2025-12-18 23:50:46

#数字资产市场洞察 In recent years, random coin issuance has become increasingly outrageous. Look around now—there are coins with the same name everywhere, and liquidity has been diluted to the point of chaos. No one is focusing on genuine projects; instead, the ecosystem is being muddled by all kinds of trash coins. To use a metaphor you love—like a Mahjong parlor—everyone has dispersed, so why keep the place open?

I think there's a straightforward solution: raise the threshold for issuing tokens. For example, require a deposit as a guarantee before issuing coins, and strictly prohibit duplicate names. This can at least filter out those impulsive project teams. It forces truly innovative teams to refine their products more seriously and also protects investors from being heavily exploited.

Rather than watching liquidity plummet cliff-like, it’s better to cut off these fake projects at the source. What do you think of this idea?

View Original

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.

16 Likes

Reward
16
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

WagmiWarrior

· 2025-12-21 23:14

The margin system sounds good, but can it really prevent being played for suckers? The RATS are just made by spending a little money.

View OriginalReply0

SchrodingerAirdrop

· 2025-12-20 18:16

The margin system sounds good, but in the end, this thing still ends up being a tool for the wealthy to harvest profits from the little guys.

View OriginalReply0

ForkMaster

· 2025-12-19 00:16

It sounds good, but once the margin system is implemented, everyone will shift their cuts. I saw this approach three years ago, where project teams directly used the margin as a fee to harvest retail investors, and they still ran away. Instead of restricting token issuance, it's better to make the contract code more transparent—I found during my previous security audits that 80% of junk coins haven't been properly audited at all. The most effective method is for teams with white-hat backgrounds to establish their own security awareness ratings, which are more effective than any gatekeeping. However, this would benefit market makers on exchanges, and they would definitely oppose it.

View OriginalReply0

zkProofInThePudding

· 2025-12-19 00:14

The margin system can indeed deter some, but the real cutthroat players have long factored in the costs. --- The problem of coins with the same name flying everywhere should have been addressed long ago. The current liquidity is like a sieve. --- Thinking too idealistically. In places where regulation is absent, margin alone is useless; you still have to recognize people yourself. --- I agree that the threshold should be raised, but the key is for someone to actually enforce it. Who will oversee it now? --- This idea is good, but I'm worried it will just turn into a moat for big players in the end. --- The analogy of a mahjong parlor is spot on. Now, the place is still operating even though everyone has left. --- Damn it, another bunch of trash coins sucking blood. Why do we have to go through this every year? --- The margin tactic must be combined with a blacklist system; otherwise, it's just a shell game to keep coming back.

View OriginalReply0

BoredWatcher