如何从一个代币分配看出一个项目有问题

币界网Опубліковано о 2024-07-18Востаннє оновлено о 2024-07-18

币界网报道:

作者:日月小楚 来源:X,@riyuexiaochu

Sanctum 基本都被反撸了,网上骂的很多。从代币分配上,就能看出这个项目不靠谱。

我来详细说说其中的分析逻辑。

  1. 团队份额过高

    首先最明显的是团队份额占35%,这是非常高的。大部分项目的团队份额在20%左右,也有一些项目只有15%左右。团队份额多了,其它地方的分配就会减少。比如,预留给社区的份额只有25%。

  2. 流动性提供占比异常

    流动性提供占比25%,这也是从来没有见过的高。一般项目的流动性提供最多占5%。流动性提供一般分为两种方式:一种是在去中心化交易所(DEX)的流动性池子中,另一种是到中心化交易所(CEX)上所,而这部分筹码是可以光明正大的出售的。

  3. 多签代币存在隐患

    虽然Sanctum官方看似非常公开地进行多签,但未来可以有很多冠冕堂皇的理由转出这些代币。比如,Sanctum是接受过融资的,官方还发布了PR搞宣传。但是在代币分配中并没有机构的份额,未来完全可以用正当的理由转出多签的代币。

  4. 空投存在问题

    分配中有1亿代币用于空投,但网上大部分都是骂被反撸的。因此,大概率中间是有猫腻的。

Пов'язані матеріали

When Real Estate Ownership Goes Digital: What Happens to Your Rights, Risks, and Liquidity?

"Tokenizing Real Estate: Rights, Risks, and the Path to Liquidity" While tokenizing real-world assets (RWA) gains traction, real estate presents unique complexities. Beyond technical token issuance, critical challenges remain: enforcing legal rights, managing the underlying physical asset, and creating genuine secondary market liquidity. This article explores these issues through OneAsset, a Dubai-based commercial real estate (CRE) tokenization platform. OneAsset moves away from simply offering asset fragmentation. Instead, it focuses on institutional-grade infrastructure, prioritizing asset quality, legal enforceability, and operational fundamentals. Each property is held in an independent, single-asset vault, backed by a legally separate Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) for bankruptcy remoteness. Investors acquire tokens representing the economic rights to a specific property, with precise legal claims defined by the underlying SPV structure. OneAsset emphasizes that tokenization cannot transform a poor-quality asset. Its initial focus is on institutional investors and quality Dubai-based CRE, selected for stable tenant cash flows and a clear regulatory environment. The platform integrates compliance by design, aiming to embed investor qualification and transfer rules directly into the token architecture. A core insight is that asset fragmentation does not automatically create liquidity. True liquidity depends on the asset's inherent quality—its location, cash flow, and valuation—as well as sufficient buyer demand. The goal is not just tradability, but making real estate rights more easily priced, verified, and reallocated. Looking ahead, the article discusses the potential for "AiFi" (AI-powered finance). For AI agents to autonomously allocate capital, investment assets like real estate tokens must become truly "machine-readable." This requires a high degree of standardization in legal rights, valuations, cash flows, and compliance data—a direction OneAsset is pursuing through its structured data reporting. In conclusion, real estate tokenization is shifting from a technology narrative to a focus on asset fundamentals. Blockchain can enhance efficiency and programmability, but it cannot replace sound underwriting, property management, or legal execution. The real work begins after the asset is on-chain.

marsbit25 хв тому

When Real Estate Ownership Goes Digital: What Happens to Your Rights, Risks, and Liquidity?

marsbit25 хв тому

After Affecting Two Generations, Meta Ordered to Pay $18 Billion in Damages

After more than two decades, a legal parallel has emerged. In 1998, major U.S. tobacco companies settled for $206 billion, leading to strict advertising bans and warning labels that significantly reduced smoking rates. On August 26, 2026, Meta reached a landmark settlement with U.S. attorneys general, agreeing to pay up to approximately $18 billion and implement mandatory changes to Facebook and Instagram. This historic settlement, one of the largest against a tech company, stems from allegations that Meta deliberately designed addictive features like infinite scroll and push notifications, harming youth mental health and violating child privacy laws. Facing a potential $1.4 trillion lawsuit and a series of unfavorable jury verdicts, Meta chose to settle on the eighth day of trial to avoid a catastrophic ruling. The core of the agreement is not just the financial penalty, which Meta will pay over 10 years, but a series of strict, 10-year product mandates for young users. These include a hard two-hour daily time limit (combined across apps), a default "nighttime block" from midnight to 6 AM, restricted notifications during school hours, hidden "like" counts, an optional non-algorithmic feed, and stronger age verification. An independent auditor will monitor compliance. Crucially, roughly 30% ($5.3 billion) of Meta's payment is contingent on YouTube and TikTok adopting similar measures and paying around $5 billion each. This move aims to create an industry-wide standard and prevent Meta from being competitively disadvantaged. The settlement is being likened to Big Tobacco's "tobacco moment." By legally framing addictive algorithm design as a "public nuisance," it sets a powerful precedent. Nearly 3,000 similar cases are pending against other social media giants, signaling a fundamental shift in regulatory pressure. The era where platforms could deny the addictive impact of their designs on children is effectively over.

marsbit30 хв тому

After Affecting Two Generations, Meta Ordered to Pay $18 Billion in Damages

marsbit30 хв тому

Торгівля

Спот
活动图片