2026-01-17 08:01:17

#数字资产市场动态 💥There is a Chinese token project that has implemented an interesting burn mechanism. So far, 368 million tokens have been burned💥

Let's talk about their approach——each transaction incurs a 6% slippage, which is all funneled into a "buyback and burn reserve wallet." When the accumulated amount reaches 0.1 units, an on-chain bot automatically executes a buyback, sending tokens directly to a black hole address for burning. With this method, the price increase is indeed quite significant👍🏻

The most aggressive part is that whether the token price goes up or down, as long as there are trades, buybacks and burns continue. Compared to some projects that perform "fancy buybacks" with their left and right hands, this transparent on-chain automated mechanism is at least clear to see. With ongoing burning pressure and liquidity support, it's hard not to see the price rise📈

I heard that future iterations will randomly adjust the burn intensity or market stabilization strategies based on slippage conditions. Let's wait and see what the next move will be.

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.

16 Likes

Reward
16
9
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

NFT_Therapy

· 01-20 08:01

Hmm... a 6% slippage sounds a bit harsh, but the automatic burn mechanism is definitely more transparent than manual buybacks. By the way, can this kind of logic be verified on-chain, or is it just hype? A burn of 368 million tokens sounds impressive, but what's the total supply? This data isn't that convincing, right?

View OriginalReply0

MEV_Whisperer

· 01-20 06:43

Hmm... a 6% slippage is a bit aggressive. How many retail investors are actually benefiting from this? --- The destruction mechanism is transparent, but whether it can truly support the market depends on trading volume. Without transactions, everything is pointless. --- The old trick of black hole destruction is nothing new. The key is whether the project team will secretly reduce their holdings. --- On-chain automation sounds good, but who wrote the logic for the bots? That’s the real core. --- Destroying 368 million tokens sounds impressive, but you need to check if the denominator is already huge to begin with. --- Is the comparison of more transparent buyback schemes true? Come on, it’s just a new disguise for cutting the leeks. --- Will future versions still be randomly adjusted? Feels like they’re leaving themselves room to cheat. --- Wait, did all of that 6% slippage go into the destruction pool? I keep feeling there’s some other place where the spread is being eaten. --- Is it really hard not to go up? Man, that statement sounds a bit overconfident. --- On-chain transparency is an advantage, but it also means nothing can be hidden. There are pros and cons.

View OriginalReply0

CryptoPunster

· 01-20 02:38

Seeing 368 million coins go into the black hole, I can't help but think of the RMB that went into the black hole in my wallet—feels like the same trick Playing with a 6% slippage to destroy tokens—this tactic is really daring. I bet fifty cents that the next thing to collapse will be this The older generation cuts the younger, and the younger still have to contribute slippage. The ecological cycle is truly incredible Whoa, random adjustment of destruction力度? Isn't this Schrödinger's market support? Anyway, I can't understand it The problem is, it can rise, but when my principal will be recovered is the real issue

View OriginalReply0

Rekt_Recovery

· 01-20 01:44

been there, seen the burn mechanics play out... 6% tax hit different when you're the one bag holding ngl

Reply0

SpeakWithHatOn

· 01-17 08:31

This套路说白了就是割韭菜的新花样，6%滑点谁受得了 --- Destroy mechanism sounds good, but nine times out of ten, these projects are just pump and dump schemes by the whales, and retail investors end up holding the bag --- Wait, isn't this just a form of indirect deflation? Feels like I've seen a similar trick somewhere before --- On-chain automation is indeed transparent, but transparency ≠ profit. Has anyone really made money from these projects? --- Black hole destruction schemes are outdated now. What project doesn't involve destruction these days? --- 3.68 billion tokens sounds scary, but who knows the total supply? It might just be a numbers game --- I just want to know who is controlling this "buyback and burn sinking wallet." It feels suspicious --- Continuous destruction pressure sounds like good news, but without real usage demand, any increase is just an illusion --- Automated buyback by bots sounds advanced, but it could just be contract code. What's so special about it? --- Another new trick. Call it innovation in a nice way, or a desperate struggle before death in a harsh way

View OriginalReply0

NotSatoshi

· 01-17 08:26

3.68 billion in burns sounds impressive, but who will cover the 6% slippage? --- On-chain automation is just automation; it's better than manual dark-box operations, but this inflation tax is still a bit fierce. --- Wait, randomly adjusting the burn rate? Isn't that just a new way to manipulate the market? --- Basically, it's about creating scarcity through burning. It's clever, but don't ignore the risks. --- It's interesting; at least it's not secretly dumping tokens. The only issue is that the slippage setting is a bit aggressive. --- Black hole addresses are indeed more reliable than some project team wallets. --- 3.68 billion sounds impressive, but it depends on what percentage of the total supply it represents to be meaningful.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-c802f0e8

· 01-17 08:18

Wait, a 6% slippage is this high, is it really more transparent than fancy buybacks? Feels like just a different name for scamming retail investors.

View OriginalReply0

PaperHandsCriminal

· 01-17 08:12

Another destruction scam, I just want to know when it's my turn to break even --- 6% slippage? Bro, are you trying to cut my leeks? --- Automated mechanisms sound impressive, but at the end of the day, it's just the same old trick --- Wait, isn't this just a different variation of a Ponzi scheme? --- I bet five bucks the founder already ran away --- Destroying 368 million tokens sounds impressive, but it might all be just air coins --- Here comes another "transparent on-chain mechanism," wake up everyone --- Hard to not see a rise? It's hard not to lose money, brother --- Destroying via black hole address, isn't that just freezing? Stop scamming us here --- Random adjustments to the market support strategy, which means there's no strategy at all, just luck --- I said the same thing about my last project, now I'm just holding paper tokens

View OriginalReply0

ForkItAllDay

· 01-17 08:06

Honestly, a 6% slippage is a bit harsh. How many retail investors need to be cut to make up for it? You might end up becoming the bagholder. --- Automatic destruction sounds appealing, but can the black hole address be verified? On-chain transparency is transparency, but I'm worried it might just be another trick. --- Wait, if every transaction is destroyed, how is liquidity maintained? The pools will become increasingly dry. --- 3.68 billion tokens, it's scary, but this destruction mechanism is essentially an inflation tax, just packaged differently. --- Randomly adjusting destruction intensity—this is playing with leverage. The next moment, it could all blow up. --- Is it true? Robots automatically buy back? It feels like another scene of pulling the plug.

View OriginalReply0