The buyback and burn strategy of pons is quite different from stonk, which might lead to some misunderstandings. Let’s break down the differences between the two. As everyone knows, @ponsdotfamily uses 80% of protocol revenue for buybacks and burns, while @LaunchOnSF uses 60% of protocol revenue for buybacks and burns. But have you noticed? stonk’s burn rate consistently stays around 60% of protocol revenue daily, whereas pons’ burn rate sometimes exceeds 80% of protocol revenue, sometimes matches it, and recently has been noticeably less than 80%. So, what’s the issue? stonk’s operational wallet continuously and automatically claims fees, avoiding accumulation. It follows a high-frequency small-order rhythm, executing over a dozen small buyback orders per minute and bundling them to send to the burn address every few minutes. This ensures there’s almost no downtime—whatever ammo comes in gets fired out immediately. pons, on the other hand, requires manual multi-signature claims for the fees generated, and funds for buybacks often remain in the custody account. If the funds in the custody account aren’t claimed and transferred to the buyback allocator in time, the TWAP mechanism will result in fewer PONS being bought back and burned every 15 minutes. So, when more ammo comes in, more gets fired out; when less comes in, less gets fired out. However, if you look at the bigger picture, both approaches ultimately achieve the same goal: buyback and burn at the predetermined protocol revenue ratio. It’s worth noting that for both pons and stonk, the fee-claiming step hasn’t been decentralized yet. stonk has only achieved high-frequency automated claiming.