2026-01-18 09:28:15

Having been in the crypto space for many years, I've seen quite a few deflationary designs, but this dual-burn model is indeed interesting. Buying and burning 5%, selling and burning 5%—it sounds aggressive, but the logic is clear—each transaction reduces the circulating supply.

The key is that as the circulating supply continues to decrease, market sentiment often drives the price in the opposite direction. The more people sell off, the more they are actually helping to burn tokens, which accelerates the increase in scarcity. This creates an interesting game: in the short term, some may cut losses; in the medium term, liquidity tightens, and price volatility naturally increases.

However, to be honest, the biggest risk with this kind of mechanism is that large holders cash out early, making it difficult to sustain the market afterward. The current issue isn't the deflationary mechanism itself, but the mindset and holding structure of participants.

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.

9 Likes

Reward
9
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

NFTRegretter

· 4h ago

Double destruction is indeed ruthless, but frankly, it still depends on who is taking the bait. When liquidity tightens, prices soar—sounds great but easy to get caught. The risk of early big players fleeing is real and should be watched, no matter how good the mechanism is, it can't beat human nature. That's right, ultimately, it all comes down to the holding structure that determines life or death. This kind of design is a trap for retail investors; reducing circulating supply actually makes it harder to sell. It's a bit like a variant of Ponzi; early participants make a killing, while later ones become the bagholders.

View OriginalReply0

LidoStakeAddict

· 4h ago

Bilateral destruction sounds intimidating, but whether it can truly survive depends on real demand supporting the market; otherwise, it's just a gimmick.

View OriginalReply0

TooScaredToSell

· 4h ago

Bilateral destruction sounds satisfying, but few people can really hold out until liquidity tightens. When big whales dump early, the subsequent bagholders have to suffer heavy losses, which is the real kill move. No matter how good the mechanism design is, it’s all in vain; ultimately, it’s a game of human nature. Every transaction burns money, in simple terms, it’s a gamble on someone being able to hold better than you. There’s a high chance that this mode will eventually become a tool for big whales to manipulate the market. Once liquidity is locked, retail investors can’t even escape, a classic "consensus trap." Dumping to accelerate scarcity? Haha, only if the market can survive until that moment.

View OriginalReply0

GhostWalletSleuth

· 4h ago

Bilateral destruction sounds satisfying, but can it really catch the big players who dump the market? That's the real test. When big players run away with a single cut, the remaining retail investors are left to suffer. Liquidity tightening is a double-edged sword; whether the price rises or falls depends entirely on the market makers' mood. These kinds of mechanisms ultimately become early cash-out games; frankly, it's all about who can run faster. Deflation is deflation, but if the mentality is unstable and you can't hold on, it's a dead market.

View OriginalReply0

EternalMiner

· 4h ago

Bilateral 5% destruction sounds fierce, but can the liquidity hold up when it really hits? The fear is that large investors will just run away directly. Early investors are still foolishly waiting for scarcity, but in reality, they've already cashed out. This logic looks perfect, but it all depends on who collapses first. The deflation mechanism is not a panacea; the key is whether there is real cash in the market. There's some substance, but watch out for large investors secretly gradually selling off.

View OriginalReply0

Layer2Observer

· 4h ago

This 10% double sell-off is quite fierce, but the real issue is—if early big players really dump the market, whether the later participants can hold on is the key.

View OriginalReply0