If you plan on playing the incentivization game on @MMTFinance, here's something you need to know👇🏽 Like Solidly, Aerodrome uses the ve(3,3) incentivization model to align all the players in an ecosystem. This approach is actually designed to make sure that everybody, from traders and investors to builders and founders, is actually working together for the benefit of the whole ecosystem. But the problem is this model actually has one major loophole people aren’t even looking at: liquidity inflow. Let me explain using Syndicate as an example. => An Aerodrome x Syndicate Problem The thing about Syndicate is that it had no price. They just created a pool and deposited 1% of the total $SYND supply there. Then they told people that if they want Syndicate, the only way to get it is to vote for the pool, and when you get it, you can LP and set the price. Sounds like a dream, right? But this actually created major problems for the protocol! Basically, the community was the one that set the price very high, and they kept on bidding it till it got to $2. Unfortunately, the Syndicate team couldn’t now provide liquidity with the price that the community has set. Because of the high activity on the pool, Syndicate was able to generate another $1m that was used for voting incentives in the next week. But they could no longer drop the 1% supply they did before. I’m sure the project got practically nothing from this whole process because for them to get something, they have to provide liquidity. The incentives were worth $20m, and the emissions they got from the pool are just roughly around $1m. There was no way the dump wasn’t going to happen So the incentive structure was unsustainable, and they couldn’t continue it beyond the first two weeks. So what’s the lesson here? It’s simple: Just like Aerodrome, there will be projects listed on Momentum post-TGE with incentives for farming. Good projects launching on the Momentum flywheel are important, but what is more important is the incentive x emission structure. The flywheel doesn’t actually care whether the project is “good” or not. The ONLY thing it cares about is how much emissions $MMT is giving out, because that is what will make people keep coming to farm those incentives. The goal is that a project depositing $1 in incentives should be able to get at least $1.5 in emissions rewards. But in a situation where the incentives are greater than the emissions, there’s nothing to play. And this is where I have some concern because the way I see it, Momentum’s FDV is good, but it is too low as at the time of writing this, and the price needs to come up. For this to happen, there has to be a very serious investment from @SuiNetwork . I’m talking about up to $10 million at least. The larger the emissions compared to the overall incentives, the more interesting it will be for traders. In situations like this, what traders do is they find token pools that are likely to attract a lot of investors because of the high emissions. and then front-run them by buying the token first and then waiting for the price to skyrocket before selling. So emissions have to be high to attract more trading liquidity. If this doesn’t happen, it’s just going to be a slow death for $MMT As you were