📉 The Problem with Time-Based Vesting Schedules in Web3 Projects
In the picture above you can see a common price action of young crypto tokens with much selling pressure from vesting parties and too less adoption / demand for the token.
That's because - most Web3 projects use time-based vesting schedules, which is a system where tokens are distributed to team members, investors, or other stakeholders over a set period of time, regardless of market conditions🥲
This means that no matter how well or poorly the project performs, tokens are being released at a fixed rate (already shedualed).
However, the problem with this approach is that it’s too rigid. It doesn’t account for changing market conditions or project performance.
Predicting future demand and buying pressure is nearly impossible, which makes a fixed token release schedule problematic. If demand suddenly drops or increases, the fixed emission schedule can flood the market with tokens at the wrong time, leading to oversupply or missed opportunities.
💡 A Smarter Approach: Performance-Based Vesting
To address this, more adaptable alternatives should be considered, such as:
1️⃣ TVL-Adjusted Vesting: Vesting linked to the Total Value Locked (TVL) in the protocol. The higher the protocol’s TVL, the more tokens are unlocked, aligning incentives with growth and ensuring that token release reflects actual usage and value creation.
Example: Clip Finance
2️⃣ Adoption-Adjusted Vesting (AAV): AAV ties the release of tokens to actual user adoption and traction. Tokens are released when the project hits certain user or usage milestones. This method allows for flexibility in token release based on real-world performance. According to Outlier Ventures, AAV helps maintain long-term alignment between the protocol’s success and token emission, making sure tokens are only released when the protocol is gaining actual traction.
By moving away from rigid time-based vesting schedules and adopting more flexible, performance-based alternatives, projects can better adapt to changing market conditions and ensure that token supply aligns with actual demand.
@CoinstructLabs | Tokenomics
In the picture above you can see a common price action of young crypto tokens with much selling pressure from vesting parties and too less adoption / demand for the token.
That's because - most Web3 projects use time-based vesting schedules, which is a system where tokens are distributed to team members, investors, or other stakeholders over a set period of time, regardless of market conditions🥲
This means that no matter how well or poorly the project performs, tokens are being released at a fixed rate (already shedualed).
However, the problem with this approach is that it’s too rigid. It doesn’t account for changing market conditions or project performance.
Predicting future demand and buying pressure is nearly impossible, which makes a fixed token release schedule problematic. If demand suddenly drops or increases, the fixed emission schedule can flood the market with tokens at the wrong time, leading to oversupply or missed opportunities.
💡 A Smarter Approach: Performance-Based Vesting
To address this, more adaptable alternatives should be considered, such as:
1️⃣ TVL-Adjusted Vesting: Vesting linked to the Total Value Locked (TVL) in the protocol. The higher the protocol’s TVL, the more tokens are unlocked, aligning incentives with growth and ensuring that token release reflects actual usage and value creation.
Example: Clip Finance
2️⃣ Adoption-Adjusted Vesting (AAV): AAV ties the release of tokens to actual user adoption and traction. Tokens are released when the project hits certain user or usage milestones. This method allows for flexibility in token release based on real-world performance. According to Outlier Ventures, AAV helps maintain long-term alignment between the protocol’s success and token emission, making sure tokens are only released when the protocol is gaining actual traction.
By moving away from rigid time-based vesting schedules and adopting more flexible, performance-based alternatives, projects can better adapt to changing market conditions and ensure that token supply aligns with actual demand.
@CoinstructLabs | Tokenomics
👍3❤2🔥2
Bonding Curve for Web3 Community Creation
Bonding curves are mechanisms that enable continuous liquidity for a token, with its price dynamically changing based on the amount of activity within the network. One of the best use cases for bonding curves is community tokens.
However, Web3 community creation comes with challenges, such as:
1️⃣ How to incentivize participation in a community that doesn’t yet exist?
2️⃣ How to prevent free-riders from extracting value without contributing to the community?
