Token launch these days are more like NPC launches.
- Low float
- private market makers
- CEX payoffs
- custodial vesting
- compliant cranium crushing
- 60% of the supply to insiders (but that’s “okay” since they have 4 year vesting 💀)
- Zero predictability in token emissions
- dual token-equity structure
“these are industry standards bro, web2 does it bro, we’re just trying to make sure the team is protected bro, long term alignment bro”
One of the funniest pieces for me is how teams justify taking a super majority of their supply for insiders and try to play it off because it has long lock ups. Like if you don’t shackle their bags they won’t be long term aligned lol, bleak af.
Also how they just ignore that there are liquid derivative venues for hedging and OTC deals that skirt around the lock up.
It’s a complete joke. How can you say your project is meant to be community owned if 60% of the supply goes to insiders. Ridiculous.
And there is no “long term” alignment from vesting, this is false. Quite the opposite actually.
What it does is incentivize insiders to sell their tokens the moment they vest them for the first 3 years because they retain such a large portion of upside through the project lifecycle.
There is no - “wait if I sell my tokens I lose my upside…”
It’s - “I should sell my tokens the moment they vest because I won’t run out for 4 years.”
Everything that has been standardized for tokenomics in this industry is laughable and dishonestly promoted as “compliant” or “long term aligned”
There needs to be a new meta, a shake up of the norms. The status quo makes this industry so uninvestable that it’s tragic.
Not a single successful token has followed the above model, not one.
And before you say the token isn’t the project, let me ask you why there’s a token in the first place then, if the project doesn’t need it and can succeed without it?
Yes, that’s the problem.
- Low float
- private market makers
- CEX payoffs
- custodial vesting
- compliant cranium crushing
- 60% of the supply to insiders (but that’s “okay” since they have 4 year vesting 💀)
- Zero predictability in token emissions
- dual token-equity structure
“these are industry standards bro, web2 does it bro, we’re just trying to make sure the team is protected bro, long term alignment bro”
One of the funniest pieces for me is how teams justify taking a super majority of their supply for insiders and try to play it off because it has long lock ups. Like if you don’t shackle their bags they won’t be long term aligned lol, bleak af.
Also how they just ignore that there are liquid derivative venues for hedging and OTC deals that skirt around the lock up.
It’s a complete joke. How can you say your project is meant to be community owned if 60% of the supply goes to insiders. Ridiculous.
And there is no “long term” alignment from vesting, this is false. Quite the opposite actually.
What it does is incentivize insiders to sell their tokens the moment they vest them for the first 3 years because they retain such a large portion of upside through the project lifecycle.
There is no - “wait if I sell my tokens I lose my upside…”
It’s - “I should sell my tokens the moment they vest because I won’t run out for 4 years.”
Everything that has been standardized for tokenomics in this industry is laughable and dishonestly promoted as “compliant” or “long term aligned”
There needs to be a new meta, a shake up of the norms. The status quo makes this industry so uninvestable that it’s tragic.
Not a single successful token has followed the above model, not one.
And before you say the token isn’t the project, let me ask you why there’s a token in the first place then, if the project doesn’t need it and can succeed without it?
Yes, that’s the problem.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
