How Does Backpack's Staking Token for Equity Conversion Work?

Odaily星球日报2026-02-25 tarihinde yayınlandı2026-02-25 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

Backpack, a Solana-based wallet and exchange platform founded by ex-FTX members, has announced a novel staking-to-equity conversion plan. Users who stake its native token for at least one year can convert those tokens into real company equity at a fixed ratio, with 20% of equity reserved for this program. This move aims to transition users from token holders to legal company owners. The platform emerged post-FTX collapse, initially focusing on wallet and NFT services (like the Mad Lads NFT collection) before launching its exchange. It has over $4000B in cumulative trading volume and $350M in user assets. Backpack’s tokenomics include a 1B total supply, with 62.5% pre-IPO allocation. The TGE releases 250M tokens (25% of total), entirely distributed to users. The model ties token release to milestones and future IPO, blending crypto incentives with traditional equity. However, the plan faces regulatory challenges, particularly from the SEC, which may classify the token as a security. Dual ownership via tokens and equity could complicate IPO efforts and investor relations. Despite risks, Backpack’s approach attempts to innovate beyond typical “token-as-reward” models by linking crypto community growth to real equity value and long-term ownership.

Original | Odaily Planet Daily (@OdailyChina)

Author | Ding Dang (@XiaMiPP)

On February 24, Backpack CEO Armani Ferrante announced a staking-for-equity conversion plan, where users who stake the platform's native token for at least one year will have the opportunity to convert these tokens into real company equity at a fixed ratio. The company has reserved 20% of its equity for this plan.

From this short statement, the amount of information released far exceeds that of a conventional TGE narrative.

Because, in the traditional TGE narrative, users are seen as traffic and community token holders; but in this design, Backpack attempts to upgrade users from product users to legal company owners.

The question is: Can it really work? Is this a financial innovation, or a high-risk experiment dancing on the edge of regulation? Does it change the power structure, or is it just a more advanced chip management technique? To understand this, we must return to Backpack's own historical trajectory.

Backpack: A Company Rising from the Ruins

Backpack is a "wallet + exchange" integrated platform centered on the Solana ecosystem, founded by former FTX and Alameda Research member Armani Ferrante. It was established after the collapse of FTX, emphasizing compliance and user custody.

However, unlike the development path of "first trading, then ecosystem" followed by centralized exchanges like Binance, Backpack's path is the reverse. It started with a wallet and NFTs, gradually accumulating users, community, and technical foundation, and finally launched an exchange.

Looking back at Backpack's history. In 2022, the collapse of FTX not only tore apart the credit structure of the entire crypto industry but also directly hit projects associated with it. Backpack had just completed a $20 million funding round led by FTX Ventures and Jump Crypto before FTX's collapse. But as the empire fell, approximately 80% of Backpack's operating capital evaporated. At that time, Backpack was positioned as a "wallet + xNFT operating system," aiming to provide Solana users with a safer, integrated entry point, avoiding reliance on centralized platforms.

In April 2023, during the bear market trough, Backpack quietly launched the Mad Lads NFT series, with a minting cost of 6.9 SOL. It quickly became one of the top NFT communities on Solana that year, with the highest floor price reaching 229.4 SOL. Today, when the NFT trend has largely passed, the Mad Lads floor price remains at 18.8 SOL, more than double the original minting price.

In November of the same year, Backpack obtained a Dubai VARA license and launched Backpack Exchange, but it was only in a testing phase at the time. By then, it had already accumulated user trust through its wallet and NFT, and then monetized the traffic through the exchange. In February 2024, Backpack completed a $17 million Series A funding round, with a valuation of $120 million. In January 2025, it acquired FTX Europe's assets for $32.7 million, obtaining a European MiFID II license, further strengthening its compliance foundation, and committing to handle FTX EU customer claims.

Backpack was born with a silver spoon but also rebuilt from the ruins. After nearly three years, Backpack's cumulative trading volume has exceeded $400 billion, with user assets exceeding $350 million.

Now, it is about to make a bigger leap.

Token Issuance Plan and Equity Linkage

On February 17, Backpack announced the start of identity verification before TGE, the first step for users to claim tokens.

In the token economic model announced by Backpack, the total token supply is 1 billion. The pre-IPO total supply is 625 million tokens (62.5%), released in three phases:

  • Phase 1 (TGE): Releases 25% of the total supply, i.e., 250 million tokens. Among them, 240 million (24%) are allocated to points holders, and 10 million (1%) are allocated to Mad Lads holders. This phase is 100% allocated to users, with no internal team share.
  • Phase 2 (Pre-IPO): Accounts for 37.5%, i.e., 375 million tokens, as "growth-triggered unlocks," released gradually based on key milestones (such as regulatory approval, new product launches, and geographic expansion).
  • Phase 3 (Post-IPO): Also accounts for 37.5%, i.e., 375 million tokens, deposited into company treasury, locked for one year after IPO, for the team and investors.

