#代币经济学# Looking back at the ICO frenzy of 2017, I can't help but feel a lot when I see the actions of the DEGEN Foundation today. Back then, how many projects designed extravagant tokenomics models to attract investors, only to end up either dropping to zero or experiencing a Rug Pull. Now, DEGEN's proposal to phase out the Token does remind me of some successful projects from the early days.

This approach has its pros and cons. The benefit is that it can alleviate inflationary pressures and boost market confidence. However, the risk is that if executed improperly, it could trigger panic among investors. Looking back at history, there have been several successful cases of similar token burn programs, such as Binance's BNB quarterly burn. But there are also lessons from failures; I remember a project that experienced severe price fluctuations due to a sudden large-scale burn, ultimately leading to a collapse of trust.

DEGEN is taking a phased and steady approach this time, seeking community input, which clearly reflects lessons learned from predecessors. However, the adjustment of tokenomics is always a double-edged sword. Excessive focus on short-term price fluctuations while neglecting long-term value creation is a common issue for many projects. I hope DEGEN can truly focus on product and ecological construction, rather than getting caught up in the endless token engineering games.

After all, looking at the history of cryptocurrency, the projects that can truly survive in the long term have never relied on how complex their token models are, but rather on whether they solve real problems and create genuine value. This is something that deserves deep contemplation from everyone.