Recently, there has been an interesting phenomenon: why do on-chain data performances vary so greatly among projects from the same token issuance platform ecosystem?

Take one of the projects as an example. Its data is indeed impressive. So far, the burn rate has reached 19.88%, large holders voluntarily lock up 3.95%, and the liquidity pool depth is 13.1% (145.61 BNB). The number of token holder addresses is 7,238. Such a structure is not common among similar projects.

Why is it able to achieve this? The core lies in the design of the tax mechanism—3% transaction tax, of which 1.5% is directly burned, and the other 1.5% flows back into the liquidity pool.

This logic is quite clear: the longer the time, the deeper the pool, and the tighter the circulation. From a tokenomics perspective, this kind of spiral deflation design is quite competitive in early-stage projects. The burn process continues, the pool keeps accumulating, and the spread between buy and sell prices remains relatively stable—the mechanism itself is self-optimizing.

Another point worth noting is the community’s carrying capacity. This project has gathered considerable community strength for development, with multiple communities tracking it. The high participation of KOLs and influencers indicates that discussion activity and liquidity may receive ongoing external support.

Of course, a beautiful mechanism does not necessarily guarantee a beautiful outcome, but a solid foundational design can indeed provide more possibilities for long-term development. It is worth continuing to observe the subsequent performance of such projects.