2025-12-26 13:24:19

I recently came across a project and want to discuss whether its logic is sound.

The project's basic setup is a total issuance of 21 trillion, with a daily deflation rate of 3.6%, of which 1.8% is burned directly and another 1.8% is distributed to LP holders as rewards. So far, the burned amount has reached 635.28 trillion, and the locked amount is 925 trillion. From a tokenomics perspective, this dual-deflation design attempts to balance scarcity through burning and incentivize liquidity providers.

More notably, the development team has relinquished contract permissions, meaning there is no possibility of human intervention in the future—completely driven by the community and market forces. At the same time, the project has no standalone app or dApp ecosystem, operating in a fully decentralized manner.

This architecture is relatively restrained in the current crypto market. The deflation mechanism itself is not new, but whether it can attract liquidity providers to continuously participate in LP mining ultimately depends on whether the token value can remain stable. What are your thoughts?

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

10 Likes

Reward
10
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

ruggedNotShrugged

· 12-26 13:53

Abandoning contract permissions sounds very decentralized, but what I care more about is whether this coin has real application scenarios. Otherwise, it’s all for nothing even if it’s scarce.

View OriginalReply0

StakeTillRetire

· 12-26 13:52

Sounds good, but I care more about actual user numbers. Just having deflation and burning without users is pointless.

View OriginalReply0

RebaseVictim

· 12-26 13:50

Decentralization is an interesting step, but to be honest, I've seen many deflationary coins, and only a few can really survive.

View OriginalReply0

HashRateHustler

· 12-26 13:46

Giving up contract permissions is indeed a bold move, but to be honest, it still depends on whether the price can hold up.

View OriginalReply0

just_here_for_vibes

· 12-26 13:40

The destruction is almost 635 trillion, which is a bit scary at this speed. However, giving up contract permissions is quite restrained. I'm just worried that if no one steps in to buy later, the price will crash.

View OriginalReply0

QuietlyStaking

· 12-26 13:33

These numbers look quite intimidating, but giving up contract permissions is indeed a rare move. Fundamental value support is the key; no matter how aggressive the burn, if no one is willing to buy, it's all pointless.

View OriginalReply0