Why is this project attractive? Summarize the core highlights.



**Mechanism side**: Every buy and sell transaction automatically triggers a 3% fee that is used for destruction and buyback, which means the circulating supply is continuously shrinking. It sounds familiar, but the key is the authenticity of execution—chips becoming increasingly scarce, and in the long run, a situation where one coin is hard to find may indeed occur.

**Decentralization level**: Claims to be fully on-chain with no middlemen involved. This is very important for crypto assets.

**Holder structure**: No obvious large holders suppressing the price, and the chips are relatively dispersed. In this case, market fluctuations are more driven by consensus rather than manipulations by whales.

**Community role**: There is a group of believers participating in construction and promotion, which is often missing in many projects.

**Risk defense line**: The project team cannot unilaterally cut profits, leading to a higher degree of autonomy. Of course, risks always exist—improper operations by participants are a different matter.

The industry indeed needs projects like this to break some routines. Whether it can rebound quickly after a correction ultimately depends on market recognition and how far execution can go.
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.
  • Reward
  • 7
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
GateUser-4745f9cevip
· 01-08 06:14
The buyback and burn process is back again, but to be honest, not many actually execute it properly. Looking at this project daring to go for decentralization, it’s actually quite interesting.
View OriginalReply0
ImpermanentSagevip
· 01-06 16:18
How many times have I said that burning and buyback are the same? Few have actually implemented it properly... By the way, is this time real or fake? We'll have to see how the market develops later.
View OriginalReply0
0xTherapistvip
· 01-05 19:09
The destruction mechanism sounds good, but few projects that can actually implement it are truly reliable. Is this one trustworthy? The shrinking circulation volume isn't a big deal in itself; the key is to avoid turning into another pump-and-dump game. The dispersion of chips really hit home for me; without large holders suppressing the price, it's truly rare. Community building is more important than the mechanism; believers are the real moat. A 3% fee for destruction—sounds good, but execution is the real key, right? No middlemen? Then how does the team make money? Don't tell me it's charity. There are many projects like this, but only a few survive in the end. Let's see how it develops. Claiming to be decentralized sounds good; but in reality, no one wants to take responsibility. Who bears the risk?
View OriginalReply0
AirdropAnxietyvip
· 01-05 08:00
Sounds good, but I've heard the destruction and buyback scheme too many times. The key is whether the team can truly follow through... --- Decentralized holdings sound great, but the real test is—how long can the consensus last? --- Pure on-chain without middlemen? Okay, but only if the code is bug-free—that's the key. --- No big whales holding the price down? That makes it easier for panic to be artificially created. Don't be too optimistic. --- Having many community believers doesn't necessarily mean the project is solid. The key is whether it can survive the next bear market. --- Calling it a "scam" is too absolute, but risks always exist. That much is true. --- A good mechanism sounds nice, but execution is what determines life or death. It's hard to judge right now. --- I just want to know how big the pullback could be; whether it can rebound quickly will decide if I continue to follow. --- Decentralization is a good idea, but many projects hype this early on, and later they just become playgrounds for whales. --- A diversified holding structure can indeed reduce risk, and this is definitely stronger than those concentrated in big players' hands.
View OriginalReply0
OnchainGossipervip
· 01-05 07:57
Destroying and repurchasing have been talked about too many times; the key still depends on real cash execution... Can this time be different, and let the bullets fly a little longer?
View OriginalReply0
governance_ghostvip
· 01-05 07:53
The buyback and burn scheme is back... but this time there are no obvious big players, which is a bit interesting. Dispersing the chips sounds comfortable, let's see if it can be truly implemented without hurting people. Community believers in highly autonomous projects are indeed rare and worth observing. On the positive side, it's driven by consensus; on the negative side, it's easy to be influenced by public opinion. Let's see what happens next. The hardest part of this type of project is not the design, but sticking to the original intention without changing it.
View OriginalReply0
EthMaximalistvip
· 01-05 07:49
The buyback and burn mechanism is back again; it depends on whether it's genuine or not—don't let it be just PPT coins. Decentralization is indeed scarce, but everyone is saying that now. Has it been proven on-chain? Distributed holdings sound good, but the worry is that suddenly large transfers might appear later, revealing the truth. Such projects require time to verify; let's wait and see during the next bear market.
View OriginalReply0
  • Pin

Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)