Gyggy.eth retweetou
As I understand it the SOL NFT flywheel is supposed to work like this: trading fees buy NFTs which get listed on Tensor at a multiplier. When NFTs sell for profit, revenue buys back and burns the band token, creating a self-reinforcing flywheel. But I think there's a fundamental flaw.
First 🚩observation: It shows "Token Extensions: FALSE" and uses the regular Token Program, not Token-2022. This means no transfer hooks, no transfer fees, no way to programmatically enforce fee collection.
My suspicion: Anyone can create a competing pool with lower fees (say 0.5% vs the official %). When traders sell, Jupiter would route to the cheaper pool for better execution. The official flywheel pool would collect zero fees.
But here's what really concerns me: When NFTs DO sell on Tensor and generate profits for buybacks, I suspect those buyback transactions also get routed through Jupiter to whichever pool has the best execution, likely the parasitic DLMM pools, not the official flywheel pool.
If this is happening, it means the protocol's own buyback mechanism is strengthening competing pools while the official flywheel pool slowly dies. The only price support would come from MLStrat's single-sided liquidity auto-buying, which looks like new STRATEGY launches propping up the MOTHER.
The NFT sales on Tensor would still generate real revenue, that part works. But I suspect that revenue flows to parasitic pool operators via buyback routing, not back into the intended flywheel mechanism.
I can't confirm this without diving into their smart contracts/flows or seeing more on-chain data. But if I'm right, this would be a critical architectural flaw with no easy fix.
Am I missing something? Has anyone else looked into this? Would love to be proven wrong here. NFA, DYOR.
English
