Emission Shock: TRUMP, MELANIA lose 86–99% as circulating supply doubles in three months

ambcryptoPublished on 2025-12-10Last updated on 2025-12-10

Abstract

New tokens like TRUMP and MELANIA have plummeted 86–99% in value as their circulating supply doubled within three months, according to Tokenomist data. The report highlights aggressive token emissions and expanding float as key factors causing severe price declines, despite initial hype. Examples include Layer (-99.7%), Melania (-98%), and GoPlus Security (-92%). Market liquidity has shifted toward major cryptocurrencies and real-world assets, leaving newer tokens vulnerable. Even projects with genuine utility, like GoPlus, suffered due to poor tokenomics. The analysis concludes that unsustainable emission schedules and weak supply control are primary drivers of post-launch price collapse.

Tokens launched in Q1, such as TRUMP and MELANIA, are facing extreme downside pressure despite early hype, according to fresh Tokenomist data. The data compared launch prices with current circulating supply and market performance.

In every case monitored, circulating float expanded aggressively while prices collapsed between 86% and 99% since launch.

Massive issuance, collapsing prices

The report highlights a steep increase in circulating supply across a group of newly launched assets, including Official Trump, Melania, Layer, Plume, GoPlus Security, and Bubblemaps.

In most cases, circulating float doubled within three months, placing continuous sell-pressure on secondary markets, causing emission shock.

For example:

  • Layer moved from 21% to 31% float and is down 99.7%
  • Melania expanded from 25% to 55% and is down 98%
  • GoPlus Security moved from 15% to 29% and is down 92%
  • Plume moved from 20% to 33% and is down 86%

While individual narratives differ, the market reaction follows a similar pattern: heavy token emissions combined with thin liquidity result in forced price discovery at sharply lower levels.

Liquidity concentration favors majors

The broad rotation into Bitcoin, Ethereum, and real-world asset tokens over recent months has left smaller new launches exposed to liquidity shortages.

With capital gravitating toward majors and RWAs, newer tokens have little structural demand to absorb new supply.

This pattern is typical in phases where liquidity becomes conservative and retail participation fades.

In such environments, emission schedules matter more than product fundamentals, and even genuine use cases may not be enough to protect a token from emission shock.

Surface-level demand isn’t enough

GoPlus Security stands out as a token linked to meaningful cybersecurity infrastructure, yet its price is still down over 92% from launch.

The data reinforces a consistent theme across past cycles: practical utility does not always translate to token value when tokenomics work against holders.

Market watchers attribute token design, vesting schedules, and aggressive post-launch float increases as the primary drivers of these drawdowns, rather than project quality alone.


Final Thoughts

  • Token design remains one of the strongest determinants of post-launch price behavior.
  • Until new projects prioritize sustainable emissions and tighter supply control, newly issued assets are likely to remain vulnerable to emission shock and long-term price suppression.

Related Reads

Public Chain Moat Only 3/10? Alliance DAO Founder's Remarks Ignite Crypto Community Debate

Alliance DAO founder qw (@QwQiao) sparked intense debate in the crypto community by claiming that Layer 1 blockchains have "limited moats," rating them only 3/10 in terms of sustainable competitive advantage. This triggered strong reactions from key industry figures. Dragonfly Capital partner Haseeb strongly disagreed, arguing that Ethereum’s decade-long dominance despite well-funded challengers proves its strong moat. Others, like Multicoin’s Kyle Samani and researchers from Ethereum and Circle, questioned whether liquidity alone constitutes a real moat, with some calling it fleeting and unreliable. In response, qw elaborated on his moat rating framework, giving traditional giants like Microsoft, Apple, and Visa perfect scores (10/10) based on revenue models and infrastructure, while rating top crypto projects around 5/10. He notably rated Bitcoin at 9/10, citing its unique founding story and Lindy effect, but deducted a point due to uncertainties around security and quantum threats. The debate expanded into what truly constitutes a moat in crypto. Critics argued qw’s framework overemphasizes current revenue and undervalues network effects, trust, and technological ethos. Defenders of blockchain moats pointed to elements like developer ecosystems, brand strength, switching costs, and application diversity as core defensive attributes. The article concludes that the crypto industry is still young and small compared to traditional finance and tech giants. Rather than fixating on abstract moat concepts, the priority should be solving real user needs at scale, driving adoption, and expanding overall market reach.

marsbit9m ago

Public Chain Moat Only 3/10? Alliance DAO Founder's Remarks Ignite Crypto Community Debate

marsbit9m ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片