Ok, please be aware that i'm just playing around here; thinking loudly. Tis is not to be taken too seriously and not aimed at a specific usecase now, but could evolve in that direction.

What if the token can also be seen as a negative thing? Holding a token would be an obligation, not an advantage. A possible scenario could be like this:

The tokens are auctioned off as described, but it's a negative auction: users pay fees not to get the token.

For every block or number of blocks, a token is sent to the account which paid the smallest fees. Token holders are obligated to forge blocks, otherwise they are penalized with a negative interest: If the account hasn't been online within a certain number of blocks, the token is burned and a percentage of the holdings is substracted from the account. Additionally, they are not allowed to spend coins held in an account with a token. Accounts may lose the token in three ways:

- After a certain number of blocks, the token is burned automatically and the account is penalized by losing a percentage of its holdings.

- The user may burn the token for a fee

- The user forges a block.

Forgers/minters/miners earn the fees, penalties and so on a block holds, but also pass the token to the adress which received the transaction with the smallest fees within the block they forged.

In this scenario, some users might want to get the token to earn fees, while others don't want it, because they don't want to keep their wallet online.

To prevent tokens endoing up in empty accounts, the token is sent to the receiver of a transaction, not the sender. While this may seem like a penalty for something the user didn't do at first glance, the penalty is rather small and can be seen as part of the transaction fee.

Now, an obvious problem may be, that those who want to earn interest spam the network with small transactions without fees to earn as many tokens as possible. There are some remedies against that, though:

- A minimum transaction fee may be set in place.

- Those forging blocks still have an interest to earn fees, so they would probably not choose transactions without fees.

- depending on the system, spamming the network with small transaction may actually be a good thing. If you look at Iotas tangle, It works better the more transactions are made. I'm not too familiar with Iotas structure, but you could imagine a system, in which different kinds of transactions exist. Token holders/forgers may pose as witnesses, similar to Byteballs system, rather than actual forgers, maybe.

Anyway, this are just some thoughts for now, may have more later.