Listing $LINEA - Is it undervalued? Really?
The $LINEA token has finally hit the market, trading at $2.2B FDV. But is it truly undervalued?
🔹 Buyback will be minimal. In 2025 the network generated only $2.5M in revenue - hardly enough to create any real buy pressure.
🔹 Empty ecosystem. Beyond Etherex (a fork of x(3,3) models), there’s not much to highlight. Metamask Card never gained traction, mUSD is unlikely to go mainstream, and even Metamask itself is losing ground to competing EVM wallets.
🔹 The Sharplink narrative is fading. Many DATs now show mNAV < 1, including SBET. Sharplink announced a $1.5B+ share buyback, but the stock dropped. They’re only the #2 ETH DAT and lag far behind Bitmine - so no real leadership factor.
🔹 TVL is artificial. Most of the inflows came from the Linea Ignition campaign, which ends in late October. Rewards are already tapering off, meaning liquidity will likely exit.
🔹 Valuation vs peers:
• “Empty” L2s: ZKsync = $1.3B FDV, Scroll = $350M FDV
• More mature: Optimism = $3.4B FDV, Arbitrum = $5.4B FDV
$LINEA looks roughly fair on this spectrum, but not cheap.
The one positive: 87% of the airdrop has already been claimed and sold, so the main wave of sell pressure is likely behind us and now MM can pump it.
But longer term, without real ecosystem growth or meaningful revenues, $LINEA’s story looks uncertain at best.
The $LINEA token has finally hit the market, trading at $2.2B FDV. But is it truly undervalued?
🔹 Buyback will be minimal. In 2025 the network generated only $2.5M in revenue - hardly enough to create any real buy pressure.
🔹 Empty ecosystem. Beyond Etherex (a fork of x(3,3) models), there’s not much to highlight. Metamask Card never gained traction, mUSD is unlikely to go mainstream, and even Metamask itself is losing ground to competing EVM wallets.
🔹 The Sharplink narrative is fading. Many DATs now show mNAV < 1, including SBET. Sharplink announced a $1.5B+ share buyback, but the stock dropped. They’re only the #2 ETH DAT and lag far behind Bitmine - so no real leadership factor.
🔹 TVL is artificial. Most of the inflows came from the Linea Ignition campaign, which ends in late October. Rewards are already tapering off, meaning liquidity will likely exit.
🔹 Valuation vs peers:
• “Empty” L2s: ZKsync = $1.3B FDV, Scroll = $350M FDV
• More mature: Optimism = $3.4B FDV, Arbitrum = $5.4B FDV
$LINEA looks roughly fair on this spectrum, but not cheap.
The one positive: 87% of the airdrop has already been claimed and sold, so the main wave of sell pressure is likely behind us and now MM can pump it.
But longer term, without real ecosystem growth or meaningful revenues, $LINEA’s story looks uncertain at best.
🔥1
We’re excited to announce that Coinstruct is co-hosting the VC × Builders Rooftop Meetup at TOKEN2049 in Singapore!
📍 Rooftop vibes, exclusive crowd, and the perfect place to connect VCs with founders pushing the frontier of Web3.
📅 When: September 18
🔗 RSVP here: Luma Event Page
Let’s turn big visions into real deals — see you on the rooftop. 🥂
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🐳2
Capped vs. Uncapped Tokenomics
Polkadot DAO recently voted to cap the supply of $DOT at 2.1B, replacing its prior unlimited issuance model, which minted 20M new $DOT per year with no hard cap).
There is a common belief that capped tokens ($BTC, $HYPE) are always superior to uncapped ones ($SOL, $CRV) is, at best, a misconception. Scarcity alone doesn’t create value. If there’s no demand, fewer tokens in circulation won’t magically fix the problem.
In fact, uncapped supply can provide flexibility and scalability. Take ve(3,3) designs: even with constant sell pressure from new emissions, the flywheel of bribes, fees, and rebase mechanics creates sustainable buy pressure for stakers.
That said, uncapped tokenomics have become rare. Why?
🔹 Retail fears hyperinflation.
🔹 VCs dislike not knowing their precise % allocation.
🔹 Many projects today prefer “stock-like” capped models to avoid trust issues.
