Really appreciate your reply and the insight into Telcoin’s RegFi approach. I understand how Telcoin is using stablecoins like eUSD to tackle inefficiencies in remittances, and I see the logic in telecom integration helping to drive adoption.
What I’m still trying to pin down is the actual mechanism that creates and sustains scarcity for $TEL. You mentioned that scarcity is currently very high (99% circulating), which makes sense. But going forward, as more people use the platform to send or receive money in stablecoins like eUSD, what specifically drives continued demand or removes $TEL from circulation?
To be more precise — is there a token sink model in place?
By that I mean: a built-in system where $TEL is either used up, locked up, or permanently removed from circulation as a function of platform activity. Token sink models often include things like:
burning a portion of transaction fees,
staking mechanisms that lock tokens in exchange for services or rewards,
paying for platform functions exclusively in $TEL,
or requiring $TEL to unlock premium features or governance rights.
If Telcoin’s utility token isn’t directly involved in stablecoin-based transactions, or if fees are settled in eUSD rather than $TEL, then it’s not clear how $TEL appreciates based on actual platform usage.
Would love to hear your take on how that’s structured — and whether Telcoin’s model includes a sustainable feedback loop that truly links adoption to token value.
Really appreciate your reply and the insight into Telcoin’s RegFi approach. I understand how Telcoin is using stablecoins like eUSD to tackle inefficiencies in remittances, and I see the logic in telecom integration helping to drive adoption.
What I’m still trying to pin down is the actual mechanism that creates and sustains scarcity for $TEL. You mentioned that scarcity is currently very high (99% circulating), which makes sense. But going forward, as more people use the platform to send or receive money in stablecoins like eUSD, what specifically drives continued demand or removes $TEL from circulation?
To be more precise — is there a token sink model in place?
By that I mean: a built-in system where $TEL is either used up, locked up, or permanently removed from circulation as a function of platform activity. Token sink models often include things like:
burning a portion of transaction fees,
staking mechanisms that lock tokens in exchange for services or rewards,
paying for platform functions exclusively in $TEL,
or requiring $TEL to unlock premium features or governance rights.
If Telcoin’s utility token isn’t directly involved in stablecoin-based transactions, or if fees are settled in eUSD rather than $TEL, then it’s not clear how $TEL appreciates based on actual platform usage.
Would love to hear your take on how that’s structured — and whether Telcoin’s model includes a sustainable feedback loop that truly links adoption to token value.
Thanks again for engaging.