2026-01-17 03:24:04

FOREST pulled off an impressive $73 million ATH run, but here's what caught everyone's attention: the distribution mechanism lacked a proper fee-capture model. That's where SAN changes the game.

Unlike its predecessor, SAN is architected to actually reward holders through fee collection. Every transaction feeds back into the ecosystem, creating a tangible incentive structure that's missing from many comparable tokens.

The difference? One climbed the charts without utility backing the token economics. The other bakes revenue sharing into its DNA. If you're comparing tokenomics, this fee-collection feature is the kind of differentiator that separates projects riding hype from those building sustainable models.

Worth watching how high SAN can push on the back of this utility play.

FOREST1,48%

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

14 Likes

Reward
14
8
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

ContractBugHunter

· 17h ago

Another one claiming to have a fee model, but only after going live did we realize the contract is riddled with vulnerabilities... The FOREST hype was indeed strong, but can SAN's revenue sharing model really work? Let's wait for the follow-up audit report.

View OriginalReply0

EthMaximalist

· 23h ago

Forest Napo is purely hype, with no real economic model backing it. Looking at SAN's fee capture design now, it's indeed impressive.

View OriginalReply0

WenMoon42

· 23h ago

Wait, is FOREST's recent surge just hype? Without a real fee model supporting it... SAN really got it right this time, with every transaction flowing back into the ecosystem. That's how tokenomics should be designed.

View OriginalReply0

MevHunter

· 01-17 03:47

SAN's fee-capture mechanism is indeed much more reliable than FOREST's. It's finally good to see a project taking tokenomics seriously.

View OriginalReply0

OfflineValidator

· 01-17 03:42

Wait, that wave of FOREST was just pure hype... SAN's fee-capture design really hit the mark; now it's clear how to make the token survive.

View OriginalReply0

SatsStacking

· 01-17 03:32

ngl FOREST's wave is indeed fierce, but without a fee model, it's just a paper tiger... SAN's revenue sharing approach sounds much more reliable.

View OriginalReply0

FOMOmonster

· 01-17 03:31

The Forest wave was indeed fierce, but lacking a fee model is a fatal flaw... San's design idea is quite good; at least the tokenomics seem more solid.

View OriginalReply0

OnChainDetective

· 01-17 03:28

ngl, that $73M ATH screams suspicious activity detected—classic pump pattern without real utility backing. transaction data on FOREST shows zero sustainable fee mechanics, typical rugpull signature imho. SAN's fee-capture architecture is intriguing though... traced through multiple hops and the holder distribution actually makes sense statistically. worth monitoring the wallet clustering tbh

Reply0