2026-01-08 02:22:23

There is an idea worth discussing, which is to build token scarcity through transaction taxes and automatic burning.

The mechanism is actually simple. A 3% fee is charged on both buy and sell transactions. This tax does not go into the project team's pocket but is 100% used for buybacks and burns, with funds directly flowing back into the liquidity pool. As long as the trading volume reaches 0.1BNB, it will automatically trigger, executed entirely by the smart contract without manual intervention.

The most interesting part is this — tokens are continuously sent to a black hole for burning, and the circulating supply keeps decreasing. Theoretically, the more frequent the transactions, the more participants involved, and the faster the burns occur, increasing the value density of the remaining tokens. From another perspective, holders gain scarcity dividends through trading activity, forming a positive feedback loop.

Of course, the sustainability of this model depends on ecosystem participation. If trading activity remains high, this mechanism can keep running; if activity declines, the deflation engine will naturally slow down. In short, this is an experiment in consensus and incentives.

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.

25 Likes

Reward
25
10
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

LayerZeroJunkie

· 01-10 23:11

It sounds like another story of "deflation can save the market." This time, is the new approach really more appealing with a different disguise? --- A 6% fee sounds insignificant, but the real issue lies ahead—how long can the trading volume sustain? --- Automatic destruction sounds satisfying, but it gets interesting when liquidity gradually dries up. --- Many projects use this approach, but in the end, they all die when the consensus can no longer be maintained. --- The question is: who will ensure that trading volume remains hot? Or is it just another new packaging for cutting the leeks? --- I’ve seen too many black hole destructions; looking at the data is more important than listening to stories. --- Basically, it’s a gamble on trading frequency, betting that participants won’t run away—a pretty risky mechanism. --- This mechanism is most friendly to early entrants; later participants are basically helping the earlier ones cash out. --- Deflation models look good, but the key is whether the ecosystem can really get off the ground; otherwise, it’s just a data game. --- Positive feedback loops may sound like financial alchemy, but the risks are right there.

View OriginalReply0

FunGibleTom

· 01-09 13:53

This destruction mechanism sounds good, but the key is that trading volume must be sustained; otherwise, it's just a paper article. Automatic destruction is indeed more transparent, but a 6% fee is a bit painful for retail investors. The black hole destruction trick is an old story; the real test is whether the project team has genuine use cases. It feels like gambling on the FOMO of later participants; the deflationary benefits have been talked about too much. The mechanism itself is fine, but I'm worried that once trading enthusiasm picks up, the entire logical chain could break. Positive feedback loops sound great, but during ecosystem decline, the reverse can happen quickly—that's the real risk.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidationWatcher

· 01-08 19:22

ngl this deflationary mechanic sounds pretty on paper until volume dies... been there, lost that. watch your health factor on these things.

Reply0

AlwaysAnon

· 01-08 02:52

It sounds good, but once trading volume drops, it's all over. --- Automatic destruction sounds powerful, but in reality, it's just about who can keep trading. --- It's a bit like hot potato; on paper, it's deflationary, but someone has to keep the market going. --- Contract self-execution is okay, but I'm worried no one will play with it later. --- Positive feedback loop? Ha, you need enough fools to take the last hit. --- I've seen this logic too many times; the problem is always liquidity decay. --- Relying on consensus for hope? These days, consensus is more scarce than tokens. --- Pool reflow sounds scientific, but it’s highly abstract. --- The core issue is one—without trading volume, everything is pointless.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-6bc33122

· 01-08 02:52

Well... the idea of automatic destruction sounds great, but how many actually survive? --- Wait, the more frequent the transactions, the faster the destruction. How do you handle liquidity later on? Won't it become increasingly difficult to sell? --- A 3% tax for buyback and destruction sounds okay, but the key is to keep this black hole stable. --- Basically, it's still gambling on transaction popularity. Once the hype dies down, this mechanism becomes useless. --- At first glance, this logic seems perfect, but it depends on whether the team is reliable. --- Positive feedback loop? I feel more like a variant of a pump-and-dump scheme... --- Automatic contract execution is good; at least there's no excuse for manual manipulation. --- I've played around with deflationary tokens too much. What's new about this? --- I just want to know how they plan to do a cold start. Without trading volume, the destruction mechanism can't be triggered at all. --- This idea is good, but execution is difficult. Maintaining hype is the real challenge.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-a606bf0c

· 01-08 02:51

It sounds like an automatic "cutting leeks" mechanism, the more trading there is, the faster the destruction, but the key question is who will maintain the trading volume. --- A 6% tax reflux into the bottom pool sounds good, but I've heard the black hole destruction narrative too many times. --- Positive feedback loop? Uh… the premise is that popularity can't drop, once it cools down, this thing is dead. --- Automation execution leaves no room for manipulation, I like that, at least there's no rug pull excuse. --- Basically, it's still about trading activity for survival. When the activity drops, engagement disappears, and the deflation engine stalls. --- The concept of scarcity dividends is good, but whether it can be implemented depends on whether there is real demand to support it. --- A 3% tax fee directly burns, which does hurt retail investors when they sell. --- Injecting into the bottom pool… what will happen to trading depth? Has anyone calculated that? --- The biggest risk of this model is a sharp drop in popularity. Once participation declines, everything is pointless.

View OriginalReply0

consensus_failure

· 01-08 02:50

What about selling pressure? When transaction taxes are high, retail investors directly exit, and then the destruction speed collapses. This cycle simply can't turn around.

View OriginalReply0

TokenAlchemist

· 01-08 02:49

ngl the 0.1 BNB trigger threshold feels arbitrary... what happens during low volume periods tho

Reply0

PretendingSerious

· 01-08 02:48

This automatic destruction logic sounds pretty sexy, but I'm worried it might end up just being a front for rug pulls. --- Triggering at 0.1BNB trading volume? Feels like the threshold is a bit low, easy to manipulate with wash trading. --- Positive feedback loop sounds nice, but in reality, it's just betting on the ecosystem never dying. Once it cools down, it becomes dead coins. --- I just want to know where this 3% tax actually goes. Is it truly 100% burned, or is there some other trick? --- Black hole destruction has been talked about a hundred times, but how many have actually become truly deflationary? --- Consensus and incentive experiments? Sounds like they're just trying to see how long they can fool people haha. --- Isn't this just the old trick of deflationary tokens? As long as no fresh blood enters, it's doomed.

View OriginalReply0

CafeMinor

· 01-08 02:29

Alright, this deflationary mechanism sounds good, but the key is whether trading activity can be sustained. We have to be honest—projects without trading volume are just paper tigers. While the burn rate is fast, the real issue is how to attract a continuous stream of traders. A 3% tax isn't low; it has to make users feel it's profitable. That said, this design is indeed smarter than just burning coins. I just want to know if the team can truly maintain ecosystem activity; otherwise, it will just become another dead project.

View OriginalReply0