History hasn’t helped either: most uncapped designs failed to create a true flywheel, leaving only heavy sell pressure. Even MakerDAO (long considered a successful uncapped case) is transitioning into $SKY with a deflationary model.
So, uncapped supply can work, but only if the token’s role in the system is carefully designed and directly linked to real value flows. Otherwise, capped supply will keep winning - It is easier to implement, to explain and to sell.
Polkadot DAO recently voted to cap the supply of $DOT at 2.1B, replacing its prior unlimited issuance model, which minted 20M new $DOT per year with no hard cap).
There is a common belief that capped tokens ($BTC, $HYPE) are always superior to uncapped ones ($SOL, $CRV) is, at best, a misconception. Scarcity alone doesn’t create value. If there’s no demand, fewer tokens in circulation won’t magically fix the problem.
In fact, uncapped supply can provide flexibility and scalability. Take ve(3,3) designs: even with constant sell pressure from new emissions, the flywheel of bribes, fees, and rebase mechanics creates sustainable buy pressure for stakers.
That said, uncapped tokenomics have become rare. Why?
🔹 Retail fears hyperinflation.
🔹 VCs dislike not knowing their precise % allocation.
🔹 Many projects today prefer “stock-like” capped models to avoid trust issues.
History hasn’t helped either: most uncapped designs failed to create a true flywheel, leaving only heavy sell pressure. Even MakerDAO (long considered a successful uncapped case) is transitioning into $SKY with a deflationary model.
So, uncapped supply can work, but only if the token’s role in the system is carefully designed and directly linked to real value flows. Otherwise, capped supply will keep winning - It is easier to implement, to explain and to sell.
🐳3❤2
🎙 Coinstruct is launching a new series of podcasts.
If you haven’t seen it yet, the first episode is already live.
We sat down with our client and the founder of Mystic Finance to talk about RWAs and where this narrative is heading.
Listen now on our Twitter/X
If you haven’t seen it yet, the first episode is already live.
We sat down with our client and the founder of Mystic Finance to talk about RWAs and where this narrative is heading.
Listen now on our Twitter/X
❤2🔥1🐳1
The Tokenomic Health Check
A quick way to stress-test your model and see if everything adds up before launch.
it’s simple, free, and built to give founders and teams clarity without all the noise.
🔗 Full details on X/Twitter
A quick way to stress-test your model and see if everything adds up before launch.
it’s simple, free, and built to give founders and teams clarity without all the noise.
🔗 Full details on X/Twitter
❤3🐳2
Aster appeared quite unexpectedly on the Perp market and today already has twice the volume of Hyperliquid.
Despite constant protocol lags, the project's token has grown steadily over the past few days from $0.1 to $2.3 and got the whole of Twitter talking about the new Hyperliquid killer.
In terms of tokenomics, 53.5% was allocated to the airdrop (which seems like a lot), of which
-15% was allocated in the first season and another
-4% will be given in the second season ending at the end of October.
There is no allocation to investors and only 5% is allocated to the team.
I would like to believe in the altruism of the project, but looking at how CZ is promoting it on Twitter and the initial support from Yzi Labs, it seems that, one way or another, most of the supply ended up in the right hands
Despite constant protocol lags, the project's token has grown steadily over the past few days from $0.1 to $2.3 and got the whole of Twitter talking about the new Hyperliquid killer.
In terms of tokenomics, 53.5% was allocated to the airdrop (which seems like a lot), of which
-15% was allocated in the first season and another
-4% will be given in the second season ending at the end of October.
There is no allocation to investors and only 5% is allocated to the team.
I would like to believe in the altruism of the project, but looking at how CZ is promoting it on Twitter and the initial support from Yzi Labs, it seems that, one way or another, most of the supply ended up in the right hands
We’ve written about Yield Basis here before, and now the app has finally launched on mainnet, so it’s worth a reminder as new mechanics in DeFi don’t come often lately.
The main difference from other AMMs is that Yield Basis tackles impermanent loss.
The second key difference is the tokenomics.
Users can choose to be LPs and just earn trading fees, or to receive $YB, which can then be staked to earn more trading fees. So those who don’t want the native token won’t get it, and those who want to be part of the project can opt into the protocol token - similar to Aerodrome.
