BERA Token Launch Reignites Debate Over “VC Coins”

Berachain's launch of the BERA token last week has reignited the debate over “VC coins,” or tokens that have large allocations held by early-stage venture capitalists.

Original article: Yogita Khatri , The Block

Compiled by: Yuliya, PANews

The launch of the BERA token last week by Berachain has reignited the discussion surrounding “VC coins,” or tokens that are allocated in large portions to early-stage venture capitalists. Critics have raised concerns regarding the percentage of BERA’s token supply that is controlled by investors and insiders, and how this distribution will impact its price in the long run. Similar concerns have been voiced with other venture-backed projects, including Aptos, Sei Network, and Starknet. The cryptocurrency community is debating whether these token distribution structures contribute to long-term growth or simply benefit early investors.

BERA evokes strong reactions

Several industry investors have shared their insights on why these projects continue to be met with controversy. Rob Hadick, general partner at Dragonfly, stated that the level of criticism such projects face “is always directly related to whether the airdrop recipients and early users have made a profit.” He highlighted that the performance of the BERA token failed to meet the expectations of many traders, thus stirring negative sentiment. "If the token performed better, the sentiment on Twitter might be completely different."

Presently, as multiple VC-backed tokens have underperformed, market concerns about how they are distributed have become more evident. Many traders point to the low float (or small circulating supply) and high fully diluted valuation (FDV) of these tokens as key issues. Zaheer Ebtikar, founder and chief investment officer of crypto hedge fund Split Capital, stated that high levels of venture capital funds have driven up valuations, resulting in large FDVs, as funds are required to deploy limited partners' funds. However, he anticipates that as VC financing slows down, the size of financing will decrease, bids for early-stage projects will lower, and methods of valuing will be re-evaluated.

Hadick expressed a contrasting view on the controversy surrounding FDV. He believes that FDV is not the optimal way to assess the valuation of crypto projects because future issuance is not guaranteed and any additional supply may dilute the market value. He also noted that many liquidity providers and foundations receive incentives after unlocking tokens, but once these incentives expire, they may not continue to hold tokens, amplifying potential selling pressure.

During the discussion, Ed Roman, co-founder and managing partner of Hack VC (an investor in Berachain), added that FDV is actually determined by the market and not the project, which means that the team cannot control the FDV — but they do control the supply of tokens when they are issued. He highlighted that Berachain has a 21% circulation, which is significantly higher compared to other blockchain projects such as Starkware (7.28%) and Sui (5%).

Still, Roman acknowledged that Web3 projects have room to improve when it comes to handling long-term incentives. He mentioned that many Web2 companies offer new stock awards after employee vesting periods to keep employees engaged. In a similar vein, he believes that crypto projects can introduce token-based incentives to "have a better chance of creating lasting value."

Project development should align with the core community

The HYPE token of non-VC coin project Hyperliquid has seen a 140% increase since its launch in November and has garnered widespread praise. However, Hadick stated that this model is difficult to replicate. Hyperliquid's success can be attributed to "highly differentiated products and a devoted community," while also investing millions of dollars in independent development funds — these are not easily replicated by most projects.

Hyperliquid allocated 31% of its total supply to users, increasing the circulating supply through airdrops. Boris Revsin, general partner and managing director of Tribe Capital, pointed out that this high circulating supply is not feasible for all projects because they need to retain treasury funds for continued ecosystem development. He highlighted that even Ethereum, which is widely regarded as the fairest Layer 1 project, allocates 10% of the supply to the team and foundation, and another 40% for ecosystem growth and early miners.

Hadick stated that projects should prioritize the long-term healthy development of the protocol, aligning with the core community and avoiding excessive focus on "gamification" or transactions that only attract speculative capital in the short term after going live. He highlighted that such transactions cannot bring real value to the protocol and will only lead to short-term fluctuations in tokens rather than long-term growth.

While some VC-backed tokens fizzle out after the initial hype, others are able to sustain value in the long run. Investors believe that the difference often boils down to fundamentals, real applications and market demand.

Roman emphasized that the early ecosystem of a blockchain project should reflect its real appeal as it launches. As for valuation, the market ultimately determines its height because investors are factoring in future expectations. "The market is a voting machine in the short term and a weighing machine in the long term. If the team is strong enough, they are likely