2026-01-11 13:31:11

A Practical Attempt at a Deflationary Model

The project adopts a relatively transparent mechanism design: a 3% fee is levied on both buy and sell transactions. This portion of the funds is 100% used for automatic buybacks and token burns, directly flowing back into the underlying liquidity pool. The trigger threshold is set at 0.1 BNB; once reached, the contract logic is executed automatically without any manual intervention.

This creates a closed loop — each transaction pushes some tokens into a black hole, and as trading activity increases, the circulating supply gradually shrinks. Holders theoretically benefit from the decreasing total supply, gaining relatively diluted rights.

The underlying logic is straightforward: the more frequent the transactions, the scarcer the tokens become; the longer the time span, the greater the mathematical space for holding value. To some extent, this is a mechanism design testing a hypothesis — whether it’s possible to align participants’ interests with ecosystem health through rule constraints.

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.

9 Likes

Reward
9
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

RunWhenCut

· 10h ago

Sounds good, but I'm worried it's just another buyback scheme --- 3% fee automatically burned, I've seen this logic too many times --- Black hole burning sounds great, but the key is trading volume. What if no one buys or sells? --- Deflationary model sounds nice, but in the end it's all about team effort and marketing --- Wait, triggered at 0.1BNB automatically? Is such a low threshold really reliable? --- Large appreciation potential for holders? Only if someone keeps buying consistently, haha --- Transparent mechanism doesn't matter; what's important is whether big players dump tokens --- I've seen too many deflation projects; surviving half a year with this model would be good --- The theory is perfect, but in reality, tokens often keep falling --- Closed-loop design is good, but I'm worried it's just a castle in the air --- Automatic buyback and black hole burning again, why do I always feel something's off

View OriginalReply0

TokenomicsTherapist

· 01-11 14:01

The paper logic looks good, but I'm worried the trading volume can't keep up. Can a 3% fee sustain the market? It depends on actual activity. Black hole destruction sounds appealing, but the real test is whether it can withstand the initial quiet period. It's both deflationary and automatically repurchasing, sounds like a perfect mechanism... until the token price drops. Have you calculated how long it takes to trigger 0.1BNB? Feels a bit optimistic. Automated contracts are a plus, but will holders really wait for the mathematical space to appear? This model depends on whether popularity can be sustained; without trading volume, everything is pointless.

View OriginalReply0

AllInAlice

· 01-11 14:01

Hey, this 3% burn mechanism is pretty interesting, but I'm just worried that trading volume won't keep up. More people means more burning; fewer people means an air coin. For projects that rely on black hole effects to pump, I usually check the team's credibility. Auto buyback sounds great, but the biggest fear is that the initial hype fades, leading to a cliff-like drop in trading. A good mechanism doesn't necessarily mean it's profitable; I've tried many deflationary strategies like this. Ultimately, it still depends on who takes over the position. Feels a bit like gambling that trading volume will stay hot forever.

View OriginalReply0

GasFeeNightmare

· 01-11 14:00

It's both deflationary and a burn, sounds great, but I'm just worried it might end up being another form of a worthless coin.

View OriginalReply0

OnChainArchaeologist

· 01-11 13:51

3% buyback and burn, sounds very sexy, but can such high transaction fees really attract people to trade? --- Another deflationary dream, let’s see how long it can last --- Is the black hole mode really not tiring? Change it up --- A beautiful mechanism is beautiful, but I’m worried it might just be a disguise for rug pulls --- Oh wow, I’ve seen at least ten projects do the buyback logic like this --- Burning with every transaction sounds great, but are holders really making money? --- 0.1BNB triggered, feels too trivial, can't really generate much buzz --- Deflation ≠ appreciation, some people just can’t get this concept --- I just want to know how long this thing can survive, betting on five Yuzu --- Rules constrain participant interests to align? Ha, I’ve heard too many of these statements

View OriginalReply0

not_your_keys

· 01-11 13:48

It sounds like a beautiful circular design, but the real test is still ahead. I've seen this kind of automatic destruction scheme a few times; the key is whether trading volume can support it. Will the 3% fee scare people away? That's the real question. Mathematically, there's no problem, but market psychology is really hard to predict. Tokens becoming increasingly scarce sounds great, but what if no one trades? Honestly, I'm most concerned about liquidity—whether it will deepen further. How long this mechanism can run depends on whether continuous capital flows in the future. It feels like betting on trading activity; the betting method is a bit uncertain.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidityWhisperer

· 01-11 13:38

A 6% fee is still a bit harsh; it depends on how long the trading volume can support it. Sounds good, but I'm just worried it might turn out to be a "mathematically perfect but practically disappointing" story. The black hole destruction gameplay feels overused; the key is still to have genuine trading volume support. How about setting the threshold at 0.1 BNB? It seems too low and the effect might be average. Interest is piqued, but first we need to see the trading depth and the number of real users of this project. Another deflationary dream, hope this time it's not just a new trick to cut the leeks. A transparent mechanism is definitely a plus, but transparency ≠ profit-making. They've got a good plan, but I just don't know how long they can stick with it.

View OriginalReply0