I'm forever a fan of onchain experimentation. CyberKongz just announced DEATHSTR, a protocol that takes a...different approach to the classic NFTStrategy flywheel. When NFTStrategy launched, people questioned whether the NFT component was really necessary, and perhaps rightfully so. It's a tax token that uses 80% of taxes to purchase NFTs, then relists said NFTs at a 20% premium and uses the proceeds of any sales to buy and burn the strategy token. For every 100 ETH of volume, the protocol takes 10 ETH in fees. 2 ETH goes to devs, and the goal is to turn the remaining 8 ETH into 9.6 ETH for a buyback and burn if the NFT can sell at a premium. In essence, the NFT serves two purposes: it's a chance to recoup some of the dev fees, and it's a marketing tool that taps into existing users (the NFT community) taking interest in the strategy token. TokenWorks takes the stance that the risk of the NFT not selling is worth the reward of recouping some of those dev fees. DEATHSTR doesn't list at a premium, it lists at a loss. Let's play with some imaginary numbers again: For every 100 ETH of volume, the protocol still takes 10 ETH in fees. 1 ETH goes to devs, and the remaining 9 ETH turns into 7.2 ETH for a buyback and burn assuming the NFT sells, which it should since it's listed under floor. It's a perpetual paperhand machine. It's strictly worse than just using the 9 ETH to buy and burn the token, and bypassing the NFT step altogether. CyberKongz is taking the opposite stance to TokenWorks: that the driving force between NFTStrategy's success is not recouping the dev fees, rather is lies entirely in the marketing tool. What DEATHSTR should do well is bring in community members, not from one NFT community, but from many. This is because every 3 days, holders vote on a new collection to target. So yeah, it's not as efficient as a token that just buys and burns itself, but it should in theory have more volume, and thus higher burns. At least that's the bet that the Kongz just made. Excited to see how it plays out.