On February 19, 2026, Beijing time, Aptos officially launched a system-wide upgrade of its token economic model, completely rewriting the rules from consensus incentives, supply limits to Gas fees. The new plan simultaneously took four heavy blows: the annualized staking yield was slashed from 5.19% to 2.6%, a hard cap of 2.1 billion APT was introduced for the first time, the foundation permanently locked 210 million APT, and the nominal Gas fee was raised 10 times while maintaining the stablecoin transfer cost at about $0.00014. Prior to this, Aptos, like most new public chains, relied on high inflation subsidies to feed nodes and early participants. Now it shifts to drive deflation expectations and value return through the network's real usage rate. Whether this transition from "printing money for subsidies" to "paying by usage" can help Aptos genuinely capture value and promote a revaluation of its valuation system has become the core controversy surrounding this public chain.
Interest Rate Slashed and Cap Set: Aptos Rewrites Security Budget
● The annualized staking yield fell from 5.19% to 2.6%, directly compressing the cash flow returns for nodes and stakers, thereby testing the network's "security budget." In the past, high yields meant higher inflation dilution; now, with yields halved, it signifies a significant contraction in annual new APT output and a proactive braking of inflation speed. For long-term holders, while nominal returns decreased, the extent of token dilution is also narrowed, switching the on-paper returns from "depending on high issuance" to "depending on appreciation."
● The new policy sets a hard supply cap of 2.1 billion APT, with the foundation permanently locking 210 million APT, effectively pulling out a tenth directly from future circulation. The hard cap breaks the previous expectation of "sustainable inflation subsidies," introducing a Bitcoin-like scarcity narrative for Aptos; while the permanently locked portion is akin to "original shares" that are never to be sold, in existence on paper but never entering the selling pressure sequence, reshaping the market's imagination around the scale of long-term circulation and marginal selling pressure.
● The market generally notes that the 2.6% staking yield, while significantly lower numerically than in the past, is still rated by some media as "higher than most mainstream PoS chains." This level attempts to balance among three considerations: avoiding excessively high inflation costs that erode token value, retaining basic attractiveness for nodes and stakers, and leaving room for future reductions or dynamic adjustments as the network matures. Aptos clearly does not want to directly sacrifice security and the sustainability of the node ecosystem for the deflation narrative.
● In contrast to L1s like Solana with no supply caps, this upgrade signifies that Aptos has completely shifted from an "inflation-driven" route to a "scarcity expectation-driven" one. Solana can continuously issue new tokens to cover costs for validators, while Aptos chooses to set a cap on the supply side, shifting more "costs for securing the network" pressure onto actual transactions and Gas spending on-chain. This major turn in direction is essentially a long-term gamble, moving from "monetary easing, feeding system participants" to "monetary tightening, demanding value from high usage."
From High Inflation Subsidies to Performance-Linked: Supply No Longer Fixed in White Papers
● The so-called "performance-driven token supply" means that the rhythm of new APT issuance is no longer solely determined by a preset issuance curve, but is linked to on-chain transaction volume, Gas consumption, and other actual usage indicators. In simple terms, it won’t be released to validators linearly by year, but more "token budget" will be released when the network is frequently used, while insufficient usage will see a corresponding tightening. This changes the supply of tokens from a static time function to a dynamic function bound to network performance.
● Some media have described this upgrade as "the first L1 economic model to directly link token supply with network usage," highlighting the model's innovation while also exposing considerable room for controversy. The innovation lies in its attempt to upgrade the L1 token from a single security incentive tool to a "quasi-equity" that reflects network activity and cash flow quality; the controversy arises from how to choose performance indicators, smooth out volatility, and whether it will amplify price declines during downturns, all of which currently lack historical sample support and are difficult to apply simple traditional asset valuation frameworks.
● This pivot aligns with Aptos' “transaction engine” strategy proposed in Q4 2025—the project team aims to position itself as a high throughput, low latency transaction infrastructure rather than a general-purpose public chain. Under this narrative, shifting the central focus of the token economic model from "static asset holding" to "on-chain transaction activity" is logically a coherent upgrade: those who truly bring transactions and Gas to the network, to some extent, drive the value return of APT.