On October 1, Yield Basis is holding a sale on Legion and Kraken, and the token is expected to launch shortly after. We are bullish
The main difference from other AMMs is that Yield Basis tackles impermanent loss.
You can provide liquidity and still keep full price exposure to your asset. They do this by taking about 2x leverage in crvUSD against the deposited asset.
Example: a typical LP position (e.g., BTC/USDT) moves like √P of the deposited BTC. To get full exposure, they square the LP, cancel the square root, and the position moves like P (the asset price). Gigabrain-simple explanation.
The second key difference is the tokenomics.
Users can choose to be LPs and just earn trading fees, or to receive $YB, which can then be staked to earn more trading fees. So those who don’t want the native token won’t get it, and those who want to be part of the project can opt into the protocol token - similar to Aerodrome.
On October 1, Yield Basis is holding a sale on Legion and Kraken, and the token is expected to launch shortly after. We are bullish
What Stage of the Market Are We In?
This week, the “father of DeFi” Andre Cronje announced a new product - Flying Tulip (or should we call it Tulip Mania). A good moment to take the market’s temperature.
Tokenomics
Target raise: $1B ($200M already from private investors, $800M via public sale).
Allocation: 100% of tokens to investors, 0% to the team.
Each investor gets a perpetual put option at the purchase price: you can return the tokens whenever you want and redeem your capital at cost.
The raised capital is deployed into DeFi strategies to generate revenue, which funds development and buyback & burn of the token. Flywheel effect.
Product (building everything at once)
1. Lending
2. AMM
3. Perp DEX
4. Stablecoin
5. On-chain insurance
All pitched as a super-app.
Our Thoughts
It’s effectively an experiment where investors pay only opportunity cost, while development is financed by yield on TVL (the site suggests up to $125M/yr for buybacks, and more if TVL grows).
Great narrative, but it reads like a late-cycle bull protocol: raising $1B on a super-app promise before the product exists.
Why it’s questionable
Building a super-app ≠ promising one. Even giants (e.g., Base) are taking phased steps. We’ve seen scope expansion (Aave → stablecoin; Ethena → stablecoin + perps + L2), but no one has ever shipped five complex, competitive products in one protocol and outcompeted focused teams in each vertical.
Andre’s track record. He’s a gifted visionary and narrative driver, but he often experiments with tokenomics, then abandons projects to build new ones. And the market tends to forgive it.
Professional demand. In private investor DAOs the deal has been circulating for about a month with only $200M raised. In today’s market the remaining $800M might get filled publicly, but weak VC interest is a red flag.
What It Really Is
An on-chain hedge fund that must prudently manage $1B TVL and use that revenue to build a super-app then actually follow through on buybacks.
They promise innovation, but aside from the unusual tokenomics (spiritually reminiscent of OlympusDAO), there’s little concrete so far. Hard to imagine this launching in any phase other than today’s. A useful moment to ask: how far into euphoria are we?
Respectfully,
Your Coinstruct
This week, the “father of DeFi” Andre Cronje announced a new product - Flying Tulip (or should we call it Tulip Mania). A good moment to take the market’s temperature.
Tokenomics
Target raise: $1B ($200M already from private investors, $800M via public sale).
Allocation: 100% of tokens to investors, 0% to the team.
Each investor gets a perpetual put option at the purchase price: you can return the tokens whenever you want and redeem your capital at cost.
The raised capital is deployed into DeFi strategies to generate revenue, which funds development and buyback & burn of the token. Flywheel effect.
Product (building everything at once)
1. Lending
2. AMM
3. Perp DEX
4. Stablecoin
5. On-chain insurance
All pitched as a super-app.
Our Thoughts
It’s effectively an experiment where investors pay only opportunity cost, while development is financed by yield on TVL (the site suggests up to $125M/yr for buybacks, and more if TVL grows).
Great narrative, but it reads like a late-cycle bull protocol: raising $1B on a super-app promise before the product exists.
