2026-01-12 00:21:35

Imagine a scenario: if a new token is issued on a community platform before launching on mainstream DEXs, combined with a mechanism design—80% of the token supply is locked through transparent smart contracts, completely eliminating sniper attacks from bound wallets and filtering out those "fresh projects" with no fundamentals.

According to this logic, many projects could have already ranked among the top.

The key is that truly knowledgeable people will discover and understand this underlying logic. Transparent liquidity governance, reasonable token unlock schedules, and rigorous mechanism design—these are not just technical details but the foundation for a project's survival and growth. Once the market recognizes these differences, acceptance will follow.

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.

21 Likes

Reward
21
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

ColdWalletGuardian

· 10h ago

Sounds good, but how many have actually been implemented? Most are just talk. --- 80% lock-in sounds great, but the key is what coins are being locked. --- Transparency sounds nice, but in the end, it depends on whether big players endorse it. --- No matter how rigorous the mechanism is, without consensus, it's useless. Don't fool me. --- If this theory really worked, it wouldn't be a niche topic anymore. --- Contract lock-in to prevent sniping? What about early participants? It's all gambling. --- It's the same old story; every project says this when it starts. --- Waiting for market recognition? By then, there won't be any low-price quotas left. --- Transparency in unlock cycles ≠ project transparency. Don't confuse the concepts.

View OriginalReply0

ImpermanentSage

· 01-12 20:10

80% locking sounds good, but how many can actually execute it? Most are still just on paper. --- If this logic could really be played out, there would be no rug pulls long ago. The key issue is trust. --- Transparent governance? Ha, I've seen too many projects that talk a good game but do things off the rails. --- By the time the market reacts, the coin might already be cold. Time is everything. --- Rigorous mechanism design ≠ won't go to zero. Don't be too young or naive. --- Contract locking is definitely a good thing, just worried it might be a facade. --- Top-tier projects never need to go to such lengths to explain themselves. --- Token unlock schedules can indeed show whether the project team is sincere. --- Theoretically perfect, but in practice? Most are just a mess. --- Experienced insiders can spot issues early, but they've also sold early.

View OriginalReply0

MEVictim

· 01-12 00:39

Speaking of which, 80% lock-up design should have become standard a long time ago, but most projects still stick to the old way... I'm really a bit speechless.

View OriginalReply0

MoonWaterDroplets

· 01-12 00:31

To be honest, this set of logic sounds good, but few projects can truly execute these details effectively. Locking 80% of tokens sounds great, but ultimately it depends on whether the team is genuinely committed to doing the work.

View OriginalReply0

ForkItAllDay

· 01-12 00:25

It sounds like you're saying that if the mechanism is well-designed, you can just sit back and win? It's not that simple in reality, buddy. Locking 80% of the funds is useless if the community is incapable of gaining traction.

View OriginalReply0