2025-12-25 03:25:15

Recently, a classic question has been circulating in the crypto community: "Why does the price of ASTER remain stagnant despite frequent buybacks?" After analyzing on-chain data, I discovered a very sobering phenomenon.

Basically, it's like this—project teams are repurchasing tokens, but large holders are also selling. The project team wants to keep the price low to reduce buyback costs; meanwhile, big airdrop holders see the price as unstable and want to cash out. Both sides are selling, but no one is truly buying in, leaving retail investors to be the only ones to step in and rescue the market.

What's more ironic is that the project team has no real incentive to pump the price. The lower the price, the more beneficial it is for them. Promises like "staking mining" and "holding tokens for dividends" become powerless in the face of profit motives.

My immediate reaction was straightforward: liquidate this project and switch to a stablecoin track.

A friend asked me, "Is there any project without some kind of game theory behind it? Is it even possible?"

My answer was: "When both the game designer and the market manipulators are aligned against ordinary players, do you think regular investors still have a chance?"

This reveals a common flaw in altcoins—their prices are entirely driven by the interests of project teams and large holders, with no regard for the benefits of ordinary token holders. You're like a stranger at a gambling table, where the dealer plays with you and changes the rules at will.

In contrast, the logic of stablecoins is completely different. Take over-collateralized stablecoins with 130%+ on-chain collateral as an example. Their value doesn't rely on anyone's "trustworthy promise," but is built on transparent on-chain data. No stories of secret dumping, no games of buyback and pump; only the constraints of mathematical rules: each unit of stablecoin is backed by real assets.

This is the core value of stablecoins as I understand it—trust is not placed in human nature, but in cold, hard assets and code.

ASTER4.41%

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.

14 Likes

Reward
14
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

zheng

· 25m ago

According to the project plan: ＊100% of the income: 80% is planned for buyback, 20% is withheld ＊Let's say 80% for buyback: actually 40% is used for automatic buyback, and another 40% is withheld, claiming it is reserved and no buyback has been executed ＊Let's say 40% for automatic buyback: actually 20% is used for destruction, and another 20% is withheld, claiming it is for airdrops ＊Therefore, the actual destruction is only 20% of the income🤣🤣 ＊Finally, 20% for destruction, how much is the actual daily income?? Pay attention to ⚠️⚠️ On 12.23, the buyback amount was 400,000 USDT, corresponding destruction amount is 200,000 USDT On 12.24, the buyback amount was 320,000 USDT, corresponding destruction amount is 160,000 USDT On 12.25, the buyback amount was 240,000 USDT, corresponding destruction amount is 120,000 USDT ＊Currently, 78.4 million tokens need to be unlocked every month!! ＊Conclusion: the monthly unlocking selling pressure is more than 10 times the destruction support! And this process will continue until mid-2027 ＊Additionally, there are 3.5 billion tokens in a massive ununlockable state!!

View OriginalReply0

OnChainSleuth

· 4h ago

Retail investors are always the last bagholders—that's the truth of the crypto world. Clearing out positions is correct; stablecoins are the right path. Another fake buyback to cut leeks, seen it too many times. Designers and whales are in cahoots; what are we playing at? Data speaks volumes; a 130% collateralization ratio is a million times better than just talking big. Project teams want the coin price to fall; do you still expect them to pump the price? That's why I only deal with verifiable things. Rules can change at any time; there's no place for retail investors at the gambling table.

View OriginalReply0

ApeEscapeArtist

· 4h ago

Liquidating and running away is the right way; don't wait to be cut off.

View OriginalReply0

GasGrillMaster

· 5h ago

Large investors and project teams sell together, and we retail investors are just the bagholders.

View OriginalReply0

GasFeeCrier

· 5h ago

Clearing out and running is the right move; no one can win in this kind of situation. Here we go again, project teams and big players suppress the market together, retail investors are just being used as scapegoats to take the fall. I'm already tired of this routine. Instead of believing in buybacks, it's better to look at on-chain data; cold and hard collateralization ratios can't deceive anyone. The gambling table is monopolized by the house; why should we still play this game? I respect the logic behind stablecoins. They don't rely on PPTs and promises, but speak purely through mathematics.

View OriginalReply0