# 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.

Zero Funding Rate? The New Contract Design of HyperEVM That Foreigners Are Talking About

Jez, a prominent crypto trader, announced his new protocol PaperTrade on HyperEVM, sparking significant discussion. PaperTrade is a perpetual DEX with zero fees, no slippage, and no funding rates. The protocol's mechanism draws from the historical "bucket shop" model, where trades are settled directly against a public LP pool based on Hyperliquid's order book prices, without ever interacting with Hyperliquid's matching system. It combines perpetual contracts with P2P lending and DeFi Ponzi elements. User losses go into the LP pool, while a portion of user profits is taken as protocol fees. Crucially, the LP pool is seeded solely by user losses, not external deposits. If a user's profit exceeds the pool's balance, the profit enters an on-chain queue, to be paid out sequentially by subsequent user losses. The protocol mints its PAPER token based on user losses, with a minting rate that decays as the LP pool grows. Staking PAPER yields dividends from protocol fees and excess pool funds above a $5M cap. A key uncertainty is its deployment on HyperEVM. Since PaperTrade essentially uses Hyperliquid as a free oracle, its logic could be replicated on any high-performance chain with an external price feed, potentially offering better performance or incentives. The launch also serves as a stress test for HyperEVM's network capabilities.

marsbit2 giorni fa 03:15

Zero Funding Rate? The New Contract Design of HyperEVM That Foreigners Are Talking About

marsbit2 giorni fa 03:15

The 'VVV' Concept Soars 9x in Half a Year, The New AI Narrative on Base Chain

"The article explores the 'VVV' concept as the new AI-focused narrative within the Base ecosystem, centered around the token $VVV of the privacy-focused, uncensored generative AI platform Venice, led by crypto veteran Erik Voorhees. Venice has seen significant growth in 2026, with its API users surging, partly attributed to exposure from OpenClaw. The platform now boasts over 2 million total users and 55,000 paid subscribers. Correspondingly, the $VVV token price has risen over 9x this year. Key to its performance are tokenomics designed for value accrual: reduced annual emissions, subscription revenue used for buyback-and-burn, and a unique staking mechanism. Staking $VVV yields $sVVV, which can be used to mint $DIEM tokens. Each staked $DIEM provides a daily $1 credit for using Venice's API services, creating tangible utility. The article also highlights other tokens associated with the 'VVV' narrative. $POD, the token of distributed AI network Dolphin (which co-developed Venice's default AI model), saw a massive price surge. $cyb3rwr3n, a project for a Venice credit auction market, gained attention due to perceived connections to Venice's team despite official denials. Finally, $SR of robotics platform STRIKEROBOT.AI rose after announcing a partnership with Venice for robot vision-language model development. Overall, the 'VVV' ecosystem combines AI platform growth, deflationary tokenomics, and innovative utility mechanisms, driving significant investor interest and price action in related tokens."

marsbit05/12 06:03

The 'VVV' Concept Soars 9x in Half a Year, The New AI Narrative on Base Chain

marsbit05/12 06:03

Understanding Hash in One Article: The "Browser Miner" on Ethereum

Hash is an Ethereum-based ERC-20 token described as a "browser-minable post-quantum token." Its key features include enabling browser-based GPU mining without specialized hardware, a fixed supply cap of 21 million tokens, immutable and permissionless smart contracts with no team allocation or pre-mining, and an emphasis on post-quantum security using Keccak256 hashing. The mining mechanism is a simplified on-chain proof-of-work where miners solve unique challenges tied to their wallet address. Key design elements prevent answer theft, with epochs resetting every 100 blocks (~20 minutes) and a per-block minting limit. Emission follows a Bitcoin-like halving schedule every 100,000 mints, starting at 100 tokens per mint. Projections suggest all tokens could be mined within approximately 294 days if a target rate of one mint per minute is sustained. Hash emphasizes "post-quantum" security by leveraging hash-based primitives like Keccak256, which are considered more resistant to quantum attacks compared to elliptic-curve cryptography. While not a fully post-quantum asset, it aligns with Ethereum's broader post-quantum research narrative. The project completed its Genesis sale at $0.03 and began trading on Uniswap, with its price reaching around $0.19. The initial circulating supply is small, with 5% sold in Genesis and 5% allocated to liquidity. The majority (47.6% of total supply) is allocated to early-stage mining, leading to a front-loaded emission schedule. This structure, combined with low initial liquidity, makes Hash a high-volatility, high-risk project dependent on sustained miner participation and market demand to absorb new supply.

marsbit05/11 10:55

Understanding Hash in One Article: The "Browser Miner" on Ethereum

marsbit05/11 10:55

Whitepaper 2.0, Two Sets of State Forks, the Rise of Clones: What Happened to Sato Overnight?