Why it’s questionable
Building a super-app ≠ promising one. Even giants (e.g., Base) are taking phased steps. We’ve seen scope expansion (Aave → stablecoin; Ethena → stablecoin + perps + L2), but no one has ever shipped five complex, competitive products in one protocol and outcompeted focused teams in each vertical.
Andre’s track record. He’s a gifted visionary and narrative driver, but he often experiments with tokenomics, then abandons projects to build new ones. And the market tends to forgive it.
Professional demand. In private investor DAOs the deal has been circulating for about a month with only $200M raised. In today’s market the remaining $800M might get filled publicly, but weak VC interest is a red flag.
What It Really Is
An on-chain hedge fund that must prudently manage $1B TVL and use that revenue to build a super-app then actually follow through on buybacks.
They promise innovation, but aside from the unusual tokenomics (spiritually reminiscent of OlympusDAO), there’s little concrete so far. Hard to imagine this launching in any phase other than today’s. A useful moment to ask: how far into euphoria are we?
Respectfully,
Your Coinstruct
ICM meta and the VC money problem
Crypto is unsurprisingly cyclical.
2017 - ICO boom. A decent website was enough and users aped in money. In the end it all finished with a predictable amount of scams.
2020–2023 — “Backed by…” meta. Tier-1 funds in seed rounds = “it’s a gem, get in early” (think ZKsync, Starknet, L0, etc.).
2024 - Realization. By the time Billion dollar VC valuations hit the public, most upside is gone. Funds aren’t philanthropists: they dump on unlocks and as a result is down only. Meme coins took over - zero tech, only attention and “room to grow.”
2025 - ICM meta. We are here.
What is ICM (Internet Capital Markets)
A project sells a token directly to degens; behind the token is a real startup that generates revenue and channels it into buybacks, creating a flywheel.
In essence, we’re back to ICOs, but with emphasis on returning value to token holders via cash flow.
The market is testing a model where the public finances products and participates in cash distribution, not just in multiples.
Keep building.
Crypto is unsurprisingly cyclical.
2017 - ICO boom. A decent website was enough and users aped in money. In the end it all finished with a predictable amount of scams.
2020–2023 — “Backed by…” meta. Tier-1 funds in seed rounds = “it’s a gem, get in early” (think ZKsync, Starknet, L0, etc.).
2024 - Realization. By the time Billion dollar VC valuations hit the public, most upside is gone. Funds aren’t philanthropists: they dump on unlocks and as a result is down only. Meme coins took over - zero tech, only attention and “room to grow.”
2025 - ICM meta. We are here.
What is ICM (Internet Capital Markets)
A project sells a token directly to degens; behind the token is a real startup that generates revenue and channels it into buybacks, creating a flywheel.
In essence, we’re back to ICOs, but with emphasis on returning value to token holders via cash flow.
Key figures of the ICM narrative
Ben Pasternak - Believe. An app where anyone can launch a token; if people believe in you/your product, they support, and the founder earns from fees. A major protocl update is incoming, everyone’s waiting to see what the team built.
Mercy - Investor Center Cult. An incubator for ICM projects: selects the best, helps them grow; in return the treasury receives 1–5% of tokens.
Miya - Street. A protocol that buys equity from Web2 startups (including those backed by YC/a16z) and tokenizes it via the new ERC-S standard.
The market is testing a model where the public finances products and participates in cash distribution, not just in multiples.
Notable ICM cases
$PMX. Started as a Telegram trading bot for Polymarket; now building its own prediction market on Solana.
$VIRUS. A game studio with three releases; the latest success is Addicted, supported by Solana.
$DUPE. Building an AI search for product analogs at lower prices; the app has real usage, and the founder has launched several successful startups and raised $250M+ in total.
It feels like we’re at the beginning of something big.
Keep building.
Who’s a Market Maker and why it matters
A market maker (MM) is a contractor (exchange- or project-side) that uses team-provided inventory (tokens + stables) to keep markets liquid and tradable.
Ideally, an MM:
🔹Maintains depth and tight spreads
🔹Reduces slippage
🔹Supports key events (listing, TGE, unlocks) so the market remains tradable.
In reality:
◆ With large inventory vs. float, an MM can nudge price around events, where regulators may see manipulation. In crypto it often goes unpunished, but still carries legal risks.
