#以太坊行情解读 I saw an interesting token mechanism design and would like to share my thoughts:
From the perspective of the fee structure, the 3% rate is quite detailed - 2.5% goes to LPs for liquidity support, and 0.5% is allocated to the 54 cardholders. The cards themselves can be freely traded, but dividends require a holding threshold of 1 trillion Tokens; positions below this value will automatically flow back to the black hole LP, a design that avoids dispersion among retail investors.
6% of the tax revenue from profits flows back to the support pool. The interesting part is that the tax is only deducted from profitable orders, while losing orders are not charged. This means that when in a profitable state, users need to proactively increase the slippage (with a maximum tolerance of up to 10%).
From the community perspective, the concept of "One Trillion Co-creation" aims to create an ecosystem where all participants have a consensus. The project emphasizes not issuing new coins and not mirroring, focusing on long-term development. This mechanism design indeed attempts to view financial products themselves as a system engineering.
What do you think about the idea of differentiated taxation on profits/losses?
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.
9 Likes
Reward
9
6
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
StablecoinArbitrageur
· 9h ago
ngl the profit/loss asymmetry tax is genius but the execution detail matters... if slippage caps at 10% you're basically paying delta on realized gains, which mathematically incentivizes holding through drawdowns. classic adverse selection problem though—only retail notice the fee structure after getting liquidated lol
Reply0
HashBrownies
· 10h ago
The setting of taxing only on profits is quite interesting, but it seems very easy to be arbitraged, right? Anyway, losses just get to be taken for free?
View OriginalReply0
ETHmaxi_NoFilter
· 10h ago
To be honest, I have some reservations about the idea of differentiated taxation on gains and losses... A one trillion threshold directly deters retail investors, isn't it just a way to be played for suckers?
View OriginalReply0
RegenRestorer
· 10h ago
Wow, this tax on profit and loss difference sounds good, but whether it can be implemented in practice is the key.
View OriginalReply0
WalletInspector
· 10h ago
The threshold for card holders is one trillion, how much U does it take to get in... Another Be Played for Suckers trick, right?
#以太坊行情解读 I saw an interesting token mechanism design and would like to share my thoughts:
From the perspective of the fee structure, the 3% rate is quite detailed - 2.5% goes to LPs for liquidity support, and 0.5% is allocated to the 54 cardholders. The cards themselves can be freely traded, but dividends require a holding threshold of 1 trillion Tokens; positions below this value will automatically flow back to the black hole LP, a design that avoids dispersion among retail investors.
6% of the tax revenue from profits flows back to the support pool. The interesting part is that the tax is only deducted from profitable orders, while losing orders are not charged. This means that when in a profitable state, users need to proactively increase the slippage (with a maximum tolerance of up to 10%).
From the community perspective, the concept of "One Trillion Co-creation" aims to create an ecosystem where all participants have a consensus. The project emphasizes not issuing new coins and not mirroring, focusing on long-term development. This mechanism design indeed attempts to view financial products themselves as a system engineering.
What do you think about the idea of differentiated taxation on profits/losses?