探索了APTOS Tokenomics：預售的估值差距和歸屬時間表甚至可以注定出色的項目

這是iinuma.io的首席顧問兼創始人Arthur Iinuma的來賓帖子和意見。雖然良好的標記學無法保存不健全的項目

The following is a guest post and opinion of Arthur Iinuma, Principal consultant and Founder of Iinuma.io.

以下是iinuma.io的首席顧問兼創始人Arthur Iinuma的來賓和意見。

While good tokenomics cannot save unsound projects, even the most promising network launches can fail from poor token design.

儘管良好的標記學無法保存不健全的項目，但即使是最有前途的網絡啟動也可能因糟糕的令牌設計而失敗。

Spectacular flameouts like Terra LUNA and Celsius expose the dangers of financial sleight-of-hand—algorithmic stablecoins and yield schemes masquerading as innovation. But there are many more otherwise high-potential projects committing economic suicide through easily avoidable mistakes.

像Terra Luna和Celsius這樣的壯觀火焰暴露了經濟策劃的危險 - 算法的穩定穩定性和屈服於偽裝成創新的計劃。但是，還有更多其他的高潛力項目通過易於避免的錯誤來實施經濟自殺。

Blue-chip projects with genuine technical merit and legitimate use cases, like Aptos, have watched billions in market cap evaporate overnight due to mismanaged token unlocks and poor communication. It’s critical for crypto founders to increase their emphasis on token design so great projects can build economic foundations as strong as their technical ones.

具有真正的技術優點和合法用例（如Aptos）的藍籌項目，由於令牌不當，溝通不善和溝通不良，因此在一夜之間觀看了數十億美元的市值。對於加密創始人而言，將重點放在代幣設計中至關重要，因此偉大的項目可以建立像技術技術一樣強大的經濟基礎。

Fatal Flaws in Token Design

令牌設計中的致命缺陷

The biggest tokenomics mistakes I see in otherwise solid projects are:

我在否則可靠的項目中看到的最大的令牌學錯誤是：

Large Valuation Gaps

較大的估值差距

While it is customary for projects to offer early investors lower priced tokens compared to later rounds, founders should be careful in allowing wide pricing spreads between these early rounds and public buyers.

與以後的回合相比，項目習慣為早期投資者提供價格較低的代幣，但創始人應謹慎地允許這些早期回合和公共買家之間的價格差異。

This may be easier said than done as shrewd investors demand lower prices against the threat of withholding investment. However, an investor with a low entry price in comparison to a later round essentially guarantees their upside even at prices lower than the cost basis of a public buyer. This means that a loss for buyers in later rounds may still result in gains for the earliest token holders – creating an unfair imbalance in the project’s token economy.

這可能會說起來容易做起來難，因為精明的投資者要求較低的價格與扣留投資的威脅。但是，與後來的投資者相比，投資者的投資者甚至低於公共買家的成本基礎，也可以確保其上漲。這意味著，後來回合的買家損失可能仍會為最早的令牌持有人帶來收益 - 在項目的代幣經濟中造成不公平的失衡。

Poor Vesting Schedule

歸屬時間表差

Far too many projects turn their public buyers into exit liquidity for early investors and insiders. Nothing destroys community faster than watching early insiders dump tokens while public buyers hold withering bags.

太多的項目將其公共買家轉變為早期投資者和內部人士的出口流動性。沒有什麼比看早期內部人員傾倒令牌更快的速度，而公眾買家拿著枯萎的袋子。

The timing of unlocks is also pivotal. While a long vesting and lockup schedule seems good for value appreciation, they almost always guarantee predictable sell pressure as investors who’ve been forced to hold for too long scramble to unload. Fast unlocks may provide rapid price discovery and expand the token holder base, but they also allow whales to dump, creating “red candles” and evaporating public confidence.

解鎖的時機也很重要。儘管較長的歸屬和鎖定時間表似乎有益於價值升值，但它們幾乎總是保證可預測的賣出壓力，因為那些被迫長期努力爭取卸載的投資者。快速解鎖可能會提供快速的價格發現並擴大令牌持有人基礎，但它們還允許鯨魚傾倒，創建“紅色蠟燭”並蒸發公眾的信心。

Overselling by Founders

創始人的過度銷售

Sometimes the prospect of turning recently minted digital tokens into real value is too tempting for the founders who created them. I’ve watched projects go from great ideas to publicly traded at over a billion USD in valuation, minting multi-millionaire founders in the process. Even the most disciplined of them are tempted to sell their holdings and trade their project tokens for cash.

