"Isn't ORE just another OHM?" There are some similarities after all. OHM's Model: • High APY (8,000%+) → Attracts stakers → Price up → More staking → Reflexive loop • Worked during 2021 bull → Collapsed spectacularly when growth stopped • "Decentralized reserve currency" narrative → Math that worked until it didn't ORE's Model: • High yields (~130% unrefined, ~23% staking) → Attracts miners → Revenue → Buybacks → Deflation → Price up → More mining • Working during current favorable conditions → Untested in prolonged bear • "Perfect store of value" narrative → Math that works with sufficient activity The reflexive loop structure is eerily similar. Both require continuous participation to maintain their core value proposition. The Critical Differences: 1. Yield OHM: • 8,000% APY paid entirely in newly minted OHM • Zero external revenue, pure dilution • Mathematically guaranteed to collapse without infinite growth ORE: • 20% ORE APY paid from 10% of buybacks (funded by mining fees in SOL) • 130% ORE APY paid from 10% refining fees (paid by claimers) • Real external value flowing in through mining fees 2. Fair Launch vs. VC Extraction OHM: Early investors and team had preferential allocations, accelerating collapse when they exited. ORE: 100% fair launch means no insider dumping, only whales and traders to contend with. Counterpoint: With ORE we all get rekt together if it collapses. Fair launch doesn't guarantee viability. 3. Entertainment Value OHM: Pure staking, zero entertainment beyond number-go-up. ORE: Strategic mining game with PVP/PVE, motherlode lottery, actual gameplay But: Most blockchain games die. Is ORE's game compelling enough to sustain activity for years without price appreciation? The Honest Assessment ORE is better designed than OHM in every measurable way: • Lower, more sustainable yields • Real revenue from external sources (SOL fees) • Fair launch eliminating insider extraction • Counter-cyclical mechanisms (unrefined APR increases during volatility) • Transparent, auditable mechanics But it has vulnerabilities: • Revenue requires sustained mining activity • Activity may decrease in unfavorable conditions • No proven entertainment value sufficient to sustain through multi-year bear • No major network effects or Lindy, yet TLDR: OMH was structured to collapse. It was mathematically impossible to sustain. ORE is theoretically possible to sustain if mining activity stabilizes at a level where revenue covers emissions or there is a strong enough base of accumulators. The real debate around ore is "Is ORE's value proposition compelling enough to sustain activity?" Which is the exact same question asked of all startups and businesses.