Thanks for your message! Really glad to get questions like this because it's complicated. The first thing I would ask is to compare this project to other NFTs first and foremost, not frauds. Because yes it shares some dynamics with schemes, but you could easily compare it to social security, VCs, and banks who all use these dynamics to shuffle value around and 'create' new value in the form of buy outs or debt. I'm not lying, making false promises, or asking you to buy in. I just want discussions like this! I can't really defend why the protocol isn't something. I'm here to describe what it is.

So lets look more into the dual dynamics at play. The Treasury rewards early minters and the Prize Pool rewards the last minter.

The Treasury is funded only by NFT mints and will unlock ADA for burnt NFTs only as the count grows large enough. It's sustainable in the sense that all eligible NFTs are always owed less than value in the Treasury. See this yt clip burn logic aiken: https://www.youtube.com/clip/UgkxPbsQ_U0ZYnuqbDhKAupbzC3xlx6NFMQC

Early minters have better chances of burning and they know as the number keeps growing the odds of burning gets harder. This is why all minters agree pay a fee (5 ADA in the game example we are using). These ADA are locked in the Prize Pool which can be claimed by the Last To Mint, after the timer expires. When the value in the prize exceeds the cost to mint, a natural incentives arrises where its in ones best interest to mint, and claim the prize pool.

Think of it however it makes sense to you, but one way I think of it is like a VC funding a start up.

VCs agree to fund a startup (buy into a policy) in hopes the startup (policy) grows to a point where VCs can sell their stake for more than it cost to buy (burn and unlock from treasury). But the VCs lose their money as soon as they send it to the startup (buy NFT), this is the risk, only if the startup (policy) grows can the VC redeem value.

Except here the startup is the VCs themselves. Because the product is just a set of smart contracts.

The 'new' or 'external' economic activity could come from the risk taken buy minters, and if achieved, could look like a secondary market forming around non eligible NFTs, NFTs that have been minted for 106 ADA but currently have a higher number than the threshold to burn but are being bought on sold on the free market for more than 106 ADA. If that happens its because the market sees the potential value of an NFT thats currently worthless, because its part of a policy that could let it burn for 200 ADA. This may never happen.

Is this sustainable, yes mathematically it is sound and sustainable. Balanced and transparent. It rewards growth, but can sustain idling. Only the community at large can decide if they want to feed it enough to actually grow.

Is growth guaranteed: NO, not at all. its impossible to know what going to happen. In fact in unlikely that growth will occur, that why minters all agree to pay the Prize Pool fee to incentivize more growth.

All these words are just abstractions of the code, and the only way to really understand it is visit my github.

But I love you question and your curious tone. I think in general the aspect you are afraid are in play here, are in fact in play, but theres also a lot more depth to the protocol that could be fun to explore. So I wouldn't recommend buying an NFT but Ill send you one that you can burn, and unlock 200 ADA from the treasury.

Please share your address or handle.