Recently, I started playing on the BURN mainnet and carefully studied the UP (3,3) model. I also reviewed official tweets and whitepapers http://docs.burn.org/dai-bi-jing-ji I also spent a few days brainstorming and wanted to share my thoughts with everyone. What's wrong? Just spray in the comment section, don't hesitate! Let's talk about up (3,3) first, it's actually an upgrade from ve (3,3), and the core is "hold it when you buy it, don't sell it randomly". Why is it designed like this? I understand that game theory is playing tricks: if everyone buys and holds together, the price will stabilize and rise, and the returns will double; If someone sells alone and takes some cash in the short term, but the UP Foundation insists on holding on, the price cannot fall, and the seller misses out on the subsequent surge. The official says this is called "strong collaborative consensus", which means that the more people stick together, the easier it is for BURN to rise. This logic is somewhat interesting, the cost of speculation has been raised, and holding on feels more cost-effective. Let's talk more about economic design. The total number of BURN is 1 billion, and the team and institution have not reserved them, which is quite straightforward. 50% of the transaction fees collected by the platform are directly used to repurchase BURN and burn it off, resulting in a decreasing circulation. The remaining funds are turned into UP funds specifically for stabilizing prices. In the white paper, it is stated that as long as the UP fund is exhausted, BURN will directly open up free trading in foreign markets, without waiting for the old rule of "99% release". Previously, some people mistakenly thought that the release ratio was a hard threshold, but in fact, the consensus of UP (3,3) is strong enough that there is no need for this restriction, and the market can push it forward on its own. The game aspect is more interesting. The official has created a simple chart, where "3" represents making big money while "0" means selling for only a small amount. In reality, there are so many players that selling alone cannot affect the overall situation. It is difficult to reach a consensus on selling together, and coupled with the fact that UP funds are at the bottom, it is almost impossible to drop to "0,0". So, from a rational perspective, 'buy+hold' is still the most popular option, as BURN prices are forced to reach new highs. Technically, smart contracts are all open source, but they are deadlocked and cannot be upgraded, and project parties cannot access liquidity, resulting in full transparency. Restricting circulation is done using hooks. I heard that the project team can adjust parameters and change them according to community needs, which is quite flexible. The white paper states that this is to make 'sustained upward trend' the norm, driven by both buybacks and consensus. In the short term, arbitrage may be a bit sweet, such as buying low and selling high to make a profit, but the temptation of long-term returns is greater, especially before the UP fund is exhausted, the price has confidence. I made a wild guess, this model may be trying to make BURN something that "keeps getting higher and higher", but of course, the market will depend on how players play. What do you think of BURN's up (3,3)? Have you ever played it before? How high can it reach in the long run? I am still in a wait-and-see state, welcome to chat about ideas! 🔥 Crypto Tokenomics @KaitoAI