Having a cup of coffee and just seeing the latest drama on the timeline.
A project has a 95-99% failure rate if incentives are misaligned from the beginning:
Game theory suggests that with no lockups, early investors face a prisoner's dilemma where the rational choice is to sell quickly.
Each investor knows others can exit, creating pressure to be "first out".
This creates a cascading effect where even investors who believe in the project may sell to avoid being last.
Vesting schedules ensure early investors and team members maintain skin in the game over an extended period.
When tokens unlock gradually over time, investors are incentivized to support the project's long-term development rather exiting before any value creation has taken place.
To truly justify day 1 unlocks, I think a project would need to demonstrate extraordinary value creation pre-launch, such as:
• Proven protocol revenue in the millions
• Large established user base (hundreds of thousands or millions)
• Clear competitive advantages
• Strong network effects already in place
• Demonstrated ability to capture value sustainably
That's pretty rare, but maybe you could say a project like Polymarket could fit that criteria, as they have demonstrated most of the above and have had a product live for 5 years, and would likely have strong liquid token interest.
The AICC episode is at best very negligent and mistaken distribution design, and at worst a predatory grift preying on a very hot sector that people are gambling on.
I don't know anything about the individuals behind it, so won't comment on that.
A project has a 95-99% failure rate if incentives are misaligned from the beginning:
Game theory suggests that with no lockups, early investors face a prisoner's dilemma where the rational choice is to sell quickly.
Each investor knows others can exit, creating pressure to be "first out".
This creates a cascading effect where even investors who believe in the project may sell to avoid being last.
Vesting schedules ensure early investors and team members maintain skin in the game over an extended period.
When tokens unlock gradually over time, investors are incentivized to support the project's long-term development rather exiting before any value creation has taken place.
To truly justify day 1 unlocks, I think a project would need to demonstrate extraordinary value creation pre-launch, such as:
• Proven protocol revenue in the millions
• Large established user base (hundreds of thousands or millions)
• Clear competitive advantages
• Strong network effects already in place
• Demonstrated ability to capture value sustainably
That's pretty rare, but maybe you could say a project like Polymarket could fit that criteria, as they have demonstrated most of the above and have had a product live for 5 years, and would likely have strong liquid token interest.
The AICC episode is at best very negligent and mistaken distribution design, and at worst a predatory grift preying on a very hot sector that people are gambling on.
I don't know anything about the individuals behind it, so won't comment on that.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
