There's a simple way to measure whether ve-directed emissions on any DEX are actually working. Compare volume share to fee share for the top pools and you get your answer Here is what I mean: If a pool captures a disproportionate share of volume but generates almost nothing in fees relative to that volume, the emissions subsidizing it aren't buying economic productivity. they're buying traffic that doesn't convert @AerodromeFi's largest pair makes this visible. In july, it captured 41% of all volume but generated just $148k in fees out of $2.19M total, about 6.8%. The pool consuming the most emissions budget on the platform returns less than 7cents of every fee dollar the protocol earns (Using Aerodrome as my data analysis reference, is focused only on their (3,3) emissions model and not in aerodrome's relevance) So the gap between those two numbers is the cost of voter driven capital allocation ve-model voters technically optimize for the combination of fees + bribes they receive from the pools they vote for. But in practice, bribe yield dominates the signal. When major-pair fee margins are thin enough, bribes become the primary driver of where emissions land not fee productivity The (3,3) model clearly generates volume. But what i'll keep watching is whether voter incentives can evolve to weight fee productivity alongside bribe returns The most useful metric that could emerge here could be fees generated per unit of emission directed to a given pool. Once that ratio is visible and trackable, voters and protocols have a cleaner signal than volume or bribes alone Until that surfaces, the gap stays open and the protocol's largest cost line keeps funding its lowest margin liquidity h/t: @artemis, @DefiLlama for data.