The construction approach of this project has always been very clear—steadily expanding the ecosystem. After experiencing early fluctuations, the community foundation has been solidified. It is worth noting that the project team has put effort into liquidity management: major holders proactively injected nearly one hundred million in funds into the pool during the early stages, and subsequently the LP scale continued to grow. The token economic model adopts a dual-track system of burning and recycling—1.5% of each transaction is burned, and another 1.5% flows back into the liquidity pool. This design logic is quite interesting; burning continuously reduces the supply, while recycling ensures that the pool's liquidity does not dry up. From a defensive perspective, this mechanism gives the project a certain degree of risk resistance; regardless of short-term market fluctuations, burning and liquidity injection are ongoing. This model is relatively stable for investors who want to participate in long-term development.
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.
8 Likes
Reward
8
6
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
notSatoshi1971
· 18h ago
Damn, this dual-track design is really something. The combination of destruction and recycling is truly reliable.
View OriginalReply0
ProposalDetective
· 18h ago
Dual-track destruction and reflux, there's something there. But is a big player throwing in 100 million really just gambling on this mechanism?
View OriginalReply0
TaxEvader
· 19h ago
The destruction mechanism sounds good, but how many can actually stick to it? The key still depends on whether the big players continue to inject funds consistently.
View OriginalReply0
LiquidationSurvivor
· 19h ago
Wow, this dual-track design is really interesting. I've never seen so many details in the destroy + reflux approach.
View OriginalReply0
SquidTeacher
· 19h ago
The dual-track destruction mechanism is quite interesting this time, but a liquidity injection of one billion sounds a bit exaggerated.
This logic is definitely more reliable than some projects; destruction + recycling can stabilize the market.
Just want to ask, how is the risk resistance capability demonstrated? Let's wait for the next crash to see.
Long-term development? It depends on the project's subsequent execution, as anything sounds good on paper.
View OriginalReply0
New_Ser_Ngmi
· 19h ago
Burning + Reflow gameplay is indeed interesting; at least it's not just a pure money-grabbing scheme.
The construction approach of this project has always been very clear—steadily expanding the ecosystem. After experiencing early fluctuations, the community foundation has been solidified. It is worth noting that the project team has put effort into liquidity management: major holders proactively injected nearly one hundred million in funds into the pool during the early stages, and subsequently the LP scale continued to grow. The token economic model adopts a dual-track system of burning and recycling—1.5% of each transaction is burned, and another 1.5% flows back into the liquidity pool. This design logic is quite interesting; burning continuously reduces the supply, while recycling ensures that the pool's liquidity does not dry up. From a defensive perspective, this mechanism gives the project a certain degree of risk resistance; regardless of short-term market fluctuations, burning and liquidity injection are ongoing. This model is relatively stable for investors who want to participate in long-term development.