagine it as' only rising '.