Determining whether a platform can go far actually involves a very practical question: what is its revenue model, and is it reasonable? Many NFT markets initially attract users with subsidies, and later switch to charging fees, which immediately distorts the user experience.

@spaace_io's fee structure is actually more restrained; it doesn't hide costs in places you can't see.

Through a Transparent Fee Structure + Dynamic Fee Adjustment, each transaction fee is clear and predictable, and it adjusts dynamically based on market activity and liquidity conditions, rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. This is very important for frequent traders—you can calculate in advance whether a trade is worth it, rather than discovering after the fact that costs exceeded expectations.

More importantly, the platform's revenue isn't just siphoned away unilaterally; it is redistributed back to participants and the ecosystem through a Revenue Redistribution Mechanism. This makes fees no longer just a loss, but more like providing momentum for the entire market. The money you pay doesn't simply disappear into the platform's accounts.

The underlying logic of this business model is actually quite simple: the platform needs to survive, but it can't rely on squeezing users dry. Spaace seems to be trying to tie "platform revenue" and "user activity" together, rather than pitting them against each other.

When a project dares to openly explain how it makes money, rather than just talking about its vision, it at least shows that it has a long-term plan. Whether it can grow big or sustain itself depends largely on this point.
@spaace_io @Bantr_fun @wallchain @cookiedotfun #Bantr #CookieDotFun #Wallchain