This project's technical architecture is quite interesting. From the contract layer perspective, the development team has already abandoned permission management, resulting in a very clean codebase. All interactions are executed directly on-chain, with no centralized intermediary services, nor is there a DApp backend — this means the project team itself cannot interfere with the trading logic.
The economic model adopts a deflationary design. Every buy and sell automatically destroys 3% of the tokens, and this destruction is ongoing indefinitely. In theory, over time and with increased trading frequency, the circulating supply will continuously decrease, while the depth of the liquidity pool will gradually accumulate. This mechanism to some extent enhances resistance to market manipulation — no one can manipulate the contract to release hidden liquidity or change the destruction rules.
From a long-term perspective, the ongoing reduction in supply combined with unchanged demand is theoretically expected to generate a scarcity premium. Of course, all of this is based on the premise that the project maintains active trading.
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.
10 Likes
Reward
10
4
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
SolidityNewbie
· 5h ago
Bro, this architecture is pretty interesting. Completely hands-off? Really? The project team can't even modify the contract...
Wait, this 3% burn mechanism feels like they're betting that trading volume won't die, otherwise there's no point in the premium.
View OriginalReply0
NFTRegretful
· 5h ago
Unauthorized management sounds impressive, but it depends on whether the popularity can be maintained in the future...
View OriginalReply0
LightningHarvester
· 5h ago
Lack of permission management sounds like some form of self-castration, but upon reflection, it's indeed harsh— even the project team can't touch the contract themselves.
View OriginalReply0
WhaleInTraining
· 6h ago
It sounds perfect in theory, but the key is that someone has to trade. Without trading volume, it's all just empty talk.
This project's technical architecture is quite interesting. From the contract layer perspective, the development team has already abandoned permission management, resulting in a very clean codebase. All interactions are executed directly on-chain, with no centralized intermediary services, nor is there a DApp backend — this means the project team itself cannot interfere with the trading logic.
The economic model adopts a deflationary design. Every buy and sell automatically destroys 3% of the tokens, and this destruction is ongoing indefinitely. In theory, over time and with increased trading frequency, the circulating supply will continuously decrease, while the depth of the liquidity pool will gradually accumulate. This mechanism to some extent enhances resistance to market manipulation — no one can manipulate the contract to release hidden liquidity or change the destruction rules.
From a long-term perspective, the ongoing reduction in supply combined with unchanged demand is theoretically expected to generate a scarcity premium. Of course, all of this is based on the premise that the project maintains active trading.