◆ Professional MMs do not engage in wash trading. But crypto is still the Wild West, and some big players have inflated volumes to create artificial interest. For a team, this is both a reputational and legal risk.
◆ If an MM steps away, the bid/ask walls vanish and price can collapse anywhere within minutes. Because many oracles overweight top exchanges, a brief price hole can trigger cross-market liquidations, as seen on Friday on Binance (depegs in $ATOM, $bnSOL, $wbETH, $TON).
Who’s specifically to blame? Probably Binance itself; we’ll see which funds end up dead. CZ remains quietly silent.
Сhoosing an MM is a critical part of any token launch. Treat your MM strategy as seriously as your tokenomics.
A market maker (MM) is a contractor (exchange- or project-side) that uses team-provided inventory (tokens + stables) to keep markets liquid and tradable.
Ideally, an MM:
🔹Maintains depth and tight spreads
🔹Reduces slippage
🔹Supports key events (listing, TGE, unlocks) so the market remains tradable.
In reality:
◆ With large inventory vs. float, an MM can nudge price around events, where regulators may see manipulation. In crypto it often goes unpunished, but still carries legal risks.
◆ Professional MMs do not engage in wash trading. But crypto is still the Wild West, and some big players have inflated volumes to create artificial interest. For a team, this is both a reputational and legal risk.
◆ If an MM steps away, the bid/ask walls vanish and price can collapse anywhere within minutes. Because many oracles overweight top exchanges, a brief price hole can trigger cross-market liquidations, as seen on Friday on Binance (depegs in $ATOM, $bnSOL, $wbETH, $TON).
Who’s specifically to blame? Probably Binance itself; we’ll see which funds end up dead. CZ remains quietly silent.
Сhoosing an MM is a critical part of any token launch. Treat your MM strategy as seriously as your tokenomics.
❤1
We’re partnering with Pivot for their Open Demo Day!
Pivot is a Web3-native accelerator helping early-stage startups turn ideas into real, scalable products. Their network connects builders, investors, mentors, and ecosystem partners to give projects the momentum they need.
We’ll be supporting teams with tokenomics strategy and design.
See you there
👉 Register: https://luma.com/thhguc11
Pivot is a Web3-native accelerator helping early-stage startups turn ideas into real, scalable products. Their network connects builders, investors, mentors, and ecosystem partners to give projects the momentum they need.
We’ll be supporting teams with tokenomics strategy and design.
See you there
👉 Register: https://luma.com/thhguc11
The Token Podcast's new episode is live
We sat down with William, co-founder of Sproutly RWA, to talk about
- How they’re tokenizing carbon capture,
- Partnering with giants like Lufthansa, and
- Building a new asset class for Real World Impact (RWI).
Watch here: https://youtu.be/cxjgeGBiNAg
We sat down with William, co-founder of Sproutly RWA, to talk about
- How they’re tokenizing carbon capture,
- Partnering with giants like Lufthansa, and
- Building a new asset class for Real World Impact (RWI).
Watch here: https://youtu.be/cxjgeGBiNAg
Monad airdrop = Vampire attack 2.0?
Monad released an airdrop checker and will distribute tokens to 230,000 wallets. Only 5,500 of those belong to Monad’s own community, the rest are external addresses from the broader crypto audience.
What is a vampire attack?
Simply it is when a new project sucks liquidity/users from established protocols by offering better incentives (high APR or future tokens).
Classic examples in the past are
1) SushiSwap forking Uniswap in 2020. LPs migrated for SUSHI rewards, temporarily draining billions in TVL.
or
2) Blur, which used incentives to lure NFT traders away from OpenSea.
What Monad did
$MON airdrop hits power users from Ethereum, Solana, and beyond, like DeFi depositors on Aave, Solana NFT holders, and traders on Pump.fun or Hyperliquid. So this is a new wave vampire attack: no straight fork, and the project is already widely known in the industry (unlike Sushi/Blur at launch).
The question is how relevant it is to give tokens to users who didn’t use the product not because they hadn’t heard of it or were loyal elsewhere, but because the product wasn’t live on mainnet yet (even though everyone knew about Monad thanks to its large VC raise).