On the night of May 7, 2026, the SATO project released "Whitepaper 2.0" alongside significant front-end changes, shifting from "buy/sell" to "mint/burn" terminology. This update aimed to clarify market confusion regarding trading mechanics, token burns, and price discrepancies between its bonding curve and secondary markets. Key changes included explicitly defining the separate existence of the bonding curve pool (for minting/burning) and the secondary SATO/USDT pool, and detailing the core mathematical formulas governing the curve. Concurrently, SATO's market cap fell sharply from near $40 million to around $14.4 million. A fork project, SAT1, emerged with a similar bonding curve model but a key technical difference: SAT1 uses a single unified state variable (`ethCum`) for all core logic (minting, burning, halt trigger), whereas SATO's mechanism relies on two state variables (`ethCum` and `totalMintedFair`), which can drift apart and cause operational discrepancies. Both projects position themselves as operator-free "issuance machines" with asymptotic supply curves approaching 21 million tokens and charge a 0.3% fee on transactions, which remains in the protocol. The article emphasizes that despite intricate designs, both SATO and SAT1 are in highly volatile, sentiment-driven phases, and warns that mechanism innovation does not replace the need for personal risk management.

marsbit05/08 16:12

Whitepaper 2.0, Two Sets of State Forks, the Rise of Clones: What Happened to Sato Overnight?

marsbit05/08 16:12

VCs on 2025 Crypto Investments: 84% of 118 Tokens Break Issue Price, Only One Type of Company is Quietly Making Money

Crypto investor Ching Tseng categorizes the market into four quadrants based on two axes: crypto-native vs. traditional finance (TradFi)-oriented, and having traction vs. no traction. In 2025, 84.7% of 118 tracked token launches fell below their issuance price, with a median fully diluted valuation drop of 71%. Crypto-native projects without traction are experiencing massive capital destruction, often relying on speculative narratives without sustainable revenue or user retention. Crypto-native teams with traction, often built in prior cycles, generate real revenue but face structural challenges with their tokens lacking direct value capture mechanisms. While some have implemented successful buyback programs, the core issue remains finding growth beyond crypto volatility. TradFi-oriented startups without traction face long, costly enterprise sales cycles but benefit from a robust M&A environment, with crypto acquisitions reaching a record $8.6 billion in 2025. The current winners are TradFi-oriented companies with traction, particularly in the Real World Asset (RWA) tokenization space, which grew from $5.5B to $18.6B in 2025. They are winning through enterprise sales, building alliances, and improving unit economics on established compliance stacks. Their main risk is being bypassed by large incumbent institutions building their own infrastructure. The overarching theme is market maturation, where narrative alone is insufficient for long-term success.

marsbit04/22 03:44

VCs on 2025 Crypto Investments: 84% of 118 Tokens Break Issue Price, Only One Type of Company is Quietly Making Money

marsbit04/22 03:44

Solana Q1 Report: Revenue Plunges 68% Year-on-Year, Developers Decrease by 30%

Solana Q1 2026 Report: Key Metrics Show Significant Decline Amid Market Reset Solana experienced a substantial downturn in Q1 2026, with key performance indicators reflecting a broader market cooling. Total network revenue (REV) fell to $89.9 million, down 68% year-over-year (YoY) and 1.4% quarter-over-quarter (QoQ). This decline was driven by reduced speculative activity, which had previously fueled the network during the 2024/2025 bull market. Key revenue components saw mixed results: base fees dropped 8.7% QoQ, Jito tips (MEV) fell 19.7%, priority fees rose 23%, and vote fees declined 44.5%. The annualized real yield for stakers was just 0.17%, down 67% YoY. Network GDP, generated by top applications, fell 7% QoQ to $451 million. Pump Fun emerged as a standout, generating $103 million (up 3% QoQ), surpassing Solana's L1 revenue. However, daily active addresses averaged 2.4 million, down 4.8% YoY. Stablecoin supply on Solana reached $15.9 billion, down 2.7% QoQ but up 18% YoY. USDC and USDT remained dominant. DEX volumes averaged $3.2 billion daily, with private DEXs now accounting for 60% of all volume. The network's net dilution rate was 4.38%, while the cost to produce $1 of REV was $8.10, up 93% YoY. The number of new tokens created on launchpads grew 42% QoQ to 3 million, with Pump Fun dominating 85% of this market. Despite the downturn, Solana's core strengths remain: its position as a hub for retail trading apps, potential in perpetual markets, and growing use in stablecoin-based fintech applications, particularly in Latin America. However, developer activity declined 32% YoY, slightly worse than Ethereum's 29% drop. The network must now focus on attracting traditional finance, competing in perpetual markets, and sustaining developer ecosystem growth to drive the next expansion cycle.

