Original link: https://x.com/mdudas/status/2008882665781612701

Compiled by: Ken, ChainCatcher

The feasibility of a "dual-token + equity" structure does not have a simple or universally applicable answer. However, there is a core principle: you must be confident that the team is not only absolutely excellent but also possesses a long-term mindset, dedicated to building an enterprise-level business led by founders that can last for decades, like Zhao Changpeng.

I believe that for application-layer projects that require long-term leadership, in many cases, the token mechanism is actually inferior to the equity structure. For example, you can see that many founders of DeFi 1.0 protocols have mostly left their projects, many of which are struggling and essentially running in "maintenance mode" by DAOs and other part-time personnel. It has been proven that DAOs and token-weighted voting are not good mechanisms for projects (especially at the application layer) to make sound decisions; they cannot make quick decisions and lack the level of knowledge and capability that is "founder-driven."

Of course, a pure equity model is not absolutely superior to tokens either. Binance is a strong example—tokens give them the ability to offer fee discounts, staking for airdrops, access permissions, and other rights related to their core business and blockchain, which are functionalities that equity ownership cannot clearly support.

"Ownership tokens" also have their limitations and are currently difficult to apply directly within products or protocols. Distributed applications and networks are fundamentally different from traditional companies (otherwise, what significance would we have in this industry?), and pure equity is clearly less flexible than tokens. In the future, there may be "equity +" type token designs, but that is not the current situation (and moreover, the U.S. currently lacks market structure legislation, making the issuance of pure equity-like tokens with direct value capture capabilities and legal rights still risky).

In summary, you can envision a scenario (as Lighter describes): an equity entity operates on a "cost-plus" model, serving as an engine for a token-driven protocol. In this architecture, the goal of the equity entity is not profit maximization but rather maximizing the value of the protocol's tokens and ecosystem. If this model works, it will be a huge benefit for token holders. Because you have a well-funded Labs entity (for example, Lighter has a token treasury available for long-term development), and the core team holds a large amount of tokens, there is a strong incentive to drive token appreciation (while maintaining the crypto-native nature and on-chain characteristics of the core token, distinguishing it from the structurally complex associated Labs entity).

In this model, you do need to have a high level of trust in the team, as in most current cases, token holders do not have strong legal rights protections. Conversely, if you do not believe the team has the ability to execute and create value for the tokens they are heavily invested in, then why did you initially participate in this project?

Ultimately, it all depends on the team's capability, credibility, execution, vision, and actual actions. The longer an excellent team stays in the market and fulfills their commitments, the more their tokens will exhibit the "Lindy effect." As long as the team maintains good communication and clearly directs value towards the tokens through buybacks, substantial governance, and utility within the underlying protocol, we will see the highest quality tokens— even if they have equity/Labs entities—experience an explosion in 2026.

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。