From its token distribution plan, we can already see that token issuance is closely tied to the IPO. Backpack is currently negotiating terms for a new $50 million funding round with a valuation of $1 billion. If calculated based on this valuation, the 20% equity is worth $200 million.

In the short history of the cryptocurrency industry, token issuance has quietly evolved from an optional financing tool to an almost "instinctive choice" and default path for almost all projects. As users, we are familiar with this method, but this goes beyond what we are familiar with.

From the perspective of the entire industry, this play fills a gap. Coinbase successfully IPOed in 2021 but never issued a native token; DeFi projects like Uniswap issued governance tokens but did not take the equity listing route. Backpack is trying a "dual-track system," where tokens are used for community incentives and equity for long-term ownership, but there is no precedent for this in the crypto industry.

Is Token Issuance + IPO Feasible?

Although this plan is bold and innovative, it faces regulatory challenges.

In the context of U.S. regulation, most tokens could be considered securities by the SEC. Once that happens, companies must comply with registration, disclosure, and anti-fraud rules. If an IPO is pursued in the future, the SEC will review the history of token issuance, structural design, and potential violation records.

More complex is that the coexistence of equity and tokens may trigger "ownership conflicts": IPO investors worry about dilution of rights (such as voting rights, dividends), while token holders expect value capture, which could be seen as "dual financing" or misleading behavior. Especially during the Gensler era from 2022 to 2024, enforcement tightened, and many projects directly abandoned IPOs.

In short, token issuance takes the fast lane of "decentralized/on-chain financing," while IPO takes the slow lane of "centralized compliance/equity financing." Backpack is trying to drive two cars at the same time, which requires extremely strong structural design and regulatory communication capabilities; otherwise, it may face listing delays or regulatory fines.

Although there is no complete precedent in the crypto industry, there are precedents. Coinbase, also a centralized exchange, completed its IPO in 2021, but they had actually considered issuing a token. Backpack co-founder Can Sun revealed in a podcast two years ago that he participated in Coinbase's listing work and helped design their token economic model. Although Coinbase ultimately chose a pure equity listing, this experience provided valuable reference for Backpack. And at that time, he had already planned to realize this unfulfilled wish at Backpack.

Can It Change the Industry?

Today, the现状 of the crypto industry is that a large number of tokens shrink by more than 80% in price one year after listing. "Listing is the peak" has almost become a curse. Backpack seems to be looking for another path: giving tokens the possibility of leading to equity, promoting a change in incentive methods.

In the past, the model we were familiar with was "earning tokens with products," where the project first creates a good product, and users earn token rewards by using it, such as fee sharing, liquidity mining, airdrops, etc. The token's value comes from the product's actual performance. Backpack's method is more like using token expectations to feed back into the company's valuation, i.e., equity binding, IPO narrative, using the expected value of tokens to quickly gather funds, community, and attention, thereby raising the company's valuation and accelerating financing and product iteration. Tokens are no longer just reward tools but valuation engines.

Of course, this transformation is full of uncertainty. How will regulation define it? How to balance rights between equity and tokens? Will the market really buy into the narrative of future shareholders? There are no ready-made answers to these questions. But in a pessimistic moment for the crypto industry, Backpack is at least trying to provide a new tension.

Backpack once rebuilt from the ruins; this time, it is building a bridge in the cracks of the system.

İlgili Sorular

QWhat is the key requirement for Backpack users to convert their staked tokens into equity?

AUsers must stake Backpack's native tokens for at least one year to be eligible for conversion into company equity at a fixed ratio.

QHow much of Backpack's equity has been reserved for the token-to-equity conversion plan?

ABackpack has reserved 20% of the company's equity for this token-to-equity conversion initiative.

QWhat distinguishes Backpack's development path from traditional centralized exchanges like Binance?

AUnlike Binance's 'trading first, ecosystem later' approach, Backpack started with a wallet and NFT ecosystem (Mad Lads) to build user trust and community before launching its exchange.

QWhat major regulatory challenge does Backpack face with its dual-token and equity model?

AThe primary regulatory challenge is the potential classification of tokens as securities by the SEC, which would require compliance with registration, disclosure, and anti-fraud rules, and could complicate IPO plans due to ownership conflicts and dual financing concerns.

QHow does Backpack's tokenomics model link token distribution to its IPO plans?