Let's explore how bonding curves can solve these issues by examining three types of community members:
🧑💼 Person A buys a large portion of tokens early on, which initially gives them significant ownership of the supply. However, as more members join and new tokens are minted, their share of the total supply decreases. This results in a high initial price for Person A, but over time, as others join, the token becomes cheaper for new members.
🧑💻 Person B buys tokens consistently, increasing their share of the total supply over time. Because they purchase tokens steadily, their costs increase as the total supply grows and the token’s price rises. They are buying more tokens than others, causing each new purchase to be more expensive for them.
🧑💼 Person C buys varying amounts of tokens at different times. Their share of the total supply and the price they pay fluctuates, depending on the overall supply and demand dynamics at the time of each purchase.
Effects of Dynamic Bonding Curves:
💰 If you hold a large portion of the total token supply, buying more tokens becomes expensive. However, if you decide to sell, you'll receive a higher price due to your dominant position in the community.
💸 On the other hand, if you hold a small portion, buying tokens is cheaper. But if you sell, you'll get a lower price because of your smaller influence on the total supply.
Benefits:
1. Incentivizes early participation by rewarding those who contribute from the beginning with greater value.
2. Discourages free-riders, as buying tokens becomes more expensive the more dominant your position is, encouraging participants to continuously add value to maintain their standing.
With bonding curves, community-driven tokens become a self-regulating mechanism that balances entry and exit prices, aligns incentives, and ensures that value is created as more people participate.
@CoinstructLabs | Tokenomics
Bonding curves are mechanisms that enable continuous liquidity for a token, with its price dynamically changing based on the amount of activity within the network. One of the best use cases for bonding curves is community tokens.
However, Web3 community creation comes with challenges, such as:
1️⃣ How to incentivize participation in a community that doesn’t yet exist?
2️⃣ How to prevent free-riders from extracting value without contributing to the community?
Let's explore how bonding curves can solve these issues by examining three types of community members:
🧑💼 Person A buys a large portion of tokens early on, which initially gives them significant ownership of the supply. However, as more members join and new tokens are minted, their share of the total supply decreases. This results in a high initial price for Person A, but over time, as others join, the token becomes cheaper for new members.
🧑💻 Person B buys tokens consistently, increasing their share of the total supply over time. Because they purchase tokens steadily, their costs increase as the total supply grows and the token’s price rises. They are buying more tokens than others, causing each new purchase to be more expensive for them.
🧑💼 Person C buys varying amounts of tokens at different times. Their share of the total supply and the price they pay fluctuates, depending on the overall supply and demand dynamics at the time of each purchase.
Effects of Dynamic Bonding Curves:
💰 If you hold a large portion of the total token supply, buying more tokens becomes expensive. However, if you decide to sell, you'll receive a higher price due to your dominant position in the community.
💸 On the other hand, if you hold a small portion, buying tokens is cheaper. But if you sell, you'll get a lower price because of your smaller influence on the total supply.
Benefits:
1. Incentivizes early participation by rewarding those who contribute from the beginning with greater value.
2. Discourages free-riders, as buying tokens becomes more expensive the more dominant your position is, encouraging participants to continuously add value to maintain their standing.
With bonding curves, community-driven tokens become a self-regulating mechanism that balances entry and exit prices, aligns incentives, and ensures that value is created as more people participate.
@CoinstructLabs | Tokenomics
❤3👍1🔥1
Token Velocity: $100M Product, $0 Token Value?
In the traditional economy, velocity of money refers to how frequently a unit of currency is exchanged in an economy over a specific time frame. Similarly, in tokenomics, token velocity impacts the price of a token by breaking the link between the value generated by a product and the value transferred to the token economy.
Here’s an example: Imagine a ticketing platform called “XYZ.”
🎫 Consumers prefer paying for tickets in dollars. While they may purchase XYZ tokens to buy tickets, they won’t hold onto them for long. There’s no incentive to hold the tokens since they could lose value compared to dollars.
