#比特币流动性 To quickly identify unreliable projects, don't just listen to what the team says; directly peel back the tokenomics layer.

Basically, there are three questions: How are tokens distributed, where do they flow, and who ultimately profits. Analyzing the data yourself is more reliable than listening to countless stories.

**These types of tokens can basically be skipped**

Pure governance tokens sound democratic but are actually just air. Besides clicking "Agree" to feel involved, they offer no real rights.

Tokens that only buy back but don't burn are even more problematic—this is the project team hedging against retail investors. You buy, they sell; this game can't be won.

And those that insist on using their tokens as a payment tool, especially DePin projects, have fundamental issues. Real payment scenarios are sufficiently served by stablecoins; forcing your own token indicates the business model is still not well thought out.

Dividend mechanisms sound the most attractive but carry the greatest risk—many jurisdictions classify them as securities, making compliance a problem and limiting growth. For dividend income, buying shares of a listed company is safer.

**The only worthwhile tokens are those with a burn mechanism**

Issuance can increase, but it must be paired with a clear deflationary logic. Whether it's mainstream coins or meme coins, the key is whether the rules can be hardcoded and genuinely enforced.

Using this standard to scan the projects on the market, you'll find a rather sobering fact: most projects have been going astray since their launch—either they can't keep up with the growth of the underlying public chain or they are simply trying to make a quick profit.

Rather than being driven by market hype, it's better to calmly analyze each token's flow mechanism. Such analysis can be more valuable than studying a hundred whitepapers.