💡 First, let's poke a pain point:
Have you often encountered projects like this? The white paper reads like a science fiction novel, but the token model is as simple as a blank sheet of paper—other than 'governance voting', it has nothing to do with actual returns. The result is: the project team makes a fortune from transaction fees, while token holders can only stare blankly.
Recently, a leading DEX finally started using transaction fees to buy back tokens, and this news surprisingly made it to trending topics, which clearly shows how much the industry craves for 'basic value return'. But to me, this should have been standard practice, not news!
🔥 My core point:
The value of tokens should not be determined by 'stories', but by solid binding mechanisms of interests. Especially for those projects claiming to disrupt tradition, if they can't even design a clear link between tokens and profits, then don't talk about long-termism.
My three iron rules for project selection (with practical verification methods):
1. Tiered holding system: Don't just look at 'governance rights', pay attention to 'usage rights'.
Truth: Many projects hype 'governance voting rights', but users don't get real benefits. A truly good project should have the amount of tokens directly corresponding to service permissions or fee discounts (e.g., higher API call limits, lower transaction fees).
Case study: Some AI protocols (like Allora) have attempted to allocate model call priorities based on the amount of tokens held; this is real binding.
Verification technique: Directly read the project documentation to see if the token function description mentions specific rights (e.g., 'holding 1000 tokens unlocks advanced features'), rather than vague 'participation in ecological construction'.
2. Income repurchase: Don't listen to slogans, look at on-chain flow.
Key: Is the money earned by the project really flowing into the tokens? Focus on two points:
Repurchase transparency: Is there a regular disclosure of repurchase addresses and amounts?
Capital proportion: Is the proportion of the repurchase amount to income reasonable (e.g., exceeding 20%)?
Counterexample: Some trading protocols make a fortune daily, but their repurchase plans take years to start.
Tool recommendation: Use Etherscan to track the project's treasury address, combined with Nansen to observe stablecoin liquidity.
3. Deflation logic: The destruction mechanism must be 'automatically executed'.
Caution: Manual destruction is easy to fake; automatic destruction by smart contracts is trustworthy.
Data standards: The deflation rate must sustainably outperform inflation (e.g., new token release rate). For example, a certain protocol automatically destroys 0.05% of tokens with each transaction, combined with income repurchase, forming a double deflation.
Humorous reminder: If the project team says 'we'll destroy based on conditions', it basically means 'we'll decide based on mood'.
🚨 Don't forget to dig out 'hidden risks':
Even if the model seems perfect, be cautious:
Rule variability: Did the team leave a backdoor? For instance, can they disable the repurchase mechanism with one click?
Lack of supervision: Is there a third-party audit of the contract? Is the multi-signature wallet managed by the community?
(Here I must complain: Some projects dare to let users dive in without even verifying the code...)
🌟 Lastly, let me say something heartfelt:
The market is always changing, but the value anchor points do not change. Instead of chasing trends and getting cut, it's better to calm down and study the token economic model—it's the 'conscience detector' of the project team.
If you currently feel helpless and confused about trading, and want to learn more about the cryptocurrency space and the latest first-hand information, follow me.@标哥说币
