Recently, I came across an interesting deflationary token model and wanted to share some observations. The design logic of this type of project is quite intriguing:

First is the economic model. A 3% fee is charged on both buy and sell transactions, and all these fees are used for on-chain automatic buyback and burn mechanisms, continuously reducing the token supply. In theory, as trading activity increases, scarcity will become more pronounced. This design attempts to support the price through mechanical supply compression.

Second is the technical aspect. Pure on-chain execution means the entire process is transparent and auditable, with no centralized entity able to arbitrarily intervene in the rules. This truly embodies the essence of decentralization—rules are written into smart contracts, and code is law.

Looking at the distribution of holdings, if there are no large holders concentrated in the project, the risk of market dumps is theoretically reduced. Plus, a group of community contributors who believe in the project's direction participate in building and maintaining it, making ecosystem governance more decentralized.

From a security perspective, if the project team truly loses super permissions, then rug-pulling becomes technically impossible. Of course, the game between community members is another matter—such risks always exist.

Overall, this kind of design approach indeed attempts to address the centralization issues of traditional projects through technological means and economic incentives. But how far it can go depends on the strength of community consensus and market acceptance.