[...]
I have an opening question, this surge protocol, I assume it's their unique point of different and selling power? Had to admit, it's getting harder and harder to follow every development from every single side of crypto, so I'm not sure if they're simply adapting an existing protocol or it's theirs.
Can you please explain further about the conditions of the protocol and their taxes? I'm not sure I can wrap my mind correctly on it. It'll be nice and very helpful if we use an illustration with assumed numbers and currency applied to an exact numbers in taxes for the said transactions.
Surge is the original protocol not an adapting or existing The protocol solve two problems at same time excess supply and inflation. Each consumer purchase interacts directly with the contract to buy the tokens with SmartChain BNB (BEP20). These contracts are more commonly referred to as "Swapper" Contracts. The SmartChain is routed to the contract address from the holder's wallet, mitigating the need for a Decentralized Exchange (DEx) or Centralized Exchange (CEx). When the contract receives SmartChain, the SmartChain is swapped for the backing asset, and the price value equivalent of new tokens are minted to increase the total supply. These tokens are then sent to the user's wallet address. Selling has the opposing effect of decreasing the total supply and supplying the backing asset to the seller. Taxes is 5% buy and 10% sell.
4% of buying and selling goes to LP to help with price increase. supply removed + fees added.
2spice contract works the same. we implemented the same concept. surge is a stable coin while 2spice is a normal traditional token.
Hello, thank you for coming here.
By "original protocol" you mean it's yours? Or is it an already established protocol? Forgive me, this is quite embarrassing that I had to ask, but apparently, my memory failed to serve me right. I've been trying to rake it the entire night and this morning, but still can't grasp even the name I tried to recall. I know that I vaguely remember I attended to a thread who propose a similar project as yours, where each action will only drives the price up through buyback, burn, etc. hence I wanted to know if the said protocol is what I stumbled upon in the past or you're simply having the same idea.
Second, wouldn't it fair to think that your project basically adapt similar fashion with those projects back in early 2022: applying tax to add LP and remove supplies?
surge is the original protocol. we took the concept and write our smart code from scratch. I will give some examples of why 2spice is different from the early project you think of.
1. Other projects do buybacks and burn Or burn to reduce supply to help with the price. Some project does burn tokens but you won't see any changes In price. Holders don't burn tokens only developers. BUT
2spice burn tokens on every sells. When holders sell tokens are burnt removing that amount from the circulation supply. Dev can buy back and burn to help price but dev can't burn tokens without buying. So holders+dev buy and burn tokens to increase the price.
2. Other projects have a million or trillions fixed supply or a minted supply from the start plus extra minting for rebasing etc. BUT 2spice is starting with 1 supply that is 1:1 1spice pair it 1busd. When people start buying tokens are minted and added to the supply and when they sell tokens get burnt removing that sold amount from the circulation supply. Percentage from buy and sell goes back to the contract. So burning + fess increase price. tokens are backed by an internal pool, All tokens that are minted have stablecoin backing. All mints are done with a stable token backing there is no free mint which other early projects don't have.
3. Other project contract don't store LQ, LQ are locked somewhere else. Dev can mint token and drain Lq. Because LQ is locked. BUT 2spice contract is a LQ dex itself that locks Lq. Only sold tokens can withdraw funds from the contract. And we can't mint without price backing.
