Token and contracts
Buyback vault
The intended destination for creator fees: a contract that accumulates them, buys $LIQTERM back from the market and burns what it buys.
Planned No vault contract exists. No buyback and no burn has ever taken place. Parts of the mechanism also depend on how the launchpad’s fee routing actually behaves, which has not been confirmed against the contract itself.
Where the fees come from
Launching on pons earns the creator a fee on trading activity. Today that fee accrues to the creator wallet and is claimed manually. The design points it at a contract instead.
Fees do not flow continuously. They accumulate and have to be claimed, so a vault would receive funds in occasional lumps rather than as a steady drip. Any description of “revenue flowing to the vault” should be read with that in mind.
The split Planned
Incoming creator fees are divided 50/50. Half goes to the vault, to buy $LIQTERM back from the market and burn it. The other half goes to the team that builds and runs the service.
The ratio is decided. What is not yet decided is everything about the contract that would enforce it — it does not exist, and no fee has ever been routed this way.
How a buyback would work Planned
- Creator fees accumulate as ETH in the vault contract.
- The dev wallet signs to trigger a buyback.
- The contract swaps ETH for $LIQTERM and burns the tokens it receives.
- A reserve is kept back to cover gas, so the vault can never leave itself unable to act.
The size of that gas reserve, and whether it can be adjusted later, are Undecided.
Why it has to wait for graduation
$LIQTERM is still on the bonding curve, so there is no Uniswap pool to swap against yet. The route a buyback would take is different before and after graduation, and fee-redirection behaviour on the launchpad is documented for the post-graduation state.
Building the swap-and-burn machinery before any of that is settled would be writing code against assumptions.
Why it is not being built yet
There is a more basic reason than the technical one. Accumulated creator fees are currently very small — far too small for a buyback to have any effect on anything.
Building, auditing and deploying a swap-and-burn contract to move an amount that rounds to nothing would be effort spent on the appearance of a mechanism rather than the mechanism. The honest order is to let fees become meaningful first.
An alternative under consideration Undecided
The launchpad also supports distributing creator fees directly to holders pro rata. That is a different answer to the same question — returning value by distribution rather than by reducing supply. Whether to use one, the other, or both has not been decided.
The vault does not exist. No fees have been redirected, no tokens have been bought back, and none have been burned by this mechanism. Nothing here is a commitment to build it, a promise of value, or financial advice, and holding $LIQTERM gives you no claim on these fees.