2026-01-16 00:31:19

I looked at a token project, and its contract mechanism is no different from the popular 2.0 token model. The main characteristic is the high transaction tax setting, with few innovative highlights. Overall, such projects lack practical application support and carry a higher risk factor. Caution is advised when participating.

Another project adopts a dual mechanism of dividends and burn, with a relatively balanced overall design. It aligns with the current market expectations for token value capture. The mechanism logic is clear, and the profit channels are diverse. From a tokenomics perspective, this type of design is more sustainable and relatively more worth paying attention to.

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.

17 Likes

Reward
17
10
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

FantasyGuardian

· 14h ago

High tax rates that are obviously just a scheme to cut leeks, who still believes in that? Dividend and burn dual mechanisms sound much more reliable, at least logically consistent. The second project is indeed worth a deeper look. With such high transaction taxes, the probability of跑路 could reach ninety percent... A clear economic model is the real king, don't mess around with those flashy tricks. The dual mechanism design is definitely much better than simple taxation. Basically, it's about whether the mechanism can survive the next cycle.

View OriginalReply0

TokenStorm

· 22h ago

With such high transaction taxes, do you still dare to buy? I backtested 72-hour data on this type of project, and the probability of a surge is indeed 34%, but liquidation is even faster. I've seen the dividend burn scheme before; on-chain data shows whales accumulating chips, and the storm eye position is still the most comfortable. The risk coefficient of the first project looks uncomfortable, but I wouldn't believe no one is going all-in. The design logic of the latter is clear, but I'm just worried it’s another PPT economics. Honestly, those without real-world applications are just betting on whether the last person to leave is themselves.

View OriginalReply0

ForkItAllDay

· 01-17 13:52

It's the same old trick of cutting grass and reaping the benefits. High taxes just want to keep people around? Wake up. --- Dividend + Burn combination is definitely better than pure taxation. The mechanism design is still a bit clever. --- Basically, it depends on who can do a good job with the economic model; otherwise, it's all just talk. --- Very few projects that can actually be implemented, most are just showing off complex mechanisms. --- Hey, what was that project with the dual mechanism? It sounds pretty reliable. --- I've never seen a high-tax project that lasts long; they all cool off in three months. --- That's why my first step in evaluating a project now is to look at the economic model. Don't be fooled by flashy appearances.

View OriginalReply0

TestnetScholar

· 01-16 01:01

High tax rates that are obviously just a way to fleece investors—nothing new there. I need to look more into the idea of dividends + burning; it seems more reliable than just burning tokens alone. But in the end, it still depends on whether the team will actually follow through. No matter how good the mechanism is, if no one executes it, it's all pointless.

View OriginalReply0

GasFeeVictim

· 01-16 01:00

The high-tax approach is really outdated. It's embarrassing to still call it innovation. Dividends and burning tokens together are the right way. This design looks quite satisfying.

View OriginalReply0

HalfIsEmpty

· 01-16 00:59

It's the old trick of high taxes and cutting leeks again, really getting tired of it. The dividend burn mechanism is okay, at least logically consistent, but how will it be implemented? It still depends on the team.

View OriginalReply0

NoStopLossNut

· 01-16 00:55

High-tax projects are just the same old trick; I'm already tired of them. Dividend distribution plus token burn is indeed more reliable than simply cutting the leeks. The first project I will directly pass on; there's nothing interesting. The latter one is still worth studying, at least the logic is self-consistent. It's just the old routine to scam newcomers. Next time you encounter this, just report it directly.

View OriginalReply0

FUD_Vaccinated

· 01-16 00:55

It's the same old trick of cutting leeks again, trying to bleed users with high taxes? Not interesting. The second one actually has some substance; the combination of dividends and burning is quite clever.

View OriginalReply0

MetaLord420

· 01-16 00:43

It's the same old trick again, high taxes to harvest profits, truly impressive. The combination of dividends + burns indeed looks much more reassuring, definitely more reliable than those flashy gimmicks. The first project is purely a cash machine design, I won't touch it. As for the subsequent mechanisms, if you can see through the logic, at least the approach is serious.

View OriginalReply0

GmGmNoGn

· 01-16 00:32

Another high-tax cut and leek scheme, dare to come up without any real substance? The combination of dividends + destruction is indeed cool, much more reliable than those flashy mechanisms. I directly pass on the first project; this kind of copycat has been played out long ago. Basically, it's about seeing who really wants to do something; those who don't are just here to take your money. I am optimistic about the dividend model; at least the logic is self-consistent. It's already 2024 and you're still playing with high taxes? Wake up, everyone. That project with the dual mechanism is worth a deep look, but still should be approached with suspicion.

View OriginalReply0