Recently, several re-re-staking projects have only given holders a small proportion of tokens, which is likely a wrong decision.

For many re-re-staking projects, TVL is actually everything for the project. Without TVL, all the ideas: AVS, Hub, strategy maker, Liquid restaking token, L2, and Restaking layer do not truly exist. TVL is the real savior.

During the DeFi Summer, YFI distributed 100% of tokens within a week. Yes, 100%. TVL, liquidity mining, and governance each accounted for 1/3, simple and effective. As we all know, in the following week, YFI surged by 1000x.

Undeniably, re-re-staking has its own innovations, but its essence is not much different from Yearn. They do not generate income themselves, and the core innovation and revenue come from other underlying layers, such as Eigenlayer. After penetrating the surface narrative, they are just some kind of financial aggregator.

"What does a project really need? It's simple, it needs an almost cult-like community, not temporary miners and airdrop hunters who are unstable and ready to retreat at any time."

"But the important thing is that the identities of 'devoted supporters' and 'ruthless miners' can be interchangeable. The turning point of this transformation lies in the proportion of tokens held by the community."

"When you, as a project party, are surprised to find that the team holds 90% (the so-called thick safety cushion), while the community only holds 10% (the so-called little selling pressure), then please don't complain about why the community is not active, why the community does not support you."

"Mining and trading are very similar: Everyone who has truly traded cryptocurrencies has this feeling. When you believe in a token and buy it, after making a 2x profit, your faith will become extremely strong."

"Why are Bitcoin holders' faith always the strongest? Of course, they went from $1100 to $66000, and no FUD can wash away their faith, the earlier, the stronger."

"The mentality of mining is also very similar: When people mine $100,000 and get $10,000, and then unlock it linearly, this will only urge them to sell it mercilessly as soon as possible, to preserve the fruits of victory as soon as possible, conveying the 'lack of confidence' of the project party. In addition, investment also has 'management bandwidth', selling off the small airdrop as soon as possible is the only answer, every minute is a waste of energy."

"When people mine $10,000 and get $10,000, they are willing to 'slap their thighs' on Twitter, half regretful, half somewhat pleased and showing off, attracting many readers who are eager to join the self-selected list."

"When people mine $1,000 and get $10,000, they will be willing to tirelessly mention your project at every dinner, every gathering, every space, tirelessly promoting your project to everyone around them for 1-5 years, and even record in the family history 'In a certain year and month, I mined the divine mine'. All friends and family will leave with tears of envy, and then fomo with tears in their eyes."

Believe me, this is a true story.

Have you noticed? The above three stories bring three kinds of people, corresponding to:

• Ruthless airdrop hunters
• Enthusiastic mid-level miners
• Loyal seed users

When you turn the sacred and important "seed user token distribution" into "early participant airdrop", you have already lost at the starting line.

I do not demand that the current re-re-staking projects pursue a fair launch, after all, only a few have the courage to do so.

However, using just a small amount of chips will never bring a loyal cult-like community, only cold and ruthless miners and airdrop hunters.

As a small reference: The airdrop ratio of $UNI accounts for 15%, liquidity mining accounts for 2%, totaling 17% initially given to the community.

I have advised many projects, and many founders have asked this question: How should the token distribution pie chart be drawn?

There is no correct answer to this question. It can be conservative, aggressive, or somewhere in between. Every aggressive plan is a "social experiment", while the conservative plan is "not seeking merit but avoiding demerit".

Forgive me for being blunt, the "not seeking merit but avoiding demerit" in terms of token economics is definitely a kind of "laziness".

Its characteristics often are:

• The team holds as many tokens as possible;
• The community obtains as few tokens as possible (small base, strict lock-up)
• Leaving a back door for the treasury and core permissions.

Because of this, it always gives the team and founders the greatest safety cushion - "I am still the biggest controller of the entire game."

Little do they know, this will take away the community's safety cushion.

The safety cushion is conserved, there is only one. If you take it away, the community will be gone.

Do not bring Web2 things into Crypto, holding onto equity tightly, naturally maximizing the interests of the founders, but at the same time, it can never make colleagues put in all their efforts for it, let alone loyal users and devoted communities. My partner once commented on the reason for a certain failure: it only had angry employees and angry users. Coming to Crypto is to change all of this.

What is the spirit of Crypto that we talk about all day? Unite all possible people with the most fair distribution mechanism, because such an incredibly united force will achieve far beyond the speed of Web2 companies, and then defeat Web2.

If you still insist on maximizing the interests of the team and the safety cushion in the founder's mind, I suggest going back to Web2 entrepreneurship.

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。