marsbit04/20 10:42

Solana Q1 Report: Revenue Plunges 68% Year-on-Year, Developers Decrease by 30%

marsbit04/20 10:42

L1 is Dead, Long Live Appchain

"L1 is Dead, Appchain Rises" critiques the failure of current Layer-1 (L1) blockchain models, arguing their tokens are trending toward zero. The author identifies key flaws: linear token emissions that incentivize selling rather than value creation, weak value propositions like "gas token" and "governance" narratives, mismanagement by bloated "foundations" or "labs" that drain value through excessive spending and token sales, and poor industry leadership focused on short-term narratives and overhyped trends like RaaS and high TPS. The solution proposed is a fundamental shift. New L1 token models are needed, moving away from the "low float, high FDV" paradigm that disadvantages retail investors. Fundraising should be sufficient only for launch, not excessive. Token unlocks should be tied to real milestones like CEX listings or DeFi integration. The ultimate goal should be for L1 tokens to become widely used mediums of exchange, not just fuel for networks. Value is increasingly moving to the application layer, with successful apps building their own chains (appchains). The author concludes that L1s must build sustainable value by creating useful applications and services, fostering strong holder communities, and achieving self-sustainability without relying on continuous token emissions.

marsbit04/20 03:36

marsbit04/20 03:36

Behind the $TAO Crash: The Bittensor Internal Strife and the 'Impossible Trinity' of DeAI

The decentralized AI (DeAI) sector is facing a major crisis following a public conflict within Bittensor ($TAO), a leading DeAI project. Covenant AI, one of its top development teams, which recently successfully trained a 72-billion-parameter large language model, announced its exit from the Bittensor network. The team accused founder Jacob Steeves of having "absolute and dictatorial" control over the network, alleging he arbitrarily cut off token rewards to their subnet without transparent governance. This triggered a panic sell-off, causing $TAO’s price to drop 15-25% in a single day and wiping out hundreds of millions in market value. The incident has raised serious questions about the viability of decentralized AI, highlighting a fundamental tension—referred to as DeAI’s "impossible trilemma"—between model quality and scale, credible neutrality of decentralization, and Sybil-resistant incentive alignment. Covenant’s departure exposed the centralized reality beneath Bittensor’s decentralized facade: although the network relies on a Yuma consensus mechanism for reward distribution, key validator nodes are controlled by early investors and the founder, allowing unilateral intervention. The event underscores systemic governance risks that may deter high-quality developers and institutional participants, threatening the entire DeAI narrative centered around trustless, incentive-driven AI development.

marsbit04/15 08:59

Behind the $TAO Crash: The Bittensor Internal Strife and the 'Impossible Trinity' of DeAI

marsbit04/15 08:59

IOSG: TAO is Elon Musk who invested in OpenAI, Subnet is Sam Altman

The article presents a critical analysis of Bittensor (TAO), a decentralized AI marketplace, comparing its economic model to Elon Musk's early investment in OpenAI, where funders have no guaranteed return. TAO acts as a funding layer, distributing tokens to subnet operators (akin to labs or researchers) based on their subnet token performance. However, subnets are under no obligation to return any value—such as AI models, data, or services—back to the TAO ecosystem. This creates a risk of value extraction, where developers may use TAO incentives for research and then commercialize成果 independently. The bear case highlights the lack of binding mechanisms, potential capital drain through token inflation, and competition from well-funded centralized AI giants. The optimistic view argues that continuous resource needs may naturally retain subnets within Bittensor, leveraging crypto’s ability to aggregate resources at scale, similar to Bitcoin’s success with computation. Ultimately, investing in TAO is a speculative bet on a coordination miracle—where incentives align to keep valuable AI projects within the ecosystem—rather than a traditional equity-like claim on output. The outcome distribution is highly skewed: most scenarios lead to niche use or value leakage, while a few could result in TAO becoming a foundational decentralized AI asset.

marsbit04/14 10:45

TAO is Elon Musk who invested in OpenAI, Subnet is Sam Altman

The article, titled "TAO is Elon Musk who invested in OpenAI, Subnet is Sam Altman," presents a critical analysis of the Bittensor (TAO) project. It argues that Bittensor functions as a decentralized AI marketplace where TAO tokens fund AI research via subnets. However, the author highlights a fundamental flaw: subnet operators have no obligation to return any value, such as AI models or profits, back to the TAO ecosystem or its token holders. This structure is likened to Elon Musk's early investment in the non-profit OpenAI, which later commercialized its technology without returning value to its initial benefactor. The bear case posits that Bittensor is essentially a wealth transfer from crypto speculators to AI researchers ("miners"). Subnets can use TAO incentives for development and then take their successful products elsewhere, leaving TAO holders with diluted tokens from inflation and no captured value. The lack of enforced equity or binding mechanisms means the project relies on a "hope" that subnet tokens maintain value. The optimistic perspective counters that two factors could create a successful, self-sustaining economy: 1) AI's perpetual and massive resource needs could incentivize subnets to stay for continued funding, and 2) crypto has a proven ability to aggregate resources through token incentives, as seen with Bitcoin and Ethereum. The conclusion states that investing in TAO is a bet on a博弈论 (game theory) miracle—that soft incentives alone will be enough to keep the best subnets within the ecosystem and create a flywheel effect. This outcome is possible but represents a highly skewed, low-probability success scenario amidst significant risks of failure.

marsbit04/13 14:01

Trading Strategies

1When the Bubble Comes, How to Short "Smartly"?