Yesterday, I studied the token launch platforms on Base and made a simple summary.

The focus is on three companies: o1, BaseStonk, and Stonks.

If we only compare the richness of functionalities, BaseStonk stands out more; if we compare the intuitiveness of the mechanisms, Stonks is easier to understand; o1 combines standardized issuance with anti-snipe measures at the opening.

However, having the most features does not mean that the mechanism is necessarily the best. Let's break it down specifically.

① o1: Standardized issuance, focusing on managing the opening

o1 directly establishes a Uniswap V4 pool, bypassing the traditional "internal trading—graduation—migration" process.

It allows choosing stock tokens as the trading pair on the other side. The transaction fees generated from buying and selling are then distributed to creators, the platform, and effective referrers.

A notable design is that there is a 20-second high-fee decay period at the opening, after which it drops to normal rates, using transaction costs to curb front-running. Developers can buy first in the issuance transaction without additional anti-snipe fees, but still pay normal fees. Official mechanism

My understanding: o1 first standardizes the issuance rules, then adds a speed bump at the opening.

However, a speed bump does not mean everyone starts from the same line; developers' first buy still needs attention.

② BaseStonk: Turning fees into a configurable toolbox

BaseStonk also directly opens a Uniswap V4 pool.

Its biggest feature is not "also using stocks as a liquidity pool", but that creators can configure trading taxes and distribute the income composition on the creator side to:

Holder dividends, various reward assets for stock purchases, buybacks and destruction, increasing liquidity, and the platform basket.

In simple terms, while others offer set menus, it offers a buffet. Issuance mechanism

This makes it more suited for projects that want to design "trading generates income, income returns to holders."

But the cost is also clear: more complex configuration, and besides trading tax, one must also consider the underlying pool fees, with verification required for dividend conversion and actual arrivals. The previously checked V6 contracts still retain some allocation and exemption management rights, which cannot be summed up as "all rules are unchangeable after launch." V6 source code

Its advantage is configurability, not that it has already proven to be safer.

③ Stonks: Mechanism more focused, centered around issuance, creator income, and platform token buybacks

Stonks uses Uniswap V3 with one-sided liquidity at the opening, and the LP positions are permanently locked, also without subsequent graduation and pool migration.

According to the current announced plan, transaction pool fees are distributed between creators and the platform; the platform share is then used for STONKEX buybacks and destruction, and operations.

Additionally, it supports developers' first buys and has designed airdrops and holder behavior records around FOMO rankings, but this does not equate to FOMO's official endorsement. Official mechanism

My understanding: Stonks does not pursue cramming all features in but presents the path "issuing token—trading—distribution—buyback" more intuitively.

It is more suitable for projects that emphasize launch experience and community communication, but simple rules cannot replace safety verification.

——

So, which mechanism is currently better? My answer depends on the issue you want to solve:

If you want to design stock dividends, multi-asset rewards, and complex revenue distribution, BaseStonk's tools are richer.

If you want a more intuitive path for creator sharing and platform token buybacks, Stonks is easier to understand.

If you value standardized issuance and clear anti-front-running rules at the opening, o1 is more worthy of study.

Additionally, looking at the launch data, o1 is far ahead, while others are supported by platform tokens, indicating that it's still very early.

I bought some BSTONK, with part of the holdings bought through FOMO addresses. Since the project parties are verified and have also deployed Base and Robinhood, if they come up with a big game changer, the odds for this platform token will be high enough. Do your own research.

By the way, if you haven't registered for FOMO, I suggest doing so:

https://fomo.family/r/duanwangye66

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。