We will see the answer together pretty much soon.
Monad released an airdrop checker and will distribute tokens to 230,000 wallets. Only 5,500 of those belong to Monad’s own community, the rest are external addresses from the broader crypto audience.
What is a vampire attack?
Simply it is when a new project sucks liquidity/users from established protocols by offering better incentives (high APR or future tokens).
Classic examples in the past are
1) SushiSwap forking Uniswap in 2020. LPs migrated for SUSHI rewards, temporarily draining billions in TVL.
or
2) Blur, which used incentives to lure NFT traders away from OpenSea.
What Monad did
$MON airdrop hits power users from Ethereum, Solana, and beyond, like DeFi depositors on Aave, Solana NFT holders, and traders on Pump.fun or Hyperliquid. So this is a new wave vampire attack: no straight fork, and the project is already widely known in the industry (unlike Sushi/Blur at launch).
The question is how relevant it is to give tokens to users who didn’t use the product not because they hadn’t heard of it or were loyal elsewhere, but because the product wasn’t live on mainnet yet (even though everyone knew about Monad thanks to its large VC raise).
We will see the answer together pretty much soon.
❤2
P/E for Perps
With the shift toward “real business” in crypto, equity-style valuation multiples are appearing, but adapted for tokens. For example, Hyperliquid now has its own P/E.
SWPE (Supply-Weighted P/E) is the classic Price/Earnings adjusted for effective supply: locked $HYPE tokens are excluded since they don’t create short-term sell pressure. The metric better reflects what can actually hit the market.
How SWPE is used (in theory)
If 30-day revenues are rising while SWPE is falling, that can signal undervaluation: at a lower multiple, each dollar of revenue has a stronger price impact via buybacks.
That’s exactly what the screenshot shows right now.
We are confident we’ll see more of these equity-style metrics carefully adapted to on-chain realities.
With the shift toward “real business” in crypto, equity-style valuation multiples are appearing, but adapted for tokens. For example, Hyperliquid now has its own P/E.
SWPE (Supply-Weighted P/E) is the classic Price/Earnings adjusted for effective supply: locked $HYPE tokens are excluded since they don’t create short-term sell pressure. The metric better reflects what can actually hit the market.
How SWPE is used (in theory)
If 30-day revenues are rising while SWPE is falling, that can signal undervaluation: at a lower multiple, each dollar of revenue has a stronger price impact via buybacks.
That’s exactly what the screenshot shows right now.
We are confident we’ll see more of these equity-style metrics carefully adapted to on-chain realities.
MegaETH - what valuation is realistic?
The team is selling 5% of $MEGA via an English auction (min cap - $1M, max - $1B). In short: whoever bids higher gets the allocation.
The final price will likely land at $1B FDV, since on Hyperliquid’s pre-market the project is already trading around $4.2B FDV. In that case, tokens would be distributed to roughly 5k wallets, with a $2,650 minimum allocation.
Worth recalling: earlier this year MegaETH sold 5,000 “fluffle” NFTs at a $600M FDV. Expecting a lower valuation now would be odd, and the team knows it.
Market context
Recent months show a trend of lofty valuations and new chains without real MAU: $MON sits around ~$6.5B pre-mainnet. So what prevents $MEGA from being $4B+, given Dragonfly and Vitalik Buterin backed early rounds?
Meanwhile:
◆Tokenomics remain undisclosed
◆Token utility is still an open question.
The main question - does crypto really need another L2?
The team is selling 5% of $MEGA via an English auction (min cap - $1M, max - $1B). In short: whoever bids higher gets the allocation.
The final price will likely land at $1B FDV, since on Hyperliquid’s pre-market the project is already trading around $4.2B FDV. In that case, tokens would be distributed to roughly 5k wallets, with a $2,650 minimum allocation.
Worth recalling: earlier this year MegaETH sold 5,000 “fluffle” NFTs at a $600M FDV. Expecting a lower valuation now would be odd, and the team knows it.
Market context
Recent months show a trend of lofty valuations and new chains without real MAU: $MON sits around ~$6.5B pre-mainnet. So what prevents $MEGA from being $4B+, given Dragonfly and Vitalik Buterin backed early rounds?
