From the perspective of token economics, how to screen altcoins

The real effort in screening altcoins should focus on token economics. Moreover, it’s not about listening to what the project team says; it’s about verifying each detail yourself: how the money is distributed, how the tokens flow, and where the value ultimately goes.

From an operational perspective, it’s actually easy to filter:

1: Those with only governance rights don’t even need to be studied; just blacklist them. This thing is essentially air, and other than giving you the illusion of “I seem to be participating,” it’s nothing.

2: Those that only buy back but don’t burn can also be directly crossed off. A buyback is essentially a transaction between the team and you; you buy, they sell. It’s disgusting and inefficient, and there’s no need to play along.

3: Projects that treat tokens as payment methods, especially many DePin projects, can basically be ignored. Using stablecoins for normal payments is reasonable; settling with their own tokens indicates that the team hasn’t even grasped the most basic business logic.

4: Revenue sharing sounds beautiful, but the problems are even bigger—non-compliance, inherently securities, and they can’t grow in scale. If dividends are really to be distributed, you might as well just buy stocks in a company like Circle.

5: Those with a burn mechanism are the only direction worth looking at. There can be an increase in issuance, but it must be accompanied by a clear deflationary logic. Even if it’s a meme, as long as the rules are solid and enforceable, it’s better than the previous ones.

By screening with this standard, you will discover a harsh reality: 99.99% of projects will not outperform the public chains themselves in the long run or those with clear deflationary mechanisms. Because of this, 99% of projects on the market have been headed in the wrong direction since the moment they issued tokens, and the remaining few simply started with the goal of cutting leeks.