Author: Haotian
Following the dimension of CZ's thinking, it is found that the essence of this idea is to solve the balance between "excessive issuance of project tokens" and "sustainable development" afterwards, but there are actually many possibilities of "loopholes". Here are some optimization suggestions:
1) If the initial unlocking volume is relatively small (10%), it can indeed reduce the risk of early investors, but it may also be manipulated by a small amount of capital, resulting in increased volatility in the early token price, and even the emergence of some shell projects that are specifically used to exploit the 10% hype.
It is suggested that the initial unlocking volume can be increased (20%-30%?), especially setting a minimum market value requirement to avoid being pumped up in market value right away. Most importantly, early VC capital providers, supply chain partners, exchanges, etc. need to come out and endorse the team's background, code quality, business logic, and token distribution.
2) If the only requirement is to maintain the price at a certain high level for unlocking, it may lead to collusion between the team and large holders, making the unlocking period and price manipulation directly related, which cannot protect the interests of a wider range of investors.
It is suggested that the observation period can be extended, such as 90 days. Most importantly, a comprehensive and transparent "data report" should be disclosed before unlocking, including trading volume, token holder addresses, price volatility, large transactions, etc., to ensure that the growth of price and supply is in a healthy state.
3) Simply binding price and supply cannot truly reflect the value of the project. For example, most MEME tokens have no real value, and if only the price is maintained, the industry will lose the possibility of value creation and price matching, further weakening the discourse power of the industry's technical narrative.
Therefore, the above data report should also include some value dimensions, such as DAU, TVL, developer activity, community growth, technical implementation progress, ecosystem partners, project revenue, etc.
4) The current dilemma of Tokenomics is related to the imbalance between price and value, but the key problem is the lack of an effective "elimination and clearing mechanism", leading to the emergence of a large number of fundraising projects, and even project-making has become a production line. This kind of project party that pours garbage projects without basic supervision and moral constraints needs to be resisted. For example, the project can pledge a portion of USDT in the contract, and if the continuous growth conditions cannot be truly triggered within 1 year, the entire industry will be liquidated and held accountable; periodic community voting can be carried out to provide development suggestions for the project and constrain the project, such as voting on the unlocking and team allocation ratio.
Whether the suggestions proposed by CZ can truly be adopted by the industry, and even though they may face various challenges in the initial implementation, it must be said that it is a beneficial guide for the development path of the industry. This exploration of trying to solve the dilemma of the token economic model by starting from the Tokenomics mechanism design makes people feel like seeing the pioneers who poured their hearts and souls into preaching BTC years ago, which is extremely precious and Respect!
The green mountains remain unchanged, and they become stronger over time. In the face of various contradictions and dilemmas in the current industry, we need such whistleblowers and guides.
