Following CZ's thinking, we find that this idea essentially aims to find a balance between "excessive issuance of tokens" and subsequent "sustainable development". However, there are many possibilities for "loopholes". Here are some additional optimization suggestions:
1) If the initial unlocking amount is small (10%), it can indeed reduce the risk of early investors, but it may also be possible for a small amount of funds to manipulate the market, resulting in increased volatility in early token prices. There are even some shell projects that specialize in hyping up expectations for 10%.
It is suggested that the initial unlocking amount can be increased (20%-30%?), especially setting a minimum market value requirement to avoid being overwhelmed by the high market value at the beginning. The most important thing is that early VC capital parties and supply chain partners, exchanges, etc. should come out to endorse and make transparent disclosures on team background, code quality, business logic, chip distribution, etc.
2) If the unlocking can be carried out only if the price is maintained at a certain high level, it may lead to collusion between the team and large investors, making the chip unlocking period and price manipulation directly related, which will not protect the interests of a wider range of investors.
It is recommended that the observation period can be extended to, for example, 90 days. The most important thing is that a systematic and transparent "data report" should be disclosed before unlocking, including monitoring of transaction volume, currency holding addresses, price volatility, large transactions, etc., to ensure that the synchronous growth of price and supply is in a healthy state;
3) Simply binding price and supply cannot truly reflect the value of the project. For example, most MEME coins have no actual value. If only the price is maintained, the industry will lose the possibility of value creation and price matching, which will further weaken the industry's voice in technology narratives.
Therefore, some value dimensions should also be added to the above data reports, including DAU, TVL, developer activity, community growth scale, technology implementation progress, number of ecological partners, project income level, and other multiple measurement dimensions that can reflect value;
4) The current predicament of Tokenomics is related to the imbalance between price and value, but the key problem is the lack of an effective "elimination and clearance mechanism", which has led to the emergence of a large number of money-making projects, and even turned projects into assembly line production. If one fails, it will be re-created.
There needs to be a mechanism to combat this behavior of projects that are out of basic supervision and moral constraints and are dumping garbage projects. For example, if a project pledges a portion of USDT in the contract and fails to truly trigger the conditions for sustained growth in one year, the entire industry will conduct liquidation and accountability; regularly conduct community votes to make development suggestions for the project and constrain the project, such as voting to change the unlocking and team allocation ratio;
Regardless of whether CZ's proposal can be truly adopted by the industry, or even face various challenges in the early stages of implementation, it is a useful guide for the development of the industry. Starting from the design of the Tokenomics mechanism, this exploration of trying to solve the dilemma of the token economic model makes people feel as if they have seen the pioneers who devoted their efforts to preaching BTC many years ago. Their spirit is very valuable. Respect!
The mountains are green and remain unchanged; they grow stronger over time. At a time when the industry is caught in various contradictions and difficulties, it needs such whistleblowers and guides.
