There is a truth in Web3 that everyone knows but doesn't speak of: the token economics of many projects have little to do with the actual business of the project. For example, DEX tokens like UNI, 1inch, and CAKE, no matter how many users or how large the trading volume, the tokens you hold won't make you money; at most, they provide a symbolic governance right.

Recently, the news that Uniswap plans to use transaction fees to buy back UNI actually should have been standard practice. The popularity of AI tokens this round is because they have started to tie the tokens to the projects; some use revenue to buy back and burn tokens, while others allow you to enjoy better services the more tokens you hold. This direction is correct, as it is no longer just pure air.

But the problem is: are these commitments backed by hard constraints? What if the team decides to change things? Many projects intentionally speak ambiguously to leave themselves a way out. In the last round, many teams used this "compliance" reasoning to openly avoid dividends and buybacks, ultimately legally scamming investors.

So, the next time I pick altcoins, I will look at these three criteria:

1. The more tokens you hold, the higher the level of service privileges you enjoy (tiered usage)

2. If the project makes money, use the revenue to buy back tokens (the team participates in supporting the market)

3. Directly use revenue to burn tokens, creating deflation, so that as people use it, the price rises (the team earns less or nothing)

It is best for projects to meet at least two of these criteria; if a project is particularly outstanding, one criterion may also be considered. In any case, you need to research whether the basic situation of the coin meets these criteria. Does anyone have altcoins they want to research? I can help take a look together.