Looking at the project's banner and token distribution breakdown, there's something worth questioning here. The core team is based in the US, but the tokenomics don't quite add up if they're really implementing "supply control" as claimed. The numbers and the stated governance structure seem to tell a different story. Worth digging deeper into how the actual allocation aligns with their public statements about token economics.
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.
15 Likes
Reward
15
5
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
BoredStaker
· 6h ago
Another supply control scam, I don't trust projects where the numbers don't add up.
View OriginalReply0
GlueGuy
· 6h ago
The numbers don't match up, this is really outrageous...
View OriginalReply0
BlockchainArchaeologist
· 6h ago
Damn, it's this kind of mismatched tokenomics again. The American team is still playing with supply control? I just can't understand it more and more.
View OriginalReply0
ExpectationFarmer
· 6h ago
Supply control? Ha, I just look at the numbers and want to laugh. Why does it sound so nice?
View OriginalReply0
SatoshiHeir
· 6h ago
Undoubtedly, this is yet another typical case of tokenomics self-deception. On-chain data quickly exposes the truth, and the so-called "supply control" is completely different from what the white paper describes...
Looking at the project's banner and token distribution breakdown, there's something worth questioning here. The core team is based in the US, but the tokenomics don't quite add up if they're really implementing "supply control" as claimed. The numbers and the stated governance structure seem to tell a different story. Worth digging deeper into how the actual allocation aligns with their public statements about token economics.