How to tell the story of trustworthiness using on-chain data in trading protocols

2026-01-02 02:06:11

Abstract generation in progress

【ChainWen】There’s a detail worth paying attention to. Recently, the founder of a major mainstream trading protocol shared their project philosophy—integrity and neutrality are fundamental.

How to achieve this? The key points are: the project has no private investors involved, there are no special privileges for market makers at the trading level, and the protocol itself does not charge any company. This design ensures that all participants are on the same starting line.

Token distribution is even more interesting. The entire genesis phase token allocation follows the same logic as Bitcoin—everything was given to early users, and the core contributors of the project did not participate in the distribution. Profiting without relying on insiders requires enough confidence.

What is the most critical? The entire distribution process is written on-chain, fully traceable. No ambiguous areas, no black box operations. Want to verify? Just check on the chain; the data is right there. Such transparency is indeed rare.

BTC1,84%

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.

10 Likes

Reward
10
4
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

Gm_Gn_Merchant

· 13h ago

Sounds good, but this "integrity" story can be seen on the chain. Can it be implemented in reality? --- No private investors, no special privileges. How to ensure long-term operation? Someone has to eat. --- All tokens go to early users. That’s a bold move, but I’m worried that more later investors might want to flip. --- On-chain transparency is truly transparent, but there are also a bunch of shitcoins with transparent data. Good-looking data ≠ a good project. --- It sounds nice, but the key is to look at the trading volume and real user numbers three months later. --- Moving the Bitcoin model here, the environment is completely different. This logic is a bit too naive. --- I just want to know how many tokens the founder has in hand. Just talking about integrity is useless. --- On-chain traceability is a real advantage, but most people simply don’t understand on-chain data. They still have to trust. --- Self-confidence? I think it’s more like a forced choice due to funding difficulties, haha. --- This kind of rhetoric sounds like it’s promoting a specific protocol. Is it really that perfect?

View OriginalReply0

TokenVelocity

· 20h ago

Sounds good, but I just want to ask one question—do these core contributors really not cash out through other means?

View OriginalReply0

FOMOrektGuy

· 20h ago

Wow, this is the kind of serious project it should be—honest and sincere, not exploiting your own people for quick gains. On-chain data speaks for itself, much more transparent than those who just talk big. Protocols that dare to operate like this are truly rare. Why haven't I heard of them before? But here's the question: how can this zero-fee model be sustainable? Giving tokens to early users is fine, but what about the team? Copying this logic based on Bitcoin still feels a bit idealistic, doesn't it?

View OriginalReply0

0xSunnyDay

· 20h ago

Hmm... This explanation sounds good, but can it really be maintained? Wait, the core contributors haven't taken a single penny? That's too outrageous. I believe in on-chain traceability, but I feel like the story of integrity is being told better than it's actually practiced... But on the other hand, at least they're willing to put everything on the chain, and that attitude is truly bold.

View OriginalReply0