Written by: YettaS

Today, I spoke with an investor about why Monad, Stable, and Lighter did not choose Binance spot. The first two have a relatively stable FDV within a reasonable range, while Lighter seems to be lagging as the selling pressure has not yet been fully digested. He asked me why. In fact, the project teams have already been voting with their feet. The liquidity value of Binance and the cost of the tokens given out are a major trade-off.

After talking with some projects that are preparing for TGE, as well as those that completed TGE one to two years ago and are still working diligently, almost all teams share a similar sentiment: TGE is a very painful learning experience. More importantly, many people have begun to question the necessity of this event itself.

Essentially, TGE is a marketing action, the largest concentrated exposure in the company's history. Whether to do it and when to do it is a serious cost-benefit trade-off.

• The costs are clear: airdrops are heavily dumped, liquidity is first siphoned off by CEXs, and tokens face enormous selling pressure in a very short time.
• The benefits also seem clear: attention, brand exposure, and so-called "early users."

For quite a long time, the benefits indeed outweighed the costs. The culmination of this logic is the generic chain from the last cycle. Public chains themselves do not have ready-made products and can only rely on tokens, higher performance, or grand narratives to first build distribution advantages, then use this distribution capability to drive traffic to the ecosystem, ultimately relying on real applications within the ecosystem to retain users. However, the collective failure of almost all new public chains in this cycle indicates that this path is becoming ineffective.

Users have become smarter, and more importantly, in the absence of sustained, real liquidity entering the industry, the cost-benefit ratio of TGE has undergone a structural reversal.

There are several realities that are becoming increasingly hard to ignore.

First, can we really still acquire "early seed users" through tokens? In the web2 era, the earlier users often cared more about the product itself; however, in the current crypto context, the earliest users tend to be more mercenary.

Second, token-based cold starts may only be effective for the first project. Whether it's Plasma and Stable or Hyperliquid and Lighter, subsequent players in the same track will be quickly diluted. Attention is diverted, but liquidity does not necessarily increase exponentially as a result.

Third, a true understanding of the incentive structure of exchanges. Exchanges need to balance short-term profits and long-term ecosystems, but their core goal is always transaction fees. For exchanges, the more assets, the better, and it does not necessarily require each one to be a "quality asset." This point does not naturally align with the long-term construction goals of project teams.

In crypto, there are actually two products: tokens and the products themselves. In the past, the path of "first making tokens, then making products" was feasible; but now, it is gradually becoming ineffective. Completing TGE before the product has been refined and PMF has been confirmed makes the token at that moment feel more like a liability rather than an asset, and this liability is not light. Many projects only return to the product, users, and long-term construction after TGE, once they have cleaned up the mess. However, this process often excessively consumes the team's energy, morale, and time window. Anticipated construction is not free; the grander the narrative, the more it overdraws the future.

What we are experiencing is a structural transformation from "valuation discovery" to "value discovery."

If we ultimately have to pay such a heavy price, clearing all "historical liabilities" before we can start real construction, then why not prioritize construction itself from the beginning? In this context, when should TGE be completed to be a relatively responsible choice for the project, users, and the team?

Recently, while looking at some secondary market projects, this comparison has become increasingly clear. Their paths are often more solid: finding PMF, attracting users with the product itself, allowing users to use it genuinely and generate revenue, and then using that revenue to buy back tokens. This process does not rely on emotions, narratives, or complex incentive designs, but it does continuously create value. Tokens are used to incentivize truly important people, and sufficiently healthy revenue begins to support the value of the tokens in return.

I do not believe this is the only correct path, nor do I think TGE will completely disappear. Perhaps in some extremely competitive and short-windowed tracks, TGE is still the fastest way to dilute opponents' expectations and reshape liquidity patterns; or perhaps in scenarios with strong network effects, tokens can still amplify distribution efficiency. But these should be choices made after clear trade-offs, not results driven by market rhythms.

If this cycle has taught us anything, it may be that tokens are no longer inherently equivalent to growth, and narratives no longer automatically translate into value. The market is always right; this is a more mature, more brutal, but ultimately healthier long-term situation.

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。