2026-01-17 08:30:38

I have an idea: this buyback and burn model can indeed create a chain reaction.

According to the current mechanism, destroying 0.1 billion tokens every minute, from another perspective, is like a continuous process of shrinking the circulating supply. Over time, the scarcity keeps increasing, and the supply side is gradually eroded.

The logic behind this design is actually quite clear: reduce the total supply → increase the unit scarcity → theoretically support the price. The key is whether it can be sustained and whether the market truly accepts this logic.

From a purely mechanical perspective, this is indeed more convincing than mere promises. But ultimately, it still depends on the project's fundamentals, ecosystem development, and market recognition.

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
10
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

SchrodingerAirdrop

· 01-20 02:03

Destroying 0.1b per minute sounds spectacular, but the key is whether the project has cash flow to support this thing.

View OriginalReply0

fren.eth

· 01-19 05:28

Hmm, the destruction mechanism sounds good, but sustainability is the key. Let's see how it develops later on.

View OriginalReply0

RugpullSurvivor

· 01-18 13:27

Burning 0.1b per minute? Sounds good, but whether the market accepts this logic is the key.

View OriginalReply0

LonelyAnchorman

· 01-17 21:59

Wow, it will take several years of sustained destruction speed to see any effect. Otherwise, if the project ends up disappearing, it will just become a joke.

View OriginalReply0

OnChainArchaeologist

· 01-17 09:00

This logic sounds good, but can continuous burning really support the price? Or is it just another script for harvesting the little guys again?

View OriginalReply0

HashRateHermit

· 01-17 08:55

Burning is burning, the key is whether the project team is actually putting in real money continuously; otherwise, no matter how beautiful this theory is, it's all nonsense.

View OriginalReply0

DefiVeteran

· 01-17 08:46

Hmm, continuous burning is indeed aggressive. I'm just worried that there might be no liquidity later, which could lead to a dump.

View OriginalReply0

EntryPositionAnalyst

· 01-17 08:37

Sounds good, but how long can the destruction rate of 0.1b/minute last? I'm worried it might end up being all for nothing...

View OriginalReply0

AlphaBrain

· 01-17 08:35

Destroying 0.1b every minute sounds good, but the key is whether the project team can really keep it up.