2025-12-30 09:27:34

The tokenomics design plan of a certain project has surfaced, with a fairly clear distribution logic: participants in the first two seasons will receive one-fourth of the total token supply, and users in future seasons will also retain a quarter of the proportion. This phased release approach not only considers the interests of early participants but also reserves space for subsequent ecosystem development. From a tokenomics perspective, such a balanced distribution method is worth paying attention to.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

10 Likes

Reward
10
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

failed_dev_successful_ape

· 1h ago

A quarter for early participants, another quarter later... This distribution method seems quite balanced, but how it will actually play out during the release phase remains to be seen. It's basically leaving a door open for future players, probably to prevent a dump. Balanced distribution sounds good, but the key is whether there's genuine popularity. A quarter, a quarter, where did the remaining half go? This design idea is indeed a bit sophisticated, but ultimately, tokenomics still depends on practical application. In simple terms, it's trying to balance the interests of all parties; whether it can succeed depends on execution. Releasing in phases to reduce selling pressure, theoretically, it should be okay.

View OriginalReply0

TheMemefather

· 13h ago

A quarter for a quarter, sounds good, but I'm just worried they'll secretly issue more later on.

View OriginalReply0

TokenDustCollector

· 13h ago

An early 25% sounds good, but it really depends on the actual implementation to get it into your hands. The distribution logic still depends on subsequent execution.

View OriginalReply0

CryptoTarotReader

· 13h ago

Early quarter, subsequent quarter... sounds good, but the real test is still ahead.

View OriginalReply0

WhaleWatcher

· 13h ago

Early participants can get a quarter, and later entrants also get a quarter? That logic sounds good, but the real test is still ahead.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidityHunter

· 13h ago

One quarter for early participants, and another quarter for subsequent ones? This allocation seems a bit too evenly distributed. It feels like it's paving the way for later participants—what about the early bird advantage?

View OriginalReply0

CodeZeroBasis

· 13h ago

Early entry quarter, subsequent also quarter? This allocation logic feels a bit interesting, but it depends on where the remaining half goes—reserved for the team or for liquidity?

View OriginalReply0