Many novice investors are wary of the rebase mechanism. What exactly is the reason? Mainly, it’s because the price volatility characteristics of such tokens make it difficult to adapt— the number of tokens held will automatically adjust, but the account value may not necessarily increase accordingly. Coupled with the fact that many rebase projects have collapsed due to poor design, this further deepens people's doubts. In fact, rebase itself is not a bad thing; the key depends on how the project team uses it— a well-designed rebase mechanism can maintain the stability of the token’s purchasing power, but only if there is genuine economic fundamentals backing it. This is also why many retail investors still prefer traditional token models, as they involve less uncertainty and are psychologically more reassuring.

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.
  • Reward
  • 3
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
rugpull_survivorvip
· 13h ago
Rebase, to put it simply, is just putting on a different mask to scam investors. I've seen too many projects die because of this.
View OriginalReply0
AirdropJunkievip
· 13h ago
Basically, the rebase system is too easy to manipulate for quick gains, and even if the tokens decrease, the enthusiasm still cools down.
View OriginalReply0
DaoResearchervip
· 13h ago
In plain terms, rebase is a mirror that exposes the failure of governance mechanism design— from AMPL to OHM, the whitepapers are full of fancy words, but once on-chain data comes out, it's all trash.
View OriginalReply0
  • Pin

Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
  • بالعربية
  • Português (Brasil)
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Español
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Русский
  • 繁體中文
  • Українська
  • Tiếng Việt