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.
24 Likes
Reward
24
7
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
GateUser-74b10196
· 23h ago
Is that the same story again? The American team playing "supply control"? Ha, if the numbers don't match, they just don't match. No need to hide or cover up.
View OriginalReply0
SelfCustodyBro
· 01-16 13:18
Uh... these numbers don't add up. How can supply control be so decentralized in practice? The story the US team is telling doesn't seem to add up.
View OriginalReply0
BoredStaker
· 01-14 11:50
Another supply control scam, I don't trust projects where the numbers don't add up.
View OriginalReply0
GlueGuy
· 01-14 11:50
The numbers don't match up, this is really outrageous...
View OriginalReply0
BlockchainArchaeologist
· 01-14 11:49
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
· 01-14 11:36
Supply control? Ha, I just look at the numbers and want to laugh. Why does it sound so nice?
View OriginalReply0
SatoshiHeir
· 01-14 11:35
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.