Recently, there has been an interesting phenomenon in the market worth paying attention to. A leading exchange ecosystem token recently made a big move—donating 1 billion tokens to charity, which accounts for 13% of the total supply, and will never be reclaimed. In simple terms, this is a disguised destruction of 13% of the circulating supply.
This move is indeed quite bold, and no wonder it was able to dominate the tail end of the last bull market. But if we talk about real potential, I actually prefer ASTER, for a very simple reason—there are big players backing it. Since they themselves are already caught in the trap, what is there to fear?
Interestingly, this move by HYPE indirectly validated a logic for ASTER. I predicted early on that ASTER would eventually introduce a systematic destruction mechanism. The general timeline is: end of airdrop phase → initiate buyback and burn → complete all unlocks → start trading with a burn mode → long-term holding equals continuous deflation.
The reality turned out to be more aggressive than my prediction. In Q3, they directly launched buyback and burn. Later, ASTER also optimized the unlock scheme, releasing only 75 million tokens per month for airdrops, with the remaining tokens unlocked in one go later. This change signals that they are preparing for large-scale destruction, just waiting for the right moment to trigger a爆发.
HYPE’s one-time destruction of 13% actually confirms that my speculation is feasible. Moreover, they found a smarter justification—charity. Who can beat that? The ecosystem leader has its own charity fund, another founder and family also run personal funds, and popular on-chain tokens even promote charity concepts. All these routines are right here.
Looking at ASTER from the other side, almost all logic points to bullishness. I really can’t think of any reason not to allocate. Remember one thing: the market only rewards those with patience. The current volatility? That’s just a shakeout. As long as you’re not shaken out, anything is possible.
From another perspective, the reason a major DEX is strong is because of its backing by the main chain and technological layout, plus real dividends for holders. ASTER’s position is actually clearer—backed by an ecosystem leader and core figures, providing airdrops to the community. In contrast, HYPE, with its high market cap, relies entirely on the development team unlocking tokens, with little benefit for users and holders. This structure itself is somewhat unreasonable.
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.
6 Likes
Reward
6
2
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
PonziWhisperer
· 15h ago
Destroying in the name of charity is truly brilliant, full of tricks. But that set of logic from ASTER... sounds a bit too perfect.
View OriginalReply0
BoredWatcher
· 16h ago
Charitable destruction of 13%, indeed ruthless, but the logic of ASTER backing the ecosystem leader is really attractive.
HYPE's high market value relies entirely on the team unlocking, with no benefits for holders. This structure is indeed a bit outrageous.
All logic points to positive news, I really can't see a reason not to allocate.
For those still hesitating, by the time they realize it, it will probably be another case of getting on the train only to be trapped.
Even big players have been caught in the trap, isn't this signal clearer than anything else?
The market only rewards those with patience. This is just a shakeout; if you can't hold on, you'll be kicked out long ago.
Recently, there has been an interesting phenomenon in the market worth paying attention to. A leading exchange ecosystem token recently made a big move—donating 1 billion tokens to charity, which accounts for 13% of the total supply, and will never be reclaimed. In simple terms, this is a disguised destruction of 13% of the circulating supply.
This move is indeed quite bold, and no wonder it was able to dominate the tail end of the last bull market. But if we talk about real potential, I actually prefer ASTER, for a very simple reason—there are big players backing it. Since they themselves are already caught in the trap, what is there to fear?
Interestingly, this move by HYPE indirectly validated a logic for ASTER. I predicted early on that ASTER would eventually introduce a systematic destruction mechanism. The general timeline is: end of airdrop phase → initiate buyback and burn → complete all unlocks → start trading with a burn mode → long-term holding equals continuous deflation.
The reality turned out to be more aggressive than my prediction. In Q3, they directly launched buyback and burn. Later, ASTER also optimized the unlock scheme, releasing only 75 million tokens per month for airdrops, with the remaining tokens unlocked in one go later. This change signals that they are preparing for large-scale destruction, just waiting for the right moment to trigger a爆发.
HYPE’s one-time destruction of 13% actually confirms that my speculation is feasible. Moreover, they found a smarter justification—charity. Who can beat that? The ecosystem leader has its own charity fund, another founder and family also run personal funds, and popular on-chain tokens even promote charity concepts. All these routines are right here.
Looking at ASTER from the other side, almost all logic points to bullishness. I really can’t think of any reason not to allocate. Remember one thing: the market only rewards those with patience. The current volatility? That’s just a shakeout. As long as you’re not shaken out, anything is possible.
From another perspective, the reason a major DEX is strong is because of its backing by the main chain and technological layout, plus real dividends for holders. ASTER’s position is actually clearer—backed by an ecosystem leader and core figures, providing airdrops to the community. In contrast, HYPE, with its high market cap, relies entirely on the development team unlocking tokens, with little benefit for users and holders. This structure itself is somewhat unreasonable.