2026-01-20 01:28:48

Does burning 20% really support the price increase? Can LISTA's deflationary logic stand the test?

In just one day, the total supply was cut from 1 billion to 800 million. It sounds impressive, but the story behind it is far from simple. What truly determines the price trend is the token release schedule in the coming months.

The current situation is as follows: by January 2026, only 7.5% of LISTA is in circulation, with about 796 million tokens still locked in contracts. Each month and quarter, new unlocks flood the market. This is the real price ceiling—no matter how aggressive the burn, it can't stop the continuous release pressure.

Two core issues are at play here. First, can the ecosystem generate enough revenue to cover the inflation from newly released tokens? Second, can the lock-up rate of veLISTA (currently around 38%) stay stable?

Once lock-up incentives decline, a wave of unlockings may trigger. The key is whether the ve model can continue to attract long-term holders. Honestly, compared to Curve's tightly bound voting and rewards, LISTA on the BNB Chain has an early-mover advantage, but its moat isn't that deep.

Another concrete indicator worth monitoring is the slippage in the LISTA/BNB trading pair on DEXs. If slippage exceeds 0.5%, be cautious—it indicates that large sell-offs could directly impact the price. Liquidity risk is no small matter.

Don't forget about compliance. Yield tokens might be classified as securities in some regions, and the RWA sector involves traditional financial regulations. This uncertainty is quite significant.

To assess LISTA's true value, focus on these three data points: first, the monthly token unlock volume versus net inflow on exchanges; second, the protocol's earnings (lending interest + stablecoin trading fees) relative to the token inflation rate; third, how revenue will be allocated after multi-chain expansion.

So, the question is—are you holding long-term because of the burn, or because of the actual protocol income generated by LISTA? Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments.

Risk warning: The tokenomics model may change, and unlocks could cause market volatility. Please do your own research before investing.

LISTA-0.65%

BNB0.45%

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.

14 Likes

Reward
14
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

MerkleTreeHugger

· 2h ago

Destruction is just a smokescreen; what really matters is unlocking pressure. I'm a bit tired too, repeatedly hearing the destruction story. How long can a 38% lock-up rate last? I think it's risky. Compliance is indeed a hidden danger; don't end up being classified as securities in the end. Protocol revenue not keeping up with inflation is the real Achilles' heel.

View OriginalReply0

NftBankruptcyClub

· 2h ago

Destroying tokens looks satisfying, but monthly dumps are the real pain. Compliance risks are the biggest threat; securities classification is a direct game over. A 38% lock-up rate can't last long; once there's a dip, the incentive disappears. Basically, it's a valuation game; if ecosystem income can't keep up with inflation, it's all for nothing. Keep a close eye on the 0.5% slippage line, always ready for big players to run away.

View OriginalReply0

OnchainDetective

· 2h ago

Destroying this set of claims is too deceptive; once the subsequent release volume comes out, it will still be a dump. Let's see if the LISTA ecosystem's income can keep up with inflation, otherwise it's just a failed project. A 38% lock-up rate is a bit虚 (虚 means "虚" which can be translated as "虚" or "虚" depending on context, but here it likely means "虚" as in "虚假" or "虚高" which means "虚高" or "虚假" in English. So, "虚" here can be translated as "虚高" or "inflated" or "illusory". For clarity, I'll translate as "inflated" or "illusory".) The unlocking wave could come at any time. Liquidity needs to be closely monitored; if slippage exceeds 0.5%, I'll run. It seems no one cares about compliance risks, which is the biggest hidden danger. The true price determinant is protocol revenue, not coin burning shows. The ve model's moat isn't as deep as imagined, not comparable to Curve's. The multi-chain distribution gameplay isn't clear yet; the uncertainty is too high. Token unlock volume's impact on exchange net inflow needs to be reviewed monthly. Instead of reading about burning news releases, it's better to see how much money was actually earned.

View OriginalReply0

PonziDetector

· 2h ago

Destroying that little bit of stuff can't withstand the monthly unlocking pressure. What's the logic behind that? If the protocol income can't keep up with the inflation rate, it will eventually collapse. Let's wait and see. Once liquidity issues arise, slippage will spike straight up. By then, you'll want to exit but can't. The 38% lock-up rate of veLISTA looks risky. When incentives drop, a wave of unlockings will follow. Honestly, it's the old routine, nothing new. It's stuff that even Curve has gotten tired of playing with.

View OriginalReply0

DaisyUnicorn

· 2h ago

No matter how beautiful this flower is destroyed, it cannot stop the flood of 796 million coins being released behind it... Basically, it's cutting with the left hand and releasing with the right hand.

View OriginalReply0

ChainProspector

· 2h ago

Destroying this set of claims is a bit superficial; the key is whether the subsequent unlocking rhythm can be maintained. Ve model, right... To be honest, Curve's approach has been overused on the BNB chain for a long time. Can LISTA come up with new tricks? A 38% lock-up rate also seems risky. Once the incentives falter, a wave of unlocks will follow, and this risk is a bit high.

View OriginalReply0