The debate over tokens versus equity has barely begun.
Many of the top crypto projects came up in the Gensler era, when regulatory pressure forced devcos to drive all value to equity, not tokens. The new policy environment means new opportunities, but no simple answers. It will take a lot of time and experimentation to figure out how (or if) tokens and equity can work well together. That era of experimentation is beginning now.
I have no view on the Aave situation in particular, except to say that as usual, the most important thing is clarity: tokenholders should know exactly what they own and control (and what they don't).
The design space for token value accrual is huge, much larger than traditional equity, so I doubt there will be a standard model for tokens like there is for stock any time soon. This means the key for each token isn't following a preset playbook, but rather being perfectly clear about what powers the token actually provides to its holders.
Six months ago, @jessewldn and I wrote a piece on our view re: the correct divide between tokens and equity. In short, we concluded that tokens should accrue onchain value, and equity should accrue offchain value.
The key innovation unlocked by tokens is self-sovereign ownership of digital property. Tokens uniquely enable holders to own and control onchain infrastructure without reliance on offchain intermediaries. That means tomenholders can (and should) own and control all value and other assets that exist and flow onchain.
Offchain value is different. Tokenholders can't directly own or control offchain revenue or assets, so in most cases, those should accrue to equity, not tokens. Devcos that accrue offchain value may want to share it with tokenholders, and that may be doable with the right structure (e.g., tokenholders organize a legal entity like a DUNA and contract with the devco), but ideally that value would flow onchain from the start.
Other models will certainly work too. Some projects may decide to have a one-asset model with no equity at all. Others may decide that their tokens should be treated as tokenized securities subject to whatever rules the new SEC writes for that market. New and better ideas will hopefully come along too.
Meanwhile, some food for thought as the debate over how to make tokens truly valuable unfolds:
blog.variant.fund/tokens-versus-…
Many of the top crypto projects came up in the Gensler era, when regulatory pressure forced devcos to drive all value to equity, not tokens. The new policy environment means new opportunities, but no simple answers. It will take a lot of time and experimentation to figure out how (or if) tokens and equity can work well together. That era of experimentation is beginning now.
I have no view on the Aave situation in particular, except to say that as usual, the most important thing is clarity: tokenholders should know exactly what they own and control (and what they don't).
The design space for token value accrual is huge, much larger than traditional equity, so I doubt there will be a standard model for tokens like there is for stock any time soon. This means the key for each token isn't following a preset playbook, but rather being perfectly clear about what powers the token actually provides to its holders.
Six months ago, @jessewldn and I wrote a piece on our view re: the correct divide between tokens and equity. In short, we concluded that tokens should accrue onchain value, and equity should accrue offchain value.
The key innovation unlocked by tokens is self-sovereign ownership of digital property. Tokens uniquely enable holders to own and control onchain infrastructure without reliance on offchain intermediaries. That means tomenholders can (and should) own and control all value and other assets that exist and flow onchain.
Offchain value is different. Tokenholders can't directly own or control offchain revenue or assets, so in most cases, those should accrue to equity, not tokens. Devcos that accrue offchain value may want to share it with tokenholders, and that may be doable with the right structure (e.g., tokenholders organize a legal entity like a DUNA and contract with the devco), but ideally that value would flow onchain from the start.
Other models will certainly work too. Some projects may decide to have a one-asset model with no equity at all. Others may decide that their tokens should be treated as tokenized securities subject to whatever rules the new SEC writes for that market. New and better ideas will hopefully come along too.
Meanwhile, some food for thought as the debate over how to make tokens truly valuable unfolds:
blog.variant.fund/tokens-versus-…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