Meanwhile:
◆Tokenomics remain undisclosed
◆Token utility is still an open question.
The main question - does crypto really need another L2?
Interim results of the MegaETH ICO
— Deposits without lock: $692M
— Deposits with lock: $64M
— Almost everyone bid at the max price - as expected.
— Max cap: $49.95M - the locked deposits alone could fill it.
Most likely, the team will allocate the majority to lock-in participants to reduce sell pressure at TGE.
If you didn’t do the testnet / don’t hold the fluffle NFTs, participating likely isn’t worth it, though the team said even those who don’t get an allocation might receive some mainnet rewards.
— Deposits without lock: $692M
— Deposits with lock: $64M
— Almost everyone bid at the max price - as expected.
— Max cap: $49.95M - the locked deposits alone could fill it.
Most likely, the team will allocate the majority to lock-in participants to reduce sell pressure at TGE.
If you didn’t do the testnet / don’t hold the fluffle NFTs, participating likely isn’t worth it, though the team said even those who don’t get an allocation might receive some mainnet rewards.
Proud to team up with Medici Expert.
Together we’ll help teams:
◆ Ship clean, compliant token models + investor-grade whitepapers (MiCA/VARA-ready)
◆ Secure the right licenses and banking rails, faster
◆ Set up holdings & entities with ongoing reporting/audit support
◆ Stand up end-to-end compliance (docs, AML audits, staff training)
Learn more:
Coinstruct: http://coinstruct.tech
Medici Expert: https://medici.expert
Together we’ll help teams:
◆ Ship clean, compliant token models + investor-grade whitepapers (MiCA/VARA-ready)
◆ Secure the right licenses and banking rails, faster
◆ Set up holdings & entities with ongoing reporting/audit support
◆ Stand up end-to-end compliance (docs, AML audits, staff training)
Learn more:
Coinstruct: http://coinstruct.tech
Medici Expert: https://medici.expert
❤3
Gonka
In a recent interview, the David and Daniil Liberman unveiled their new project Gonka — a decentralized AI protocol.
For context: they’re serial founders from Silicon Valley (sold Kernel AR to Snapchat for $30M; launched a VC fund that “invests in people", not companies; and build Product Science, an AI-driven performance optimizer for apps).
Gonka is an open protocol that unites GPU owners worldwide into a single compute network for AI. GPU holders earn the $GNK token, while AI labs and countries gain access to distributed compute without relying on the chip monopoly. The project is community-driven, non-VC, focused on compute sovereignty.
It may sound like another larp, but it addresses a real problem.
Today, GPU capacity is concentrated around the U.S. and NVIDIA; exports are restricted, and many countries struggle to build local clusters due to quotas. The idea echoes Bitcoin: a decentralized compute network, but this time for training AI models rather than mining per se.
Tokenomics
80% - miners
20% - founders’ allocation
The token isn’t trading yet, it can only be mined.
Around the same time, Pavel Durov announced Cocoon - another decentralized AI compute project with rewards planned in the TON ecosystem;
plus was released a one hour film on Bittensor.ai - one of the leading decentralized AI players.
Looks like we’re on the verge of a new meta - DePIN for AI.
In a recent interview, the David and Daniil Liberman unveiled their new project Gonka — a decentralized AI protocol.
For context: they’re serial founders from Silicon Valley (sold Kernel AR to Snapchat for $30M; launched a VC fund that “invests in people", not companies; and build Product Science, an AI-driven performance optimizer for apps).
Gonka is an open protocol that unites GPU owners worldwide into a single compute network for AI. GPU holders earn the $GNK token, while AI labs and countries gain access to distributed compute without relying on the chip monopoly. The project is community-driven, non-VC, focused on compute sovereignty.
It may sound like another larp, but it addresses a real problem.
Today, GPU capacity is concentrated around the U.S. and NVIDIA; exports are restricted, and many countries struggle to build local clusters due to quotas. The idea echoes Bitcoin: a decentralized compute network, but this time for training AI models rather than mining per se.
Tokenomics
80% - miners
20% - founders’ allocation
The token isn’t trading yet, it can only be mined.
