Congratulations to @ FLock_io for launching on the Upbit exchange. I would like to take this opportunity to talk about FLock's recently launched gmFLOCK mechanism. Why is gmFLOCK a worthwhile exploration to pay attention to in the current context where AI and DePIN projects are generally facing unsustainable tokenomics? Let's first take a look at the current situation. Most AI and DePIN projects have fallen into a classic "death spiral": in the early stages of project launch, they attract computing power and users through high mining rewards, but as miners continue to engage in "mining and selling" behavior, token prices continue to decline, which in turn affects mining profits and ultimately leads to the loss of computing power and ecological shrinkage. The fundamental problem with this model is that traditional incentive mechanisms treat everyone as an equal participant. Short term arbitrage and long-term build enjoy the same mining weight, but bear completely different risks and contributions. The result is that those who are truly optimistic about the project have to bear the continuous selling pressure brought by those fast in and fast out players. The gmFLOCK mechanism of FLock attempts to break this dilemma, with the core idea of "time cost for mining weight": Specific mechanism: Users pledge FLOCK to generate non transferable gmFLOCK, and the longer the lock up time, the higher the gmFLOCK multiplier obtained. The basic ratio is 1:1, but after locking the warehouse for more than 30 days, an additional 0.006 gmFLOCK will be obtained for each additional day of locking, with a maximum of 3.01 times for 365 days. Weight Function: gmFLOCK directly determines your mining weight and affects the FLOCK share you receive from the reward pool. Simply put, the longer you are willing to lock up, the more rewards you will receive. What are the benefits of doing this? One is natural screening of users. Those who only want to fast in and fast out arbitrage will definitely give up when they see that they want to lock up their positions for a long time, leaving only users who truly believe in the long-term value of FLock; The second is to enhance the utility of tokens in the ecosystem. Through the gmFLOCK mechanism, FLOCK plays a more "production tool" role in the platform; The third is to provide long-term supporters with more rewards. In the case where the total reward remains unchanged, long-term lock ins obtain a larger share through higher weights, which is actually a short-term participant "subsidizing" long-term builders. Of course, absolute innovation cannot be considered, as the logic curve of "locking time for weight" has long been used. But applying this mature mechanism to AI training scenarios by gmFLOCK is indeed an interesting attempt. In my opinion, it provides a "soft constraint" locking scheme where users retain the right to choose, but different choices correspond to different benefits. And the design of soul bound avoids secondary market speculation, allowing incentives to truly return to contributions to the ecosystem. But it cannot be said that there are no challenges at all. The long-term effectiveness of the gmFLOCK mechanism ultimately depends on the value growth of the FLock platform itself. If the demand for decentralized AI training cannot form a scale, even the best incentive mechanism will be difficult to maintain in the long run. Therefore, this is particularly suitable for projects that are currently undervalued and have confidence in their future growth. It is worth mentioning that on the day before Upbit went live, the FLock Foundation pledged 10 million FLOCK tokens and chose to lock up for 365 days. It is not difficult to see that the FLock team still has strong confidence in future growth.