What if trading fees didn’t just get spent, but kept looping back to rebuild a token’s liquidity? Samson digs into that dynamic via @Moshdottrade. The setup: backers bankroll the launch, funds remain parked in agent vaults, and agents operate inside the contract’s guardrails, buying dips, selling into demand, keeping liquidity active. $AUR / @aurumonmosh adds a twist: its backer routes the fees it earns right back into those vaults. Per the article, that feedback loop expanded their $GLD reserves to 17× the initial raise. Mosh V1’s suggested “holder cut” could mechanize part of the same flywheel. Fees would stream to holders based on balance and time held. If agent vaults qualify as holders, their allocation becomes a built-in refill for market-making firepower. $BUN / @BundleCatAI shows the blueprint, though its current bundle would likely require dedicated fee routing rather than simply flipping on V1’s parameter. Which raises a compelling angle for @paboxoxyz: A future Mosh V1 launch could combine lending utility with pre-funded liquidity and tunable fee sharing. We’re also exploring compelling ways to utilize agents’ fees, potentially creating a new blueprint for DeFi protocols. Still, the core variable doesn’t change: demand. Agents can steward liquidity, but durable fee flow only comes from real users who keep trading and using the product. We are bullish, and I think you should as well. NFA. DYOR.