Around the same time, Pavel Durov announced Cocoon - another decentralized AI compute project with rewards planned in the TON ecosystem;
plus was released a one hour film on Bittensor.ai - one of the leading decentralized AI players.
Looks like we’re on the verge of a new meta - DePIN for AI.
❤1🐳1
Are airdrops still needed?
Over the past year, more projects have been running public sales right before TGE. At first this came with airdrops, now it’s increasingly without them.
Pump.fun was the first big example: everyone forgot about the airdrop, the token mooned on buybacks, and FUD vanished with it.
Now we’re watching Monad vs. MegaETH.
MegaETH hasn’t announced an airdrop and there’s noticeably less FUD than around Monad, which did a drop but not at the size users expected.
Why:
◆ Users are most of the time sybil farmers who overvalue their “work” and are unhappy with results 9 times out of 10.
◆ Teams know this. Airdrops still help with early user acquisition, but sales are more attractive: projects get cash, investors have skin in the game, and there’s a clear price anchor.
◆ Previously, airdrops were the only safe way to decentralize distribution; now the industry isn’t afraid to run sales (citing the Trump era and shifting regulation).
As the result, projects that never promised an airdrop feel fine not doing one. Those that lured users with points programs try to sit on two chairs: a sale brings funds and liquidity, while few percents are left for the airdrop (after exchange promos and Kaito yappers).
If you promised an airdrop, expect crisis PR around TGE and it’s unlikely this trend changes anytime soon.
Over the past year, more projects have been running public sales right before TGE. At first this came with airdrops, now it’s increasingly without them.
Pump.fun was the first big example: everyone forgot about the airdrop, the token mooned on buybacks, and FUD vanished with it.
Now we’re watching Monad vs. MegaETH.
MegaETH hasn’t announced an airdrop and there’s noticeably less FUD than around Monad, which did a drop but not at the size users expected.
Why:
◆ Users are most of the time sybil farmers who overvalue their “work” and are unhappy with results 9 times out of 10.
◆ Teams know this. Airdrops still help with early user acquisition, but sales are more attractive: projects get cash, investors have skin in the game, and there’s a clear price anchor.
◆ Previously, airdrops were the only safe way to decentralize distribution; now the industry isn’t afraid to run sales (citing the Trump era and shifting regulation).
As the result, projects that never promised an airdrop feel fine not doing one. Those that lured users with points programs try to sit on two chairs: a sale brings funds and liquidity, while few percents are left for the airdrop (after exchange promos and Kaito yappers).
If you promised an airdrop, expect crisis PR around TGE and it’s unlikely this trend changes anytime soon.
❤2🐳2
Buybacks are already an industry standard.
In a recent proposal, Uniswap’s CEO shared that the DEX had long wanted to return value to token holders, but they were tied up in legal battles with Gary Gensler’s administration.
Now, with the political climate in the US shifting, a new path has opened, and with it, a new value plan for $UNI.
Uniswap now plans to:
◆ Turn on protocol fees and use them to burn UNI.
◆ Send Unichain sequencer fees to the same UNI burn mechanism.
◆ Burn 100 million UNI from the treasury (about 10% of supply), representing what would have been burned if fees had been on since launch.
◆ Alongside this, they’ll turn off interface fees.
All of this means Uniswap becomes a buyback machine on the level of Pump.fun, burning $38M per month.
For comparison: buybacks on $PUMP are $35M, and $HYPE is $95M.
In a recent proposal, Uniswap’s CEO shared that the DEX had long wanted to return value to token holders, but they were tied up in legal battles with Gary Gensler’s administration.
Now, with the political climate in the US shifting, a new path has opened, and with it, a new value plan for $UNI.
Uniswap now plans to:
◆ Turn on protocol fees and use them to burn UNI.
◆ Send Unichain sequencer fees to the same UNI burn mechanism.
◆ Burn 100 million UNI from the treasury (about 10% of supply), representing what would have been burned if fees had been on since launch.
◆ Alongside this, they’ll turn off interface fees.
All of this means Uniswap becomes a buyback machine on the level of Pump.fun, burning $38M per month.
For comparison: buybacks on $PUMP are $35M, and $HYPE is $95M.
❤1