🏟 Venues are in the same situation. Once they receive XYZ tokens from consumers for concert tickets, they will quickly trade those tokens for their preferred currency to avoid price risk.
This creates a high velocity of the token, meaning that the tokens move quickly between users but aren’t held long enough to create demand or value.
The formula for velocity is:
Velocity = Total Transaction Volume / Average Network Value
Which means:
Average Network Value = Total Transaction Volume / Velocity
⚡️ If no one wants to hold the token, velocity will increase linearly with transaction volume. This means even if transaction volume explodes, the network value could remain constant or even decline.
As a result, utility tokens, like XYZ, struggle to capture value, no matter how successful the product is.
Without a mechanism to reduce velocity (e.g., staking or utility incentives), the token's value fails to grow, despite high product usage.
@CoinstructLabs | Tokenomics
In the traditional economy, velocity of money refers to how frequently a unit of currency is exchanged in an economy over a specific time frame. Similarly, in tokenomics, token velocity impacts the price of a token by breaking the link between the value generated by a product and the value transferred to the token economy.
Here’s an example: Imagine a ticketing platform called “XYZ.”
🎫 Consumers prefer paying for tickets in dollars. While they may purchase XYZ tokens to buy tickets, they won’t hold onto them for long. There’s no incentive to hold the tokens since they could lose value compared to dollars.
🏟 Venues are in the same situation. Once they receive XYZ tokens from consumers for concert tickets, they will quickly trade those tokens for their preferred currency to avoid price risk.
This creates a high velocity of the token, meaning that the tokens move quickly between users but aren’t held long enough to create demand or value.
The formula for velocity is:
Velocity = Total Transaction Volume / Average Network Value
Which means:
Average Network Value = Total Transaction Volume / Velocity
⚡️ If no one wants to hold the token, velocity will increase linearly with transaction volume. This means even if transaction volume explodes, the network value could remain constant or even decline.
As a result, utility tokens, like XYZ, struggle to capture value, no matter how successful the product is.
Without a mechanism to reduce velocity (e.g., staking or utility incentives), the token's value fails to grow, despite high product usage.
@CoinstructLabs | Tokenomics
❤1👍1
Coinstruct × BlastUp
We're excited to announce a strategic partnership between Coinstruct and BlastUp.
We have joined forces with BlastUp, the leading community-backed launchpad with native yield. Together, we aim to accelerate growth for top-tier Web3 projects through cutting-edge token models, sustainable economic solutions, and our combined expertise in Web3, marketing, and investments.
We're excited to announce a strategic partnership between Coinstruct and BlastUp.
We have joined forces with BlastUp, the leading community-backed launchpad with native yield. Together, we aim to accelerate growth for top-tier Web3 projects through cutting-edge token models, sustainable economic solutions, and our combined expertise in Web3, marketing, and investments.
🔥7❤3👏2
Staking in 2024
A key metric for PoS blockchains is the staking ratio—the share of tokens actively participating in staking. Solana and Polkadot consistently outperform Ethereum in this area. However, Ethereum’s staking ratio has been steadily rising, reaching around 28% as of September 2024.
Staking is critical to the security of Proof-of-Stake (PoS) blockchains. Ethereum, Solana, and Polkadot are among the largest PoS chains by the value of tokens staked. Ethereum leads this metric, with over $88 billion staked as of September 2024. Solana, however, has seen a surge, with its staked value soaring from $7.5 billion in September 2023 to over $58 billion by September 2024.
@CoinstructLabs | Tokenomics
A key metric for PoS blockchains is the staking ratio—the share of tokens actively participating in staking. Solana and Polkadot consistently outperform Ethereum in this area. However, Ethereum’s staking ratio has been steadily rising, reaching around 28% as of September 2024.