● Under the new model, different market cycles will amplify two extreme scenarios: in a bull market, on-chain transactions and Gas consumption soar, and the performance-linked mechanism may create an environment close to deflation under the constraints of the locked cap, augmented by emotions pushing valuations sharply upward; in a bear market, shrinking transaction volumes naturally reduce new supply, but if network activity is perpetually insufficient, the deflation narrative will clash with weak cash flow, causing price to fluctuate violently under the dual forces of "reduced supply" and "collapsed demand."
Destruction, Locking, and Buyback: A Triple Deflation Strategy Learning from BNB
● In terms of destruction mechanisms, Aptos referred to the quarterly destruction model of BNB Chain, but opted for real-time execution. The logic of "burn what you use" means that every transaction on-chain will immediately use part of the Gas or fees to buy back and destroy APT, thus creating a visible negative impact on the supply side at that moment. This instantaneous feedback is more tangible than quarterly reviews and helps forge a high-frequency consensus narrative of "on-chain activity → token destruction → increased scarcity."
● In the new model, the 210 million APT permanently locked by the foundation resembles a piece of "never sold equity" in terms of supply structure. It does not participate in secondary market circulation nor does it enter the staking yield payout phase at predictable time points, leading the market to view it as a signal of a strong binding long-term commitment. For the narrative, this portion of supply is stripped from potential selling pressure, enhancing the rights imagination of every circulating APT, providing an institutional anchor for "asset scarcity."
● The planned programmatic buyback is seen as the third layer of deflation tool, forming a triple combination of "destruction-locking-buyback" alongside real-time destruction and permanent locking. However, it must be emphasized that Aptos has not disclosed the specific triggering conditions, frequency, or scale of the buyback; the outside world can only confirm its directional existence but cannot deduce any precise buyback intensity curve. In the absence of details, the market’s expectations for the buyback effect resemble a long-term option rather than a certainty that can be immediately counted into the valuation as cash flow.
● Compared to BNB Chain, which relies solely on quarterly destruction, or other L1s that just engage in locking and halving, Aptos bundles real-time destruction, permanent locking, and programmatic buyback to create a stronger deflation narrative in a highly competitive public chain landscape. However, the layering of multiple deflation tools brings risks: if on-chain activity fails to sustain volume, the destruction intensity will naturally be weak; if the buyback pace is overly conservative, the market will question the value of "paper deflation"; if a balance is lost between security budget, ecosystem incentives, and deflation intensity, this combination may negatively impact the network's own growth momentum.
Gas Fees Increased Tenfold Yet Maintain $0.00014: Who's Paying for Deflation?
● Data shows that Aptos has tenfold increased Gas fees, but the actual cost of a single stablecoin transfer remains controlled at approximately $0.00014. This means that while the unit pricing for calculation and storage on the protocol layer has significantly increased, it compresses the actual costs perceived by end users to an almost negligible level through high performance and resource allocation, creating a significant gap between nominal price adjustment and real experience.
● From a macro structural perspective, this is a shift from "high inflation subsidizing nodes" to "allowing real transactions to pay a little more" on costs. In the past, the security budget was mainly borne by new APT issuance, diluting all holders; now, more is generated by actual transaction users, who inject fuel for destruction and buyback pools through slightly higher Gas. The answer to who is paying for token deflation is changing—from all holders who passively face dilution to a part of participants actively using the network and creating on-chain load.
● Combined with the "transaction engine" strategy, Aptos must precisely balance between increasing Gas and maintaining friendliness to developers and regular users: for high-frequency trading applications, even a small unit cost can become a sensitive marginal burden when scaled to massive transaction volumes; for ordinary transfer users, the cost is almost imperceptible. The intention behind the protocol design is to make high-value, high-frequency usage scenarios carry more economic weight while maintaining attractiveness to developers and C-end users through extremely low absolute costs.
