7. Critical Remarks

• Gap between declared and actual functionality. Public materials on the website emphasize the AMM DEX on the TON network and the native aggregator, while the Stone.fi whitepaper positions the project as a cross-chain solution built around DEX. This is not an outright error, but rather a “gap in expectations”: some of the declared functionality is still on the roadmap, not yet in stable production.

• Vesting: pressure windows and inconsistent descriptions. Major unlocks fall on months 12/24/36, which significantly increases supply. In addition, the documentation contains inconsistencies regarding vesting for the Team pool, complicating circulation forecasts.

• DAO Treasury may release supply into the market. After the 24-month lock-up ends, part of the DAO Treasury can theoretically enter the market. Without strict spending rules, this is an additional source of sell pressure.

• Buyback/burn depends on voting. Fees are indeed converted into STON, but the share allocated to burning versus incentives/grants is set by DAO. Parameter changes can substantially alter net demand for the token.

• Referral payouts reduce protocol net margin. In the new DEX version, referral rates are configurable. If set too high, a significant portion of fees goes to external addresses instead of buybacks/burns.

• Derivative tokens: value uncertainty. ARKENSTON and GEMSTON increase engagement, but their economic “usefulness” and burn/limit mechanics depend entirely on future DAO decisions. Without a clear policy, their value may remain diluted.

• Dependence on trading volume for sustainability. The revenue base is formed by trading fees. A drop in volumes quickly reduces STON buybacks and burn rates, while higher turnover supports the token. This is the key operational driver/risk.

• Liquidity and IL risk for LPs. During volatility or after farming campaigns end, liquidity outflows, higher slippage, and weaker fee flows may occur. Impermanent loss remains a persistent risk factor for liquidity providers.

• DAO governance risks. Low participation or weak processes (vote thresholds, timelocks, spending caps) increase the probability of decisions that amplify supply pressure or reduce transparency.

• Technological risks. Even with audits and bug bounty programs, risks remain for vulnerabilities in fee distribution, staking, and pool contracts — any error directly impacts circulation and token economics.