To see whether altcoins are reliable, you don’t need to pay much attention to how much the team brags; you just need to focus on one thing: token economics.
In simple terms, it’s about how this coin is distributed, how it flows, and where the money ultimately goes.
Analyzing it line by line is much more practical than listening to any stories.
The screening process is actually quite simple.
Coins that only have governance rights can basically be blacklisted; these are pure air coins, which only give you the illusion of "I seem to be voting" and are useless.
Then there are those that only buy back without burning; don’t waste your time on them. Buybacks, in simple terms, mean the project party is trading against you. You buy while they sell, which is pointless.
Many projects like to treat tokens as payment tools, especially DePin types; most of these don’t need to be examined.
For regular payments, stablecoins should be used. Forcing your own coin into payments only shows that the team hasn’t grasped basic business logic.
And then there are those that do income dividends; it sounds nice, but in reality, the problems are bigger—this is considered securities in many places; they can’t grow if they aren’t compliant. If you really want dividends, it’s better to buy stocks from legitimate companies.
The only ones worth looking at are coins with clear burn mechanisms.
There can be new issues, but there must be a clear deflation logic to accompany them. Even if it’s a meme coin, as long as the rules are well-defined and executable, it’s better than the ones mentioned earlier.
By screening according to this standard, you’ll see a rather harsh reality: 99% of projects in the market have been going in the wrong direction since the moment they issued their coins, either unable to outperform the public chain itself or simply designed to exploit investors.
So don’t be swayed by the excitement; take a moment to see how tokens actually circulate. It may be more useful than studying a hundred white papers.
