Looking at projects like $Jager, the core issue isn't the token itself, but the inherent contradictions in its economic model.

A slippage and tax mechanism of up to 15% sounds like a "protection" measure, but in reality, it creates a high wall—deterring large funds from entering. Who would want to get caught with a 15% cut? That's not a threshold; it's a deterrent. Insufficient liquidity is an inevitable result, and in the long run, it leads to depletion.

Then there are the promises of token burns and dividends. Comparing a 1% dividend to Yu'e Bao, there's really no competition. Not to mention the claims that "a 3.5-year burn cycle can lead to a surge"—those who believe this are basically just taking the bait. Burning can indeed change supply, but without liquidity support, even a small amount of tokens is worth nothing.

The usual pattern for these projects is to have a surge at launch, then fall into silence. Tokens that appreciate in value do so because of genuine demand and capital inflow. But when basic liquidity becomes a problem, no amount of mechanism innovation can save it. Ultimately, one should be cautious of projects that use complex mechanisms to mask weak fundamentals.