Staking is critical to the security of Proof-of-Stake (PoS) blockchains. Ethereum, Solana, and Polkadot are among the largest PoS chains by the value of tokens staked. Ethereum leads this metric, with over $88 billion staked as of September 2024. Solana, however, has seen a surge, with its staked value soaring from $7.5 billion in September 2023 to over $58 billion by September 2024.
@CoinstructLabs | Tokenomics
It has become increasingly common for projects to launch with low floats and high FDVs.
These tokens usually experience rapid price appreciation due to limited liquidity available for trading at launch. Retail enters, only to get diluted by the constant unlocks.
We would recommend getting launched with a low FDV backed by the revenue flows of the Protocol. We would approach defining the optimal FDV by running a cash flows analysis first and defining the crypto-DCF (Discounted Cash Flow) model of the protocol first, and then reverse-engineer the FDV.
The best way to launch a token and grow a community alongside - is starting with a relatively low FDV now, growing organic volumes, building the product with a clear PMF and organic traction and by having a low FDV at the start - let the community be a part of the journey and generate returns.
@CoinstructLabs | Tokenomics
These tokens usually experience rapid price appreciation due to limited liquidity available for trading at launch. Retail enters, only to get diluted by the constant unlocks.
We would recommend getting launched with a low FDV backed by the revenue flows of the Protocol. We would approach defining the optimal FDV by running a cash flows analysis first and defining the crypto-DCF (Discounted Cash Flow) model of the protocol first, and then reverse-engineer the FDV.
The best way to launch a token and grow a community alongside - is starting with a relatively low FDV now, growing organic volumes, building the product with a clear PMF and organic traction and by having a low FDV at the start - let the community be a part of the journey and generate returns.
@CoinstructLabs | Tokenomics
👍2❤1🔥1
How to approach Staking Rewards distribution?
We would recommend keeping the Staking Incentives vesting for a longer period (24-32 month) in order to ensure the distribution stability, but at the same time decrease the Staking reward rate coming from emissions (that’s crucial) logarithmically every month. The best way is to think of it the same way as overcoming the “Network Effect” with increased rewards rate at the beginning to incentivize new comers, but decreasing inflation (as rewarding stakers of XYZ with XYZ is nothing else then inflation with postponed sell-pressure).
But how will the stakers will be incentivized, if the Staking Rewards emission rate will be decreasing over time? We would introduce Staking Pool Replenishing - when “inflationary” rewards in XYZ to stakers will be decreased, the APY should be substituted and increased (in the future) bu flows coming from Protocol Revenue.
Staking is indeed popular, but its effectiveness depends on the protocol’s revenue. If staking rewards come from protocol revenue, growth in revenue amplifies staking's positive effect. But when revenue plateaus or declines, staking can turn negative, as early stakers begin selling their rewards and new stakers aren’t entering.
@CoinstructLabs | Tokenomics
We would recommend keeping the Staking Incentives vesting for a longer period (24-32 month) in order to ensure the distribution stability, but at the same time decrease the Staking reward rate coming from emissions (that’s crucial) logarithmically every month. The best way is to think of it the same way as overcoming the “Network Effect” with increased rewards rate at the beginning to incentivize new comers, but decreasing inflation (as rewarding stakers of XYZ with XYZ is nothing else then inflation with postponed sell-pressure).
But how will the stakers will be incentivized, if the Staking Rewards emission rate will be decreasing over time? We would introduce Staking Pool Replenishing - when “inflationary” rewards in XYZ to stakers will be decreased, the APY should be substituted and increased (in the future) bu flows coming from Protocol Revenue.
Staking is indeed popular, but its effectiveness depends on the protocol’s revenue. If staking rewards come from protocol revenue, growth in revenue amplifies staking's positive effect. But when revenue plateaus or declines, staking can turn negative, as early stakers begin selling their rewards and new stakers aren’t entering.
