Original link:https://x.com/mdudas/status/2008882665781612701
Compiled by: Ken, ChainCatcher
There is no simple or "one-size-fits-all" answer to whether the "dual-token + equity" structure is viable. But a core principle is that you must be confident that the team is not only absolutely excellent but also has a long-term mindset, committed to building a founder-led, enterprise-level business that can last for decades, like Changpeng Zhao did.
I believe that for application-layer projects requiring long-term leadership, token mechanisms are often inferior to equity structures in many cases. For example, you can see that many founders of DeFi 1.0 protocols have largely left their projects, many of which are struggling and essentially run in "maintenance mode" by DAOs and other part-time participants. It has proven that DAOs and token-weighted voting are not good mechanisms for making sound decisions for projects (especially at the application layer); they cannot make decisions quickly and lack the "founder-driven" level of knowledge and capability.
Of course, a pure equity model is not absolutely superior to tokens either. Binance is a powerful example—tokens enabled them to offer fee discounts, staking for airdrops, access rights, and other benefits related to their core business and blockchain, functionalities that equity ownership cannot clearly carry.
"Ownership tokens" also have their limitations and are currently difficult to apply directly within products or protocols. Distributed applications and networks are fundamentally different from traditional companies (otherwise, what's the point of being in this industry?), and pure equity is clearly less flexible than tokens. Future designs for "equity+" type tokens may certainly emerge, but this is not the current state (and moreover, the lack of market structure legislation in the U.S. currently makes issuing pure equity-like tokens with direct value capture and legal rights still risky).
In summary, you can envision a scenario (as depicted by Lighter): an equity entity operates on a "cost-plus" model, serving as an engine for a token-driven protocol. In this architecture, the goal of the equity entity is not profit maximization but rather maximizing the value of the protocol token and ecosystem. If this model works, it would be a huge boon for token holders. Because you have a well-funded Labs entity (e.g., Lighter has a token treasury available for long-term development), and the core team holds a significant amount of tokens, thus having a strong incentive to drive token appreciation (while maintaining the crypto-native and on-chain characteristics of the core token design, separating it from the structurally complex associated Labs entity).
Under this model, you do need a high degree of trust in the team, as in most current cases, token holders do not have strong legal rights protection. Conversely, if you don't believe the team can execute and create value for the tokens they are heavily invested in, why would you participate in the project in the first place?
Ultimately, it all comes down to the team's capability, credibility, execution, vision, and actions. The longer a great team stays in the market and delivers on their promises, the more their token will exhibit the "Lindy effect." As long as the team maintains good communication and clearly directs value to the token through buybacks, substantive governance, and utility within the underlying protocol, we will see the highest quality tokens—even those with equity/Labs entities—explode in 2026.
