Imagine a token where every transaction automatically "sells off" to the project team for market manipulation and token burning—sounds harsh, but the data speaks for itself.
**First, let's see why this project can attract attention**
Native ecosystem launch, backing from a certain blockchain platform, institutional capital participation, top community collaborations, and 13 exchanges already onboarded. In simple terms, this combo is not something small projects can pull off. What's the core selling point? A dual deflation mechanism—price increases trigger buy-ups + burns, price decreases trigger support + burns. In theory, this makes it hard for the token price to fluctuate wildly.
**What does the mechanism look like, and how is the data calculated?**
A 3% trading slippage feeds directly into the "buyback and burn" pool. The trigger rule is simple: when a wallet accumulates 0.1 BNB, it automatically initiates buy-up and burn, triggered every minute.
Based on the BNB average price of $910 on January 11, 2026, what's the average daily automatic burn volume?\n0.1 BNB/min × 60 × 24 = 144 BNB, equivalent to $13,100. This is the baseline data.
But here’s where it gets interesting—the support duration varies depending on trading volume:
**Daily trading volume of $4.5 million**: 3% slippage generates $135,000 inflow, about 148 BNB. This can sustain continuous buy-up and burn for 24 hours (148 > 144).
**Daily trading volume of $9 million**: generates $270,000, about 297.8 BNB. Supports 48 hours (needs 288 BNB).
**Daily trading volume of $18 million**: generates $540,000, about 593.4 BNB. Can sustain 4 days (needs 576 BNB).
See the logic? The more frequent the trading, the more sufficient the burn treasury; the longer the burn cycle, the more stable the buy-up and support. This forms a positive feedback loop.
**Why does the snowball keep getting bigger?**
Increased trading volume → accelerated slippage inflow → sufficient buyback and burn BNB in the wallet → extended buy-up cycle, strengthening deflationary effects → attracting new participants → trading volume grows again. In theory, once this cycle starts, it’s hard to reverse. Consensus and token price rise together.
Of course, whether this mechanism can truly deliver depends on actual trading volume reaching those thresholds. Impressive data, but execution is everything.
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
6
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
GasGuzzler
· 9h ago
The data looks good, but I'm worried that the trading volume might not hold up.
View OriginalReply0
TopBuyerBottomSeller
· 10h ago
It sounds like an automatic liquidation mechanism. Let's see if it can actually run first.
View OriginalReply0
DAOdreamer
· 10h ago
It sounds like a classic "cutting the leeks" scam, with 3% slippage always going to the project team...
View OriginalReply0
SatoshiNotNakamoto
· 10h ago
Sounds good, but I'm just worried that the trading volume won't reach that threshold.
View OriginalReply0
PoolJumper
· 10h ago
The data looks good, but I'm just worried that the trading volume can't keep up.
View OriginalReply0
SchrodingerAirdrop
· 10h ago
It just sounds like an advanced tool for scamming newbies; no matter how good the data looks, it can't change the underlying nature.
Imagine a token where every transaction automatically "sells off" to the project team for market manipulation and token burning—sounds harsh, but the data speaks for itself.
**First, let's see why this project can attract attention**
Native ecosystem launch, backing from a certain blockchain platform, institutional capital participation, top community collaborations, and 13 exchanges already onboarded. In simple terms, this combo is not something small projects can pull off. What's the core selling point? A dual deflation mechanism—price increases trigger buy-ups + burns, price decreases trigger support + burns. In theory, this makes it hard for the token price to fluctuate wildly.
**What does the mechanism look like, and how is the data calculated?**
A 3% trading slippage feeds directly into the "buyback and burn" pool. The trigger rule is simple: when a wallet accumulates 0.1 BNB, it automatically initiates buy-up and burn, triggered every minute.
Based on the BNB average price of $910 on January 11, 2026, what's the average daily automatic burn volume?\n0.1 BNB/min × 60 × 24 = 144 BNB, equivalent to $13,100. This is the baseline data.
But here’s where it gets interesting—the support duration varies depending on trading volume:
**Daily trading volume of $4.5 million**: 3% slippage generates $135,000 inflow, about 148 BNB. This can sustain continuous buy-up and burn for 24 hours (148 > 144).
**Daily trading volume of $9 million**: generates $270,000, about 297.8 BNB. Supports 48 hours (needs 288 BNB).
**Daily trading volume of $18 million**: generates $540,000, about 593.4 BNB. Can sustain 4 days (needs 576 BNB).
See the logic? The more frequent the trading, the more sufficient the burn treasury; the longer the burn cycle, the more stable the buy-up and support. This forms a positive feedback loop.
**Why does the snowball keep getting bigger?**
Increased trading volume → accelerated slippage inflow → sufficient buyback and burn BNB in the wallet → extended buy-up cycle, strengthening deflationary effects → attracting new participants → trading volume grows again. In theory, once this cycle starts, it’s hard to reverse. Consensus and token price rise together.
Of course, whether this mechanism can truly deliver depends on actual trading volume reaching those thresholds. Impressive data, but execution is everything.