@CoinstructLabs | Tokenomics
❤1🔥1🥰1
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Innovational Tokenomics Model & TVL-based emissions
Max from Coinstruct sat down with Arthur Schaback, Founder of Clip Finance, formerly Founder Paxful - to discuss how Tokenomics can be connected to the core product.
What will be in the video:
-The negative impact of pre-determined Tokenomics and how to overcome it
-How Clip Finanace manages liquidity to maximize yields
-TVL-based emissions in Tokenomics
-Challenges of building innovational Tokenomics
and more..
Coming this Friday, October 25th. Stay Tuned!
@CoinstructLabs
Max from Coinstruct sat down with Arthur Schaback, Founder of Clip Finance, formerly Founder Paxful - to discuss how Tokenomics can be connected to the core product.
What will be in the video:
-The negative impact of pre-determined Tokenomics and how to overcome it
-How Clip Finanace manages liquidity to maximize yields
-TVL-based emissions in Tokenomics
-Challenges of building innovational Tokenomics
and more..
Coming this Friday, October 25th. Stay Tuned!
@CoinstructLabs
👍6🔥3❤2
Seeing a lot of bad takes on socials regarding Ethereum vs Solana right now.
It's about time we cut through the noise with a data-driven approach.
Let's compare the economics of the two networks across:
1. Value Accrual
2. Total Economic Value
3. Cost to Produce $1 Fee Revenue
4. Network Fundamentals
5. Performance & Valuation
It's both quantitative and qualitative.
1. Ethereum has done nearly $20b in all-time fees. Solana has done $495m, with 87% coming this year alone.
That said, Solana is catching up. It's done 41% of Ethereum's network fees (not including MEV) over the last 90-days.
If we include MEV, Solana has done 58% of Ethereum over the last 90 days and 77% over the last month.
2. In terms of Total Economic Value (Fees + MEV + Token Incentives), Solana ($1.19) has outpaced Ethereum YTD ($1.01b) over the last 90 days.
With that said, 79% of this is from Token Incentives (paid to stakers, dilutive as inflation to non-stakers).
If we only look at Real Economic Value (Fees + MEV), Ethereum ($2.6b) is still significantly outpacing Solana ($753m) YTD.
3. In terms of compensation to the supply side of each network, Ethereum has paid out $7b all-time to its validators (36%). $400m YTD.
4.Solana has paid out $247m all time. $212 YTD.
5. Cost to Produce $1 of Fees. Ethereum YTD = $1.28. Solana = $7.62.
@CoinstructLabs
It's about time we cut through the noise with a data-driven approach.
Let's compare the economics of the two networks across:
1. Value Accrual
2. Total Economic Value
3. Cost to Produce $1 Fee Revenue
4. Network Fundamentals
5. Performance & Valuation
It's both quantitative and qualitative.
1. Ethereum has done nearly $20b in all-time fees. Solana has done $495m, with 87% coming this year alone.
That said, Solana is catching up. It's done 41% of Ethereum's network fees (not including MEV) over the last 90-days.
If we include MEV, Solana has done 58% of Ethereum over the last 90 days and 77% over the last month.
2. In terms of Total Economic Value (Fees + MEV + Token Incentives), Solana ($1.19) has outpaced Ethereum YTD ($1.01b) over the last 90 days.
With that said, 79% of this is from Token Incentives (paid to stakers, dilutive as inflation to non-stakers).
If we only look at Real Economic Value (Fees + MEV), Ethereum ($2.6b) is still significantly outpacing Solana ($753m) YTD.
3. In terms of compensation to the supply side of each network, Ethereum has paid out $7b all-time to its validators (36%). $400m YTD.
4.Solana has paid out $247m all time. $212 YTD.
5. Cost to Produce $1 of Fees. Ethereum YTD = $1.28. Solana = $7.62.
@CoinstructLabs
👍4🔥2❤1
CEX Insights for October
Spot trading volume on major exchanges rose by 17% MOM. The top three exchanges by growth rate were Coinbase (61%), Gate (36%), and Binance (24%). Derivatives trading volume rose by 25%. The top three exchanges by growth rate were Bybit (61%), Bitget (30%), and Mexc (25%).
