# Tokenomics Articoli collegati

Il Centro Notizie HTX fornisce gli articoli più recenti e le analisi più approfondite su "Tokenomics", coprendo tendenze di mercato, aggiornamenti sui progetti, sviluppi tecnologici e politiche normative nel settore crypto.

The Dark Side of Altcoins

The article "The Dark Side of Altcoins" argues that most cryptocurrency tokens inevitably fail due to a fundamental structural conflict between company equity and token holders. Most crypto projects are essentially traditional companies with equity-held founders, VC investors, and profit motives, which later issue a token. This creates irreconcilable incentives: equity seeks to capture value (revenue, profit, control) for the company and shareholders, while tokens need value (fees, buybacks, governance) to accrue to the protocol and holders. Equity almost always wins, leading to token value drainage. The piece highlights Hyperliquid as a rare success because it avoided VC equity financing entirely. Without a board or pressure to deliver value to shareholders, it could direct all economic value to its protocol and token. Legally, tokens cannot function like stocks without being deemed unregistered securities (if they offer dividends, ownership, etc.), which would trigger severe regulatory crackdowns. The optimal structure is one where the company holds no equity, captures no revenue, and all value flows to token holders via protocol mechanisms, with a DAO governing economic decisions. However, the only way to eliminate all conflict is to become a fully decentralized protocol like Bitcoin or Ethereum, with no company, no equity, and neutral, autonomously running infrastructure. The core issue is structural, not market conditions. Tokens are mathematically destined to fail if the project had VC rounds, private token sales, investor unlock schedules, or allows the company to capture revenue. Success requires value directed to the protocol, no VC equity, aligned founder/tokenholder incentives, and an economically irrelevant company. The solution is for investors to stop funding poorly designed projects. The future of the industry depends on capital flowing to projects with sound tokenomics, like those pioneered by Hyperliquid, MetaDAO, and Street.

深潮Ieri 10:13

The Dark Side of Altcoins

深潮Ieri 10:13

The Game Between Tokens and Equity: Revealing the Fundamental Conflict Behind Token Economics

The article "The Dark Side of Altcoins" by Crypto Dan explores the fundamental conflict between company equity and token holders in crypto projects. It argues that most projects are essentially companies with tokens, creating a structural conflict where equity (backed by VCs and boards) inevitably captures value at the expense of token holders. This leads to tokens trending toward zero despite project success. Hyperliquid is highlighted as an exception because it avoided VC equity financing, directing all economic value to the protocol instead of a corporate entity. The piece explains that tokens cannot legally function like stocks without being classified as securities, triggering regulatory issues. The ideal structure involves no company revenue capture, value accrual to token holders via mechanisms like buybacks, and DAO-controlled economic decisions. However, true alignment requires no corporate structure at all, akin to Bitcoin or Ethereum. The core issue is structural: tokens fail due to design flaws like VC funding, private sales, unlock schedules, or company revenue retention. Solutions require investors to stop funding flawed models and support projects like Hyperliquid that prioritize tokenholder alignment through thoughtful design.

比推Ieri 19:00

The Game Between Tokens and Equity: Revealing the Fundamental Conflict Behind Token Economics

比推Ieri 19:00

The 20% Threshold Audit: Which of the Top 20 Cryptocurrencies Will Perish Under the CLARITY Act?

**Audit of the Top 20: Which Cryptocurrencies Will the CLARITY Act Kill?** Scheduled for a final push in December 2025, the U.S. CLARITY Act introduces a critical 20% threshold. If any single entity or affiliated party controls more than 20% of a network's token supply or validation power, the asset is classified as a "digital security" under the SEC's strict jurisdiction. If it remains below, it is a "digital commodity" under the more lenient CFTC. An audit of the top 20 cryptocurrencies reveals a stark divide: **The Safe Haven (Digital Commodities):** * **Bitcoin (BTC):** 0% control. The gold standard of decentralization. * **Ethereum (ETH):** <1% control. Highly dispersed validators and foundation holdings. * **Dogecoin (DOGE) & Litecoin (LTC):** Near 0% control. Their simple, early PoW issuance is now a major compliance advantage. **The Red Zone (At High Risk):** * **XRP:** High risk. Ripple's massive escrowed holdings could be deemed "entity-controlled." * **BNB:** High risk. Strong association with Binance exchange and its controlled burn mechanism. * **TON:** High risk. Historically concentrated supply from early mining. * **Sui & Aptos:** Extreme risk. Classic "VC coins" with teams, investors, and foundations holding over 50%. * **Layer 2 Tokens (e.g., ARB, OP):** Medium-High risk. Their DAO treasuries often hold 30-40+% of supply, which could be viewed as a single entity. **The Grey Zone:** * **Solana (SOL):** Its status is unclear. FTX's collapse dispersed supply, but the foundation and VC holdings remain a focus for regulators. The 360-day grace period will trigger a market reckoning. Projects may desperately airdrop or burn tokens to dilute control, accept a security" label and face liquidity death on major exchanges, or be preemptively delisted. The outcome will be a "gentrification" of crypto, splitting the market into compliant, institutional "digital commodities" and a shadowy world of illiquid "digital securities." Investors must now scrutinize token distribution or risk being locked out of liquidity.

marsbit22 h fa

The 20% Threshold Audit: Which of the Top 20 Cryptocurrencies Will Perish Under the CLARITY Act?

marsbit22 h fa

Trump in Web3 Games: Temporary Hype or Trend?

The article "Trump in Web3 Games: Temporary Hype or Trend?" discusses the growing integration of political brands, particularly Donald Trump’s, into the crypto industry—especially within Web3 gaming. It highlights the recent launch of the 3D game *Trump Billionaires Club*, which features an in-game economy tied to the $TRUMP memecoin and user engagement mechanics. The piece argues that while political and media-driven narratives can generate initial user interest, they often fail to retain players without clear, sustainable incentives. Many gaming tokenomics rely on short-term emotional appeal rather than long-term engagement. In response, projects like PEPENODE are emerging with simplified, routine-based reward systems—such as virtual "mining" nodes—that require no technical knowledge or hardware. PEPENODE, promoted as the "first memecoin mine-to-earn" platform, allows users to buy and upgrade virtual mining nodes to earn rewards, including memecoins like PEPE and Fartcoin. Early data shows significant pre-sale interest, with $2.3 million raised and a token price of $0.001192. The project aims to combine meme-driven engagement with predictable, recurring action—a trend gaining traction as Web3 games seek broader, more consistent user bases beyond one-time hype. The article concludes that while politically themed games attract attention, their long-term success depends on transitioning from viral momentum to habitual use through clear mechanics and recurring value.

bitcoinist17 h fa

Trump in Web3 Games: Temporary Hype or Trend?

bitcoinist17 h fa

活动图片

Indepth Research

Industry News