Noticed a bunch of folks throwing shade at this implementation—honestly feels shortsighted to me. Want to throw in my perspective: this execution was actually pretty solid, stronger than people give it credit for.

For context, I'm running $MET, which operates as a fully circulating token with built-in lockup mechanics and revenue sharing built into the model. We've been pushing over 100% APR to our stakers consistently since launching back in April. The tokenomics aren't theoretical—they're battle-tested.

The lockup schema paired with direct revenue distribution creates alignment that most projects completely miss. When your stakers are actually earning triple-digit returns from real protocol revenue (not inflated emissions), the incentive structure just works differently. You get long-term holders instead of mercenary capital.

Point is: dismissing well-designed token mechanics because they don't fit the latest narrative is how you miss what's actually functional in this space.