Source — link
@CoinstructLabs
Spot trading volume on major exchanges rose by 17% MOM. The top three exchanges by growth rate were Coinbase (61%), Gate (36%), and Binance (24%). Derivatives trading volume rose by 25%. The top three exchanges by growth rate were Bybit (61%), Bitget (30%), and Mexc (25%).
Source — link
@CoinstructLabs
🔥2🥰2❤1
Coinstruct is proud to be Top-1 Tokenomics Provider on the market according to the rating by InnMind.
Read the article here: https://blog.innmind.com/top-web3-tokenomics-service-providers-to-watch-in-2025/
We've worked with more than 35 Web3 Protocols across various crypto verticals. Coinstruct is trusted by $5B chains and has 15+ professionals in the core team.
Join us on the journey to become global crypto corporation in the next 2-3 years⚡️
Read the article here: https://blog.innmind.com/top-web3-tokenomics-service-providers-to-watch-in-2025/
We've worked with more than 35 Web3 Protocols across various crypto verticals. Coinstruct is trusted by $5B chains and has 15+ professionals in the core team.
Join us on the journey to become global crypto corporation in the next 2-3 years⚡️
🔥10👍3👏3
Hyperliquid Success Summary - a real case of token success and Product-Market Fit in Web3
Hyperliquid has amassed $1.58 billion USDC in assets. The airdrop distributed 274 million HYPE tokens, driving the token’s market cap to $4.75 billion and its FDV to $14.2 billion. Hyperliquid's futures open interest has grown 58.5% to $3.55 billion, and its daily trading volume hit a record $9.79 billion. Its Assistance Fund, backed by USDC trading fees, has repurchased 567,083 HYPE tokens and generated $82 million in profit, while the Hyperliquid Provider Vault (HLP) has earned $45 million in PnL gains with a 34% APR. With estimated annual revenue of $94.41 million, Hyperliquid is now one of the most profitable crypto protocols. Data Source.
Hyperliquid has amassed $1.58 billion USDC in assets. The airdrop distributed 274 million HYPE tokens, driving the token’s market cap to $4.75 billion and its FDV to $14.2 billion. Hyperliquid's futures open interest has grown 58.5% to $3.55 billion, and its daily trading volume hit a record $9.79 billion. Its Assistance Fund, backed by USDC trading fees, has repurchased 567,083 HYPE tokens and generated $82 million in profit, while the Hyperliquid Provider Vault (HLP) has earned $45 million in PnL gains with a 34% APR. With estimated annual revenue of $94.41 million, Hyperliquid is now one of the most profitable crypto protocols. Data Source.
🔥3❤2👍2
Our great partners & clients AlphaMind is about to have a second IDO after the record-breaking success with EYWA sale.
🧑💻Details:
Less Than 24 Hours Left to Whitelist for $SPR IDO! ⏳
The SUPER.MEME IDO is your last chance to ride the meme-coin wave on Base chain!
Whitelisting ends TOMORROW as the IDO begins - don’t wait to lock in your allocation.
💫Why You Shouldn’t Miss This:
1. 50% TGE Unlock = Immediate liquidity!
2. Retail & VC Equal Conditions = A FAIR launch!
3. Powered by Base, the fastest-growing L2 ecosystem.
4. The meme sector is exploding—this could be your next big alpha!
Karma Tiers = Guaranteed Allocations!
🔗 Whitelist NOW: https://app.alphamind.co/ido/675725e3960e2d6663f82bd0
🧑💻Details:
Less Than 24 Hours Left to Whitelist for $SPR IDO! ⏳
The SUPER.MEME IDO is your last chance to ride the meme-coin wave on Base chain!
Whitelisting ends TOMORROW as the IDO begins - don’t wait to lock in your allocation.
