Yesterday, I casually looked at the on-chain data of LUNC before bed, and I was so shocked by the data that I couldn't sleep at all. The market all says it's a "zombie coin," but from the data, this project is actually working quietly on big things. Today, I want to share what I saw—it's all hard data, nothing虚.
Let's start with the most core point: LUNC's deflation mechanism has shifted from "planned" to "actual." And this wave of deflation is not a sudden event but the result of community, mechanism, and ecosystem efforts working together.
Some might say that burning is just that, who in the crypto space hasn't played with it? But LUNC is different; its burns are "continuous + scaled." By early 2026, the total on-chain burns have exceeded 43.6 billion tokens. Just in January, leading platforms burned 533 million tokens in one go, which is equivalent to permanently removing a large chunk of chips from the circulating market. More importantly, the burn pace is accelerating, with a monthly burn rate stabilized at 1.2%, meaning the circulating supply is decreasing at a predictable rate, not just driven by occasional "burn events" to create hype.
Besides the burn mechanism, there are two other signals worth noting. One is that the staking ecosystem has become quite mature; there have even been large single-stake operations of 100 billion tokens, indicating real funds and user demand supporting it. The second is that technical upgrades are beginning to be implemented. On the surface, it seems calm, but in fact, the project is steadily iterating. This "quiet work" rhythm is often overlooked by the market, but in the long run, it tends to be more convincing.
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.
16 Likes
Reward
16
7
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
Layer2Observer
· 7h ago
Data is indeed interesting, but one thing needs to be clarified — a destruction rate of 1.2% sounds stable, but what market liquidity support is needed to maintain this pace? There's a misconception worth examining.
View OriginalReply0
TideReceder
· 7h ago
43.6 billion in burns is really impressive. This data definitely deserves attention, but how high this round can go is still a question mark.
View OriginalReply0
BanklessAtHeart
· 7h ago
You need to look at this data carefully. A destruction of 43.6 billion is indeed a significant number, but the question is who is actually holding it.
If LUNC can truly maintain a 1.2% monthly destruction rate, then it’s somewhat promising, but it still depends on whether it can be sustained in the future.
A mature staking ecosystem is one thing; the real demand is where, and that’s the key.
View OriginalReply0
MeaninglessApe
· 7h ago
43.6 billion tokens destroyed... This data really can't be ignored, no wonder I can't sleep.
View OriginalReply0
TestnetScholar
· 7h ago
Hmm... Destroying 43.6 billion tokens sounds impressive, but does this data really compare favorably to the circulating supply?
---
A monthly 1.2% destruction rate isn't that exaggerated, but it really depends on how long it can be sustained.
---
Pledging 100 billion tokens sounds like a big news, but is there real demand to support it or just cutting the leeks?
---
The phrase "working quietly" is the easiest way to deceive people. Why not say that the project team just isn't popular?
---
Hard data is hard data, but LUNC is still LUNC. The consensus in the fan community can never be changed.
---
I believe in the sustainability of the destruction mechanism, but whether it can truly boost the token price is the real key.
---
Destroying 533 million in January, how much was destroyed last year? I have no idea.
---
Is the pledge ecosystem mature? Why is the market still cold and unenthusiastic?
---
It’s convincing in the long term, but what about the short term? Most of us can't wait for the long term.
View OriginalReply0
CountdownToBroke
· 7h ago
Are the 43.6 billion tokens really burned? I need to verify this data myself; it seems a bit exaggerated.
View OriginalReply0
ZKSherlock
· 7h ago
actually... the burn mechanism here is interesting from a *probabilistic proof systems* perspective, but we should be asking—what are the actual trust assumptions underpinning these destruction claims? where's the cryptographic verification? 🤔
Yesterday, I casually looked at the on-chain data of LUNC before bed, and I was so shocked by the data that I couldn't sleep at all. The market all says it's a "zombie coin," but from the data, this project is actually working quietly on big things. Today, I want to share what I saw—it's all hard data, nothing虚.
Let's start with the most core point: LUNC's deflation mechanism has shifted from "planned" to "actual." And this wave of deflation is not a sudden event but the result of community, mechanism, and ecosystem efforts working together.
Some might say that burning is just that, who in the crypto space hasn't played with it? But LUNC is different; its burns are "continuous + scaled." By early 2026, the total on-chain burns have exceeded 43.6 billion tokens. Just in January, leading platforms burned 533 million tokens in one go, which is equivalent to permanently removing a large chunk of chips from the circulating market. More importantly, the burn pace is accelerating, with a monthly burn rate stabilized at 1.2%, meaning the circulating supply is decreasing at a predictable rate, not just driven by occasional "burn events" to create hype.
Besides the burn mechanism, there are two other signals worth noting. One is that the staking ecosystem has become quite mature; there have even been large single-stake operations of 100 billion tokens, indicating real funds and user demand supporting it. The second is that technical upgrades are beginning to be implemented. On the surface, it seems calm, but in fact, the project is steadily iterating. This "quiet work" rhythm is often overlooked by the market, but in the long run, it tends to be more convincing.