@MikeIppolito_ No revenue share is the problem. There is no incentive to have revenue share, when you can just dump a governance shitter that you minted and make more money. Buybacks are trash.
@StrategiesX Pretty easy to answer they will never buy again with risk a shitter they minted and dumped. They rather mint a new shitter give them an allocation even though the treasury financed them already and dump that new shitter then.
A interesting thing about $JAMKB is: if you know the architecture of Polkadot JAM and how everything is defined in Gray Paper, you'll understand why this is alerting and potentially damaging for $DOT.
ยง4.6 defines "a token which is native to the system". One token. That token is used in subsequent definitions. And $JAMKB fits all definitions cleanly.
If we follow the logic of Gavin's advocate in the Medium post, $DOT does not fit.
$JAMKB will be the L1 native token. $DOT will be L2.
What Gavin didn't say in the Medium post is: storage footprint (i.e. $JAMKB) is the only thing they currently haven't abstracted away from L1, hence the need for a native token. All other tokens are replaceable L2.
@sorpaas It is effecticely a rug financed by the DOT treasury. That tells you everything about crypto when one of the Ethereum Co Fouhders starts rugging. Tbh nothing else expected from such a person like he is.