💫Why You Shouldn’t Miss This:
1. 50% TGE Unlock = Immediate liquidity!
2. Retail & VC Equal Conditions = A FAIR launch!
3. Powered by Base, the fastest-growing L2 ecosystem.
4. The meme sector is exploding—this could be your next big alpha!
Karma Tiers = Guaranteed Allocations!
🔗 Whitelist NOW: https://app.alphamind.co/ido/675725e3960e2d6663f82bd0
🔥3
Are you paying attention to Bitcoin's short-term holder supply?
You should be.
Here's why:
During bull markets, *new money* (short-term holders) enters the market.
They buy tokens from long-term holders.
So, naturally, as the price rises, we tend to see a drop in long-term holder supply and an increase in short-term holder supply.
As this dynamic plays out, we get a view into the stability of the market structure.
After all, short-term holders are not *diamond handed.* So as their allocation rises, risk in the market rises with it.
------
What do we see today?
1. 16.6% of the supply is currently in the hands of short-term holders.
2. In the last cycle, BTC price peaked when short-term holders controlled 25% of the circulating supply.
3. Short-term holders are sitting on 25% gains on average (ST MVRV)
4. They were sitting on 45% gains in March. And the last cycle peaked when they were sitting on 80% gains.
Post is based on on interesting insight from Michael Nadeau (DeFi Report)
@CoinstructLabs
You should be.
Here's why:
During bull markets, *new money* (short-term holders) enters the market.
They buy tokens from long-term holders.
So, naturally, as the price rises, we tend to see a drop in long-term holder supply and an increase in short-term holder supply.
As this dynamic plays out, we get a view into the stability of the market structure.
After all, short-term holders are not *diamond handed.* So as their allocation rises, risk in the market rises with it.
------
What do we see today?
1. 16.6% of the supply is currently in the hands of short-term holders.
2. In the last cycle, BTC price peaked when short-term holders controlled 25% of the circulating supply.
3. Short-term holders are sitting on 25% gains on average (ST MVRV)
4. They were sitting on 45% gains in March. And the last cycle peaked when they were sitting on 80% gains.
Post is based on on interesting insight from Michael Nadeau (DeFi Report)
@CoinstructLabs
❤4👍1🔥1
Coinstruct in 2024:
A Year in Rewind🪄🌲
-$800M cumulative TVL across projects served.
-35 tokenomics systems expertly crafted for Web3 ventures.
-6 world-class specialists added to our growing team.
-5+ new tokenomics-focused products developed.
-50+ partners joined the expanding Coinstruct Network.
-Expanded operations to Singapore, Hong Kong, and 5+ countries.
-6,000 followers gained across social platforms, amplifying our global reach.
-Achieved #1 Tokenomics Firm status in international rankings.
In 2025 we're excited to continue building-up our methodology and products, integrating AI-agents into our simulations, develop token dashboards for our clients, conduct insightful researches on the innovative token distribution models and demand-generation mechanics.
Thank you for being with Coinstruct! And wish you all a Happy New Year!🤍❄️
A Year in Rewind🪄🌲
-$800M cumulative TVL across projects served.
-35 tokenomics systems expertly crafted for Web3 ventures.
-6 world-class specialists added to our growing team.
-5+ new tokenomics-focused products developed.
-50+ partners joined the expanding Coinstruct Network.
-Expanded operations to Singapore, Hong Kong, and 5+ countries.
-6,000 followers gained across social platforms, amplifying our global reach.
-Achieved #1 Tokenomics Firm status in international rankings.
In 2025 we're excited to continue building-up our methodology and products, integrating AI-agents into our simulations, develop token dashboards for our clients, conduct insightful researches on the innovative token distribution models and demand-generation mechanics.
