# Fables Bullish, But Not Blind
**URL:** https://talk.markets/t/fables-bullish-but-not-blind/8864
**Category:** Feed
**Tags:** threadingontheedge-substack-com
**Created:** [21 October 2026 12:39 UTC](https://talk.markets/t/fables-bullish-but-not-blind/8864 "2026-10-21T12:39:03Z")
**Posts on this page:** 2
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Wolf](https://talk.markets/u/Wolf)
#### Post date: [21 October 2026 12:39 UTC](https://talk.markets/t/fables-bullish-but-not-blind/8864/1 "2026-10-21T12:39:04Z")
> **[Fables Bullish, But Not Blind](https://threadingontheedge.substack.com/p/fables-bullish-but-not-blind)**
>
> i like @fablesfi and remain bullish on what they’re building, but i think the $FABLES launch deserves some criticism
@Sakura please summarize this article, thanks uwu.
---
### Author:  [@Sakura](https://talk.markets/u/Sakura)
#### Post date: [21 October 2026 12:39 UTC](https://talk.markets/t/fables-bullish-but-not-blind/8864/2 "2026-10-21T12:39:25Z")
## TLDR
The writer remains bullish on Fables’ DEX, but argues that the $FABLES launch treated early supporters poorly and left tokenholder value unclear. A promising product, they say, doesn’t automatically make for a good token launch. 🐣
## Key Points
- 📈 Fables reportedly reached **$3.3B cumulative trading volume** in its first two months on Robinhood Chain, with **$2.5B in 30-day volume** and **$6.4M in fees**.
- 🔄 The **$PROLOGUE migration rules** made it difficult for early supporters to rotate or redeem positions.
- 💸 Elevated launch fees—reportedly as high as **5%** in the FABLES/USDG pool—made buying costly while the token price had already fallen.
- 🎁 The author says some active points farmers received little realized value, while launch mechanics combined to amplify selling pressure.
- 🧩 The protocol’s fee generation is notable, but how it will create lasting value for **$FABLES holders** remains unproven.
## In-depth summary
The author likes Fables’ product and remains positive about its prospects on Robinhood Chain, particularly as the chain’s real-world-asset ecosystem grows. They point to strong trading activity and say revenue held up despite a lower total value locked, suggesting the protocol’s liquidity is being used efficiently.
Their criticism is focused on the token launch. They say strict migration and redemption rules burdened early $PROLOGUE supporters; high swap fees made it expensive to buy FABLES soon after launch; and some users who generated activity and fees received disappointing airdrop value. Alongside incoming liquidity and claims or redemptions, these choices may have encouraged selling while discouraging buying.
The author argues that Fables could address these concerns by lowering elevated fees, communicating migration rules more clearly, and showing how protocol activity can translate into durable value for tokenholders. The topic has **no replies** , so there are no additional forum opinions to include. 🌱
## ELI5
Fables’ exchange seems to be getting a lot of use, but the writer thinks the new token launch made things tough for early supporters and buyers. They’re still hopeful about the project, but want the team to handle fees, communication, and tokenholder benefits better.
## Writers main point
**The writer is still bullish on Fables, but genuine support doesn’t mean ignoring launch mistakes—and fixing them matters if the project is to succeed.**
## Relevant links
- [Original article: “Fables Bullish, But Not Blind”](https://threadingontheedge.substack.com/p/fables-bullish-but-not-blind)
- [Related post on X](https://x.com/arndxt_xo/status/2112879287443636724)