有時，將最近將數字代幣轉變為實際價值的前景對於創建它們的創始人來說太誘人了。我看過項目從估值超過10億美元的公開交易的項目轉變為公開交易，在此過程中造成了數百萬富翁的創始人。即使是最有紀律的人也很想出售其股份並將其項目代幣交易。

Take for instance Mantra, which suddenly lost 92% of its value in just 90 minutes. Despite statements by the CEO to the contrary, blockchain analysts were quick to identify substantial insider movements of at least USD 227 million onto exchanges, suggesting an insider dump.

例如，咒語突然在短短90分鐘內突然失去了其價值的92％。儘管首席執行官對相反的陳述，但區塊鏈分析師迅速確定了至少2.27億美元在交易所的內幕運動，這暗示了內部人士。

High Listing Valuation

高清單估值

Founders are often enticed to list at larger valuations as they make for bigger headlines, raised optics and build hype. Founders are not entirely at fault here, as even Binance has been known to push out unusually high listing valuations, with projects like Hamster Kombat (HMSTR) listing at over USD 700 million in market cap, and Notcoin listing at a staggering USD 1 billion at launch.

創始人通常會吸引更大的估值列出，因為他們成為更大的頭條新聞，凸起的光學和建造炒作。創始人在這裡並不完全是錯的，因為甚至binance都眾所周知，漢堡（HMSTR）列表的估值異常高，市場上限超過7億美元，而NotCoin列出了諸如啟動時驚人地的10億美元。

But overvalued project listings create a lot of “air” underneath them, and when everyone is in the money, it’s almost a guaranteed race to the bottom and token holders are quick to cash out to get more favorable pricing than the person next to them. A high starting valuation also means the prospect of public buyers earning a multiple on their investment is slimmer, thinning out secondary market demand. When you have a lot of holders selling and nobody to buy, the result is an eventual death spiral.

但是，高估的項目列表在它們下面創造了許多“空氣”，當每個人都賺錢時，幾乎可以保證，這是一場底部的競賽，而代幣持有人可以很快兌現，以獲得比旁邊的人更有利的定價。高的開始估值還意味著公共買家在投資上獲得倍數的前景很小，從而減少了二級市場需求。當您有很多持有者出售並且沒有人要購買時，結果是最終的死亡螺旋。

While projects like Hamster Kombat set industry engagement records, and listed on the top exchanges in the world, its overvalue at listing resulted in a 87% price decline to its recorded all-time-low.

雖然像倉鼠Kombat這樣的項目設定了行業參與記錄，並在全球頂級交流中列出，但其列表的溢價導致價格下降了87％，至其記錄的歷史最低點。

What Actually Works in Tokenomics

真正在令牌學中起作用的是什麼

BTC and ETH hold the top market cap positions for good reason. Beyond being early, they’ve demonstrated several core principles that separate sustainable token models from hollow speculation vehicles.

BTC和ETH持有最高的市值，這是有充分理由的。除了早期，他們還展示了幾個核心原則，這些原則將可持續的代幣模型與空心投機工具分開。

Genuine Scarcity

真正的稀缺

Bitcoin’s 21 million fixed supply cap isn’t powerful just because it’s scarce—it’s powerful because the market believes with absolute certainty that this limit won’t change.

比特幣的2100萬個固定供應上限並不是因為它很少，這很強大，因為市場絕對可以確定該限制不會改變。

Deep Product Integration

深層產品集成

The fundamental question every project should answer honestly: Could your product function without a token? If yes, you’re likely forcing tokenization where it doesn’t belong.

每個項目都應該誠實地回答的基本問題：您的產品功能是否可以沒有令牌？如果是，您可能會在不屬於的情況下強制執政化。

Projects like Filecoin embody this principle well—their token is essential to the network’s storage marketplace function, making it nearly impossible to separate the product from its token. By contrast, projects that bolt on tokens as afterthoughts typically see their tokens wither in value over time.

諸如Filecoin之類的項目體現了這一原則 - 您的令牌對於網絡的存儲市場功能至關重要，因此幾乎不可能將產品與代幣分開。相比之下，隨著事後的想法，將螺栓固定在代幣上的預測通常會隨著時間的推移而有價值。

Selling Restrictions

出售限制

Projects should structure valuations across each sale round with reduced spread and design a lockup schedule that prevents lower-priced buyers from “dumping” their tokens on participants in later rounds.

項目應在每個銷售回合中構建估值，並減少點差和設計鎖定時間表，以防止低價買家在以後的回合中“傾銷”其令牌。