Thank you for being with Coinstruct! And wish you all a Happy New Year!🤍❄️
❤3👏3🥰2
Many ppl ask us to explain ZK, soo this a simplest way to describe how the ZK rollup process works:
1. Users send many transactions to the Layer 2 operator.
2. The Layer 2 operator batches these transactions and generates a ZK proof.
3. The ZK proof is submitted to the main blockchain, which verifies the proof and updates its state accordingly.
@CoinstructLabs
1. Users send many transactions to the Layer 2 operator.
2. The Layer 2 operator batches these transactions and generates a ZK proof.
3. The ZK proof is submitted to the main blockchain, which verifies the proof and updates its state accordingly.
@CoinstructLabs
🔥3❤2👍1
Talking to a lot of AI infra projects & DeAI and agents, the space is moving extremely fast, here are some thoughts regarding Tokenomics for AI-based projects:
1. Connect network productivity to the main token. Platform fees should be charged for usage of the models alike data credits and a portion of this revenue should be directed to main platform token buyback&burns or buyback&LP, depending on the operational stage of the project.
2. Launch Token when you already have some traction & models being used or you have both supply & demand, if you are building in the DePin space aka marketplace equilibrium. So at the moment of TGE you have already accumulated some revenue that can be used to cope with listing sell-pressure.
3. Fixed Token supply models are actually not the worst for Web3 & AI, if you don't want to overcomplicate system design go for deflationary tokenomics.
@CoinstructLabs
1. Connect network productivity to the main token. Platform fees should be charged for usage of the models alike data credits and a portion of this revenue should be directed to main platform token buyback&burns or buyback&LP, depending on the operational stage of the project.
2. Launch Token when you already have some traction & models being used or you have both supply & demand, if you are building in the DePin space aka marketplace equilibrium. So at the moment of TGE you have already accumulated some revenue that can be used to cope with listing sell-pressure.
3. Fixed Token supply models are actually not the worst for Web3 & AI, if you don't want to overcomplicate system design go for deflationary tokenomics.
@CoinstructLabs
🔥2🥰2👍1
Instead of fully performance-based emission approach, we would see a lot of tokens succed with mixed Supply model.
1. Fixed Supply - the most usable and straightforward emission model. X tokens, Y month vestings for Z pools.
However, the emissions are not tight to the protocol adoption & revenue generation. The Supply is predefined and time-based.
2. Performance-based emissions are different. The Supply can also be fixed, however, the emission rate is based on the Network adoption triggers: TVL, Volumes, MAU, ARR or others.
It can be chaos - as it's impossible to predict the product success.
So we believe in traditional fixed time-based approach for VCs/Liquidity + all necessary for TGE allocations, however, Network Incentives are best emitted using Performance-based distribution.
@CoinstructLabs
1. Fixed Supply - the most usable and straightforward emission model. X tokens, Y month vestings for Z pools.
However, the emissions are not tight to the protocol adoption & revenue generation. The Supply is predefined and time-based.
2. Performance-based emissions are different. The Supply can also be fixed, however, the emission rate is based on the Network adoption triggers: TVL, Volumes, MAU, ARR or others.
It can be chaos - as it's impossible to predict the product success.
So we believe in traditional fixed time-based approach for VCs/Liquidity + all necessary for TGE allocations, however, Network Incentives are best emitted using Performance-based distribution.
@CoinstructLabs
❤3🔥2👏1
Just found how Ralph Merkle compared Bitcoin to life:
"Bitcoin is the first example of a new form of life. It lives and breathes on the internet. It lives because it can pay people to keep it alive. It lives because it performs a useful service that people will pay it to perform… It can’t be stopped. It can’t even be interrupted. If nuclear war destroyed half of our planet, it would continue to live, uncorrupted".
"Bitcoin is the first example of a new form of life. It lives and breathes on the internet. It lives because it can pay people to keep it alive. It lives because it performs a useful service that people will pay it to perform… It can’t be stopped. It can’t even be interrupted. If nuclear war destroyed half of our planet, it would continue to live, uncorrupted".
🔥2❤1👍1