NFT has fallen this far, yet there are still people not looking to bottom fish, but wanting to reinvent how NFTs are sold.
This project is called Fake World Assets, and the token is $FWA.
When I first looked at it, I was also confused.
ETH-backed position,
inverse weighting,
harmonic mean,
VRF allocation,
standing bid……
Each term alone looks like DeFi, but together they look like a finance professor, after a few drinks, designed an on-chain claw machine for NFTs.
Forget it, let me put it in simple terms.
What is the traditional NFT market selling like?
The seller says:
“This picture is worth 10 ETH.”
The buyer says:
“At most 2 ETH.”
Then the two people gaze longingly at each other across the floor price, neither moves.
The seller's NFT hangs for half a year without anyone buying, while the buyer continues to wait for a crash, and in the end, the trading volume is as quiet as a work group chat at three in the morning.
FWA has taken a different approach.
If you want to put an NFT into a pool, you can't just throw one picture in.
You must put in simultaneously:
one NFT,
and a backing of your own ETH.
This ETH is not given by the project party, nor is it from later users' funds.
It is locked in by the NFT holder themselves, representing:
“If someone draws my NFT but doesn't want it, I am willing to take it back with this ETH.”
So, to summarize in one sentence:
FWA is an NFT random trading pool where “every prize comes with a buyback offer.”
The buyer pays the current buying price of the pool, and Chainlink VRF randomly assigns an NFT on-chain.
After winning, the buyer has two options:
First, keep the NFT.
The NFT belongs to the buyer, and the original holder retrieves their locked backing.
Second, return the NFT to the original holder.
The buyer takes 85% of this backing, the NFT returns to the original owner, and the remaining part is collected by the protocol.
You cannot keep the NFT and take the backing at the same time.
This is like you going to operate a claw machine.
The problem with a regular claw machine is that if you grab a doll you don't like, you can only take it home to gather dust.
The dolls in FWA are different.
Each doll comes with a buyback slip that the original owner has prepaid.
If you like it, you take it.
If you don't like it, press the return button, and the original owner retrieves it with the ETH locked in advance.
But, and I mean but.
The most interesting part here is not the “can return,” but that the backing simultaneously determines the probability of the NFT being drawn.
The rules are quite counterintuitive:
the lower the backing, the easier it is to be drawn;
the higher the backing, the harder it is to be drawn.
For example, in the pool there are three NFTs:
A locked 0.01 ETH,
B locked 0.1 ETH,
C locked 1 ETH.
Most people will draw A.
C is hard to draw, but if it is really drawn, and you don't want to keep the NFT, you can choose to return it and take 0.85 ETH.
So the backing plays two roles:
one side is the buyback offer,
the other side is proof of rarity.
In the past, NFT projects would just claim their rarity with a line in the metadata:
“Universe-level SSR.”
Not with FWA.
If you want your NFT to be rarer and harder to be drawn, you can.
First, lock ETH.
Saying rarity doesn't work, put money where your mouth is.
What's smarter is that the buying price of the pool won’t be directly raised to 1 ETH just because there is an NFT with 1 ETH backing inside.
It uses a pricing method similar to the "harmonic mean."
Don't be scared by this term.
Translated into plain language, it means:
Low backing positions determine most of the buying price,
high backing positions are responsible for creating small probability big results.
So most of the time, you draw a lightly backed NFT.
Occasionally, you might hit a high backing position.
This is somewhat like blending the NFT market, claw machines, buyback agreements, and tail odds all into one.
So why would NFT holders want to participate?
Because once the NFT is placed in the pool, it is no longer just a static asset waiting for someone to take it.
As long as there are buyers initiating purchases in the pool, active positions can share transaction fees; high backing NFTs, being harder to draw, can theoretically stay in the pool longer; depositors and buyers can also earn $FWA incentives.
Of course, this is not a free lunch.
NFT holders also lock up their NFTs and ETH.
Once a buyer accepts the buyback offer, the original owner retrieves the NFT, but the corresponding backing will be used for settlement.
The buyer does not always make a profit.
Most of the time, what they draw is still a low backing position; if they choose to return the NFT, they can only get 85% of the backing; moreover, the backing only represents how much the original owner is willing to lock, not how much the NFT is truly worth on the open market.
Therefore, what FWA actually changes is not “how to make all NFTs rise in price again.”
It changes the very nature of trading itself.
The traditional market asks:
“Is there anyone willing to buy this specific NFT at this price?”
FWA asks:
“Is there anyone willing to pay the pool price to obtain a random NFT, while having a pre-financed exit option?”
It turns one-on-one buyers into pooled demand.
It turns simple listings into probability distributions.
It turns fictional rarity into a funding commitment that requires locking ETH.
It repackages the NFT market's most difficult liquidity problem into a game of probability and pricing.
This is what I find interesting about FWA.
It is not just another re-skinned OpenSea, nor is it just changing the color of the trading page, adding a rewards system, and then declaring a redefinition of NFTs.
It has truly redesigned:
how sellers enter the market,
how buyers buy,
how NFTs determine probabilities,
who provides the exit liquidity,
and where the protocol charges fees.
From a product perspective, FWA is not just pure PPT.
The contracts have already been deployed, and both the NFTs and ETH backing are genuinely locked on-chain; v2 also has actual buying and settlement processes.
However, I must note, but.
The mechanism is interesting, but that does not mean $FWA can be mindlessly surged.
FWA v1 did indeed experience a high-value security incident: an attacker exploited state changes before the random number callback to obtain a CryptoPunk.
v2 was redesigned to address this problem with FIFO queuing, random number caching, and settlement order, but so far I have not found a complete public report issued by a named auditing agency.
From the token level, it should also be viewed separately.
$FWA is indeed not just a casually distributed reward token: buyers and depositors can obtain emissions, and part of the purchase ancillary fees can also lead to protocol-driven FWA purchases.
But as of my research time:
external natural buying is still gatekept;
ordinary wallet transfers are restricted;
the proportion of main protocol revenue directed to FWA buybacks remains at 0%;
core parameters and trading entry are still controlled by a single administrator address.
So, the point remains:
the product is real, does not mean that the token has completed its value closure.
The mechanism is original, does not mean that the contract carries no risk.
On-chain income does not mean that the income automatically belongs to token holders.
My current view on FWA is:
the product is real,
the mechanism is new,
the game is interesting,
but safety and token structure are still in the experimental stage.
No real mechanism innovation has emerged in the NFT track for quite some time.
Most projects are still researching how to change a page, distribute a rewards system, and tell a story of “liquidity returning.”
FWA at least asks a real question:
If NFTs inherently lack liquidity, can we stop searching for buyers for each picture separately, but instead put NFTs, real ETH buyback quotes, random probabilities, and secondary settlements into the same pool?
If it works, it could be a new NFT acquisition model.
If no one continues to play after the subsidies end, it might also just be a very complexly designed on-chain claw machine.
What I will mainly watch next are four things:
After the 15 days of high emissions end, how many real users remain;
whether v2 can withstand longer periods and larger funding amounts for security validation;
what the true price discovery of $FWA looks like after external buying is opened;
whether the protocol’s income can ultimately establish a more direct return relationship with $FWA.
What I am willing to promote is this idea.
As for the token price, the market answers itself.
Official website: http://fwa.fun
$FWA contract:
0xa0df17b5ac76ababa36e1450e2cbcd18a620c845
Everyone should DYOR.
The most dangerous thing in this circle is not that the mechanism is too complicated.
But rather that just seeing “very new” leads to an automatic assumption of “only increases.”
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
