➥ @MMTFinance made ve(3,3) feel less like a buzzword and more like an engine. Lock MMT → get veMMT → vote emissions where fees are real, so liquidity sticks to the ranges that matter. The Defiant even called out this alignment: LPs and (future) governance holders pull in the same direction, keeping depth around active prices. I sanity-checked the mechanics in their own docs: Momentum is a ve(3,3) DEX on Sui; voters capture fees/bribes while emissions follow volume, not idle TVL. That’s how you avoid “mercenary LPs” bouncing every week. And when LPs place capital, it’s CLMM ranges with tick granularity, capital concentrated where trades happen, tighter spreads, better fee capture. --- ❯ Voters: steer emissions toward high-fee pools → fees + voter incentives recycle back to lockers (flywheel). ❯ LPs: earn on concentrated ranges instead of blanket AMM exposure (more efficient per dollar). ❯ Reality check: ve(3,3) models work, but bad emissions can bloat or centralize governance, so tuning matters. --- Quick compare: vanilla v3 DEXs reward passive TVL; Momentum ties rewards to fee generation + votes, so depth clusters where execution is hottest. If you’re building, start small: lock a slice into veMMT, vote a pair with real fees, then watch next epoch’s emissions shift; LP a narrow range and track fee APR vs wider bands in pool stats. → Net: sticky liquidity isn’t magic; it’s incentives + CLMM math wired correctly. I’m watching how vote/fee ratios evolve as volumes scale. @MMTFinance