● However, if future on-chain activities are insufficient to support the expected scale of destruction and buyback, increasing Gas fees may have a counterproductive effect: on one hand, while single transaction costs might be low, for marginal projects, it could still become a reason to slow deployment and expansion; on the other hand, if the deflation narrative cannot be validated with real cash flow over the long term, the market will reassess whether this cost migration has suppressed ecological increments. Finding a balance between "paying for deflation" and "making way for growth" will be a structural contradiction that Aptos must face next.
The Game Between Holders and Nodes: Short-Term Losses, Long-Term Mining?
● From the perspective of nodes and stakers, the reduction in staking yield from 5.19% to 2.6% means that the "security budget" is compressed in the short term, and some marginal nodes may reassess the cost-benefit ratio of continuing operations. Large nodes and institutional stakers may accept a period of low yields for potential capital gains, believing that the deflation narrative will eventually push APT prices higher; however, if price performance consistently underperforms expectations, the network's decentralization and security may be impacted, creating a delicate game.
● For secondary market holders, they see a new risk-return picture: cash flow decreases but scarcity increases. Currently, the "coupon" obtained from holding APT shrinks, and the rationale for holding relies more on the potential appreciation of future prices and the value increase brought by ecosystem expansion. This forces investors to shift from a "yield-seeking mindset" to a "growth stock mindset," investing more energy in continuously tracking on-chain demand, protocol revenue, and deflation intensity, rather than merely monitoring the annualized figure on the staking panel.
● A frequently cited view in the market is that "the 2.6% staking yield is still higher than most mainstream PoS chains," and Aptos is evidently using this to signal to nodes and holders: we have not extreme sacrifices on security and incentives, we are merely pulling back the intensity of inflation subsidies to a more rational range. It aims to draw a new equilibrium line between "buying enough insurance for security" and "maintaining strong deflation expectations," hoping not to become a victim of high inflation or to lose excessively in an aggressive deflation experiment.
● On a deeper level, there is an implicit multi-party game: the development team needs to use a strong deflation narrative to attract long-term funds and developers, the foundation needs to distribute chips among permanent locking, programmatic buyback, and ecological subsidies; early institutions facing unlocking and selling windows must weigh whether to cash out in the face of high deflation expectations or continue to bet; retail investors are caught between the story of "low yield now for future explosive growth" and the worry that "the deflation narrative cannot compete with real demand." In this new model, every party's decisions will flow back into the expectations of other participants through on-chain data and price performance.
Aptos Betting on the Deflation Narrative: Rewriting Valuation or Another Illusion?
● In summary, Aptos is transitioning from a typical high inflation subsidy model to a triple deflation strategy centered on performance-linked supply + real-time destruction + permanent locking + potential buybacks. Its goal is not merely to "shrink the balance sheet" but to attempt to shape APT into an asset closer to a "rights certificate": its value no longer primarily derives from mechanical issuance over time, but increasingly from genuine network usage and the transaction engine strategy.
● The success of this model hinges not on how appealing the deflation curve looks in the white paper, but on whether real on-chain demand can sustain its growth, creating cash flow and fee scales that match the deflation narrative. If network activity cannot scale over the long term, Aptos risks falling into the trap of "the deflation story surpasses actual cash flow"—on paper supply tightens, yet in reality, protocol revenue and ecological scale struggle to stand out, making valuations more prone to distortion amid macro and emotional fluctuations.
● In the context of intensified competition among L1s like Ethereum and Solana, Aptos’s bet on the "transaction engine + new economic model" combination aims to open a growth curve centered on high-performance transaction scenarios: by deeply binding token value with transaction activity, making every order and matching fuel for the long-term value of APT. Whether it can carve out a gap in the high-performance public chain race will depend on whether it can truly attract enough high-frequency trading projects and capital, outperforming competitors in terms of usage.
● Currently, key information such as specific conditions for programmatic buybacks, long-term emission paths, and ecological subsidy details awaits further disclosure and verification. For investors, a more rational approach would be to consider this upgrade as a long-term experiment that needs to be validated by data rather than an immediate script for price increases. Rather than making decisions based solely on the deflation narrative, it would be better to continue observing the real changes in on-chain transaction volume, Gas revenue, destruction scale, and node participation over the next few quarters before deciding whether to bet on Aptos’s deflation gamble.
Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