ABackpack's token distribution is structured in three phases: TGE (25% to users), pre-IPO (37.5% unlocked via milestones), and post-IPO (37.5% reserved for team/investors), directly tying token releases to IPO progression and company growth triggers.

İlgili Okumalar

Agent Race Ends, Super Workbench Takes Over

The era of fragmented AI agents is ending. Over the past month, China's tech giants—Tencent, Alibaba, and ByteDance—have simultaneously shifted strategy: instead of launching new, standalone AI agents, they are consolidating their various agent projects into unified "super workbenches." Tencent integrated its QClaw teams into WorkBuddy, a strategic product hailed as a potential third flagship after QQ and WeChat. Alibaba is merging its QoderWork, Wukong, and MuleRun agents into a new "Qianwen Office" platform under DingTalk's leadership. ByteDance rebranded its TRAE SOLO coding agent to TRAE Work, signaling a broader focus on workflow collaboration. This convergence marks a pivotal industry consensus. The initial exploration phase, where companies rapidly built numerous overlapping agents for different scenarios, proved costly and inefficient. With open-source tools eroding technical barriers, competition has shifted from agent creation to resource consolidation and cost control. Historically, platform wars are won not by creating more products, but by simplifying them—as seen with browsers unifying web access and super-apps consolidating services. Now, the "super workbench" aims to become the unified AI entry point for work. This reflects a deeper market realization: the primary audience for AI is no longer just programmers (a market in the tens of millions) but all knowledge workers (a market of billions). The real opportunity lies in augmenting everyday tasks—managing emails, documents, data, and meetings—across the entire workday. The core battleground is becoming control over the primary AI entry point that employees use daily. Tencent's WorkBuddy leverages WeChat and Tencent Docs; Alibaba's Qianwen Office taps into DingTalk's organizational data; ByteDance's TRAE Work integrates with Feishu's workflows. Whoever owns this "super workbench" gains strategic control over orchestrating enterprise data and APIs. This shift is redefining enterprise software. Traditional SaaS applications, valued for their user interfaces, will recede into the background. Their core functionalities will be exposed as standardized "Skills" or APIs for the super workbench's agents to invoke. Software value will shift from selling user seats to charging based on API calls and outcomes delivered. The evolution of agents is moving through clear stages: first as novel standalone products, then as consolidated primary work entry points, and finally as pervasive, invisible capabilities embedded into the digital fabric. The recent moves by major tech firms signal the transition from the first stage into the second, accelerating toward the third. In the end, the most successful agent technology may become invisible—like electricity or the HTTP protocol—a fundamental, unnamed infrastructure powering work itself.

marsbit12 dk önce

Agent Race Ends, Super Workbench Takes Over

marsbit12 dk önce

Michael Saylor: 110 Reasons to Oppose BIP-110

Michael Saylor presents 110 arguments against Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) 110, a soft fork aimed at restricting certain non-monetary data storage uses (like inscriptions) on the Bitcoin blockchain. He acknowledges the proponents' valid concerns—such as node costs, fee pressure, and preserving Bitcoin's monetary focus—but fundamentally disagrees with the proposed solution. Saylor argues that BIP 110 represents a dangerous precedent of using consensus rules to enforce value judgments on transaction validity, moving away from Bitcoin's core principles of neutrality and permissionless innovation. His key objections are organized into eleven categories: 1) It violates neutrality and hard consensus by banning currently valid transactions. 2) It fails to meet the high burden of proof required for a consensus change, lacking concrete data on the alleged crisis. 3) Its seven bundled technical restrictions are overly broad, targeting generic script functionalities and blocking future upgrade paths. 4) It sacrifices compatibility and future optionality by closing off designed upgrade hooks. 5) Its temporary rules add significant complexity (grandfathering, expiry states) without sufficient justification. 6) The economic and security impacts, particularly on miner revenue and fee markets, are uncertain and unmodeled. 7) Superior, market-based tools (fee markets, relay/mining policies) already exist to manage blockchain load. 8) It stifles innovation by creating a chilling effect for developers. 9) Its modified activation mechanism (55% threshold, forced signaling) is aggressive and risks network splits. 10) The precedent it sets—using consensus to suppress disliked but legal uses—is more dangerous than the problem it aims to solve. 11) A better path exists: improving measurements, refining resource-based policies, and allowing market forces to work. Saylor concludes that Bitcoin's strength lies in its neutral rules, open markets, and hard consensus. Changing these foundational elements to target specific use cases is an unnecessary and risky "iatrogenic" intervention. He advocates for guarding Bitcoin's neutrality rather than acting as its redeemer.

marsbit27 dk önce

Michael Saylor: 110 Reasons to Oppose BIP-110

marsbit27 dk önce

İşlemler

Spot
活动图片