been sitting with the Twin.fun fee split for a couple days now and the part that actualy stands out is how the two fees pull in different directions on purpose....
heres the mechanic. every Twin.fun trade triggers two separate fees, one to a protocol treasury, 0ne directly to the twin's creator. the protocol fee funds the broader OpenGradient ecosystem, the subject fee rewards the specific person whose twin is getting traded. theyre structurally distinct even though they fire on the exact same transaction....
two fees.two purposes....
what i think gets missed is why splitting the fee instead of routing everything through one treasury actually matters for behavior. a creator earning directly off their own twin's trading activity has a personal incentive to keep that twin engaging, separate from whatever OpenGradient does at the platform level. one fee aligns the protocol, the other aligns the individual....
i actualy like that this avoids the common trap where all platform fees funnel into one pool and individual creators see none of the upside from their own popularity. OpenGradient built direct creator incentive into the transaction itself....
but i wont pretend dual fees solve creator incentive completely. a twin that never gets popular generates almost nothing for its creator regardless of how the fee split is structured, the split only matters once trading volume actually exists....
watched a content platform once route every single fee through one corporate pool, creators got a tiny cut months later if anything, no direct connection to their own audience's actual activity....
what i still cant resolve is whether the protocol fee and subject fee percentages are fixed network-wide or whether they can vary by twin or by creator agreement??
@OpenGradient $OPG
#OPG
heres the mechanic. every Twin.fun trade triggers two separate fees, one to a protocol treasury, 0ne directly to the twin's creator. the protocol fee funds the broader OpenGradient ecosystem, the subject fee rewards the specific person whose twin is getting traded. theyre structurally distinct even though they fire on the exact same transaction....
two fees.two purposes....
what i think gets missed is why splitting the fee instead of routing everything through one treasury actually matters for behavior. a creator earning directly off their own twin's trading activity has a personal incentive to keep that twin engaging, separate from whatever OpenGradient does at the platform level. one fee aligns the protocol, the other aligns the individual....
i actualy like that this avoids the common trap where all platform fees funnel into one pool and individual creators see none of the upside from their own popularity. OpenGradient built direct creator incentive into the transaction itself....
but i wont pretend dual fees solve creator incentive completely. a twin that never gets popular generates almost nothing for its creator regardless of how the fee split is structured, the split only matters once trading volume actually exists....
watched a content platform once route every single fee through one corporate pool, creators got a tiny cut months later if anything, no direct connection to their own audience's actual activity....
what i still cant resolve is whether the protocol fee and subject fee percentages are fixed network-wide or whether they can vary by twin or by creator agreement??
@OpenGradient $OPG
#OPG