2026-01-08 15:26:51

Having seen too many projects' destruction mechanisms end up as mere talk on paper. What is the real situation? When destruction becomes an optional choice, it becomes ineffective.

The key lies in mechanism design. If tokens are automatically destroyed when removed from the liquidity pool, then supply reduction is not just a verbal promise but a result of the system’s self-operation. Only such a design counts.

Compare: one is "we promise to destroy," the other is "the token structure ensures destruction." The former looks good, but the execution power lies with people; the latter is hardcoded in the code, no one can change it. Which is more trustworthy is obvious.

Many projects' inflation pressure comes from here—destruction mechanisms are ineffective, liquidity management is chaotic, and ultimately supply control fails. Well-designed destruction mechanisms can make token economics self-balancing, which is the long-term healthy approach.

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.

19 Likes

Reward
19
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

RetailTherapist

· 10h ago

The code-based destruction mechanism is indeed more reliable than verbal promises. I've seen too many projects that ultimately fail to take off. Promises are, to be honest, just paper... The key is whether the code has hard restrictions. It's the same old trick—initially promoting destruction, only to find out later that it's not actually implemented. These tricks should have been seen through from the start. If liquidity management is chaotic, no mechanism can save it; it must be properly designed from the beginning. You're right, automatic trigger destruction is indeed more reliable than manual operation, at least it avoids the problem of "changing your mind" at the last minute.

View OriginalReply0

MoodFollowsPrice

· 15h ago

Code-based destruction is true destruction; everything else is just a story. --- Another project claiming "we will destroy," but what happened in the end? Not much, just as expected. --- Honestly, it's about the plan, not promises. An automatic trigger mechanism is the strongest. --- Automatic destruction of liquidity pools is brilliant; mechanisms that can't be manipulated by humans are the real deal. --- Having experienced too many projects running away, I now only trust one standard—if the code is hardcoded, I believe it; mere words are just nonsense. --- For projects under high inflation pressure, the destruction mechanism is mostly just a display, no suspense there. --- The phrase "tokenomics self-balancing" is well said, but most teams simply can't achieve it. --- When I see projects like this, I only ask one question: Is destruction optional or mandatory? The answer is all of them.

View OriginalReply0

AlphaLeaker

· 01-08 15:57

Code-based destruction is true destruction; promises are just for show. --- Another air project with a destruction mechanism; in the end, it's all about dumping. --- Automatic destruction vs. manual destruction—that's the difference between rug pulls and genuine projects. --- Exactly, after reviewing a hundred projects, ninety-nine of their destruction claims are just scams. --- Mechanism design truly determines life or death; code speaks for itself, promises are just hot air. --- Failure to control supply = inflation = your coins become less and less valuable. Simple logic. --- Does anyone really believe project teams will voluntarily destroy tokens? Give me a reason to laugh. --- I've seen too many projects with chaotic liquidity management; in the end, they all go to zero. --- The real question is, how many projects have truly implemented code-based destruction? I know of none. --- This is the core metric for evaluating a project; all other marketing concepts are just showmanship.

View OriginalReply0

MetaMisery

· 01-08 15:53

That's right, the destruction of too many projects is just a joke, with a bunch of promises never fulfilled. Hardcoded code is the real necessity; a person's promise is worth a few coins. This is the first filter I use to evaluate projects. If the destruction mechanism can still be changed, I just pass.

View OriginalReply0

LayoffMiner

· 01-08 15:49

Haha, you're so right. I've seen too many projects end up with 🤡 taking over. Only code-based destruction is true destruction; everything else is nonsense.

View OriginalReply0

DegenMcsleepless

· 01-08 15:32

Code-based destruction is the most reliable; verbal promises are basically just pie in the sky. --- Another project claiming "We will destroy," and what’s the result? All bullshit. --- Honestly, I'm tired of it. Automatic destruction mechanisms vs. human promises—one is heaven, the other is earth. --- The automatic trigger destruction in liquidity pools is indeed tough; code doesn't lie. --- Why do some people still believe in verbal promises... It's already 2024, brother. --- Mechanism design determines everything. Don't be brainwashed by fancy stories. --- Code > promises, simple and straightforward but genuine. --- Inflation getting out of control is basically how it happens; destruction mechanisms are just for show. --- Self-balancing supply is the real way; everything else is just talk. --- I've seen too many collapse projects; now I only trust things that smart contracts can hardcode.

View OriginalReply0