2025-12-24 05:24:46

The recent restructuring of ORDER's incentive program is shaping up to be a significant turning point—potentially a major win or a major test for the platform. Last month marked a notable shift in how rewards are distributed. Previously, the system was straightforward: a fixed monthly allocation of ORDER tokens went to the top 50 performers. Now? It's a different game entirely. The new model ties rewards directly to 5% of monthly protocol fees. This change fundamentally alters the economics. Instead of a predetermined token pool, participants now compete for a slice of actual platform revenue. For some, this could be more lucrative if fees surge. For others, it introduces uncertainty. The stakes feel higher, the mechanics more dynamic. It's the kind of campaign redesign that separates projects thinking long-term from those chasing short-term hype.

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.

9 Likes

Reward
9
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

BTCRetirementFund

· 12-25 08:57

This reform is quite aggressive, changing from fixed allocation to fee-based linkage, which indeed increases risk. The real positive factor still depends on traffic; if fees don't increase, it's like cutting off participants. I'm a bit skeptical that this is about screening players, leaving long-term believers and driving away short-term traders. If ORDER makes the right move here, it will take off; if not, the project could fail. Honestly, we still have to trust that the team can boost trading volume.

View OriginalReply0

MintMaster

· 12-24 05:54

Damn, this overhaul directly flipped the underlying logic... Tying fees to the system sounds great but also tests your mental resilience too much.

View OriginalReply0

ChainDetective

· 12-24 05:52

This approach is a bit harsh; linking fees directly shifts the risk onto participants... It might be good for those who are genuinely working, but those slackers probably won't be able to sit still.

View OriginalReply0

degenonymous

· 12-24 05:46

Can this reform truly win people's hearts? It feels quite risky. --- The revenue sharing sounds good, but what if the platform has no traffic? That would be a joke. --- Changing from a fixed pool to a floating income is a bit crazy... If you bet right, you make a fortune; if you bet wrong, you're doomed. --- Basically, it's shifting the risk to participants. The project team is pretty clever. --- Short-term players will be crying their eyes out. Now, it really takes some effort. --- The real highlight is whether the subsequent fees can steadily increase; otherwise, this reform is just a joke. --- The screening mechanism for long-term believers? Hold on, isn't that just a way to justify rug pulls? --- How is the 5% protocol fee calculated? Is it transparent or not? I'm worried there might be some tricks. --- Finally, it's not just giving out tokens in a simple and crude way. This approach feels right.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-a606bf0c

· 12-24 05:45

Hooking fees are quite aggressive; only true long-term players can make money.

View OriginalReply0

gas_fee_therapist

· 12-24 05:36

This reform is intense; the costs are directly linked and have maximized uncertainty, betting on whether the platform can really attract funds.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropHunterXM

· 12-24 05:28

Oh no, now that the fees are linked, it really has become a gambling game... --- Fixed allocation changed to a 5% fee distribution? It depends on whether the platform can really increase the trading volume. --- Long-term holders are laughing, while short-term players are crying. --- Uncertainty is something that some people love to death while others fear to death. --- ORDER's move is probably to eliminate those trying to mix the fish eyes with pearls. --- When fees go up, you make money; when fees fall, you go Rekt. The risk is indeed a bit large. --- In plain terms, it's about tying the interests of participants to the platform; whether it's smart or a scam will depend on future performance. --- Although the previous fixed pool was transparent, this model at least gives those who really work a chance to turn the tables.

View OriginalReply0