How do we decide to support tokens?



We're selective about it. If a project catches our attention, we might explore buybacks or other backing arrangements — but only once we've done the homework:

First, we look at whether real people are accumulating the token (not just whales). Second, does the team actually have a coherent story and stick to it? Third, what's the health of their on-chain metrics and token mechanics?

Once we commit to anything, you'll see the full breakdown. No hidden moves.
TOKEN-2.53%
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
  • 5
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
zkNoobvip
· 3h ago
ngl, this process sounds a bit reliable... but the real question is, can it truly achieve "no hidden operations"?
View OriginalReply0
MeltdownSurvivalistvip
· 3h ago
Real user accumulation vs whale hoarding, this is the key to distinguishing projects.
View OriginalReply0
MetaverseVagabondvip
· 3h ago
This due diligence process sounds quite solid, but I haven't seen many teams that can truly stick to it and not be led around by whales.
View OriginalReply0
orphaned_blockvip
· 3h ago
Sounds good, but what really matters is whether it will be fulfilled.
View OriginalReply0
GasOptimizervip
· 3h ago
On-chain data speaks for itself, not just a paper story. I would like to see the Excel files for these three dimensions: real holder proportion, narrative stability, and mechanism health.
View OriginalReply0
Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
English
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)