How difficult is it for public chains to achieve deflation? This question seems simple on the surface, but it involves the entire ecosystem's economic logic beneath.

Let's clarify one point: public chains are not meme coins. They require continuous block rewards to incentivize miners or validators to participate, a staking mechanism to maintain security, and governance voting to push upgrades. Even Bitcoin is no exception—miners need profits to cover mining costs. Under these constraints, achieving deflation is no easy feat.

So where is the possibility of deflation? The answer is: the transaction fees collected by the public chain must cover or even exceed the expenditure on block rewards. There are two paths here.

The first path is through increasing transaction volume—top public chains like ETH and BNB operate this way. Thousands of transactions per second generate hefty fees, naturally enabling deflation. But this is an impossible dream for most public chains.

The second, more aggressive path is to set transaction fees astronomically high. LUNC has adopted this strategy—charging a 0.5% fee on transfers, of which 80% is burned, 10% goes into the community development treasury, and the remaining 10% serves as block rewards. In other words, transferring 100 million LUNC requires paying 500,000 in fees, of which 400,000 vanish forever and can never be recovered.

Could this model become the future? From an economic perspective, it’s not impossible. ETH once built an ecosystem moat through high transaction fees, and LUNC is now following this path. The difference is the era—one is a first-mover advantage, the other a rebirth from the ashes.

Key observation points: LUNC is continuously deflationary every minute, hour, and day. This is not a false claim; it’s real-time data. The real question is whether this high-fee model can attract enough transaction volume in the long term to sustain ecosystem vitality—that’s the true test.