There’s an 86% chance your token dumps 80%+


If you're planning to launch, here's your survival kit:

- Start with a sane market cap

- Keep the valuation under $10M

- Focus on users over followers

- Monetize early, it pays for MMs and marketing

Initial market cap is the reason tokens pump.

Fully diluted valuation is the reason tokens dump.

Founders making growth projections 😂😂😂

Token week is officially on. Team’s here and ready

Dubai frens, missing tomorrow’s event = automatic red flag

We see everything

In just 7 days, Tether saw a 20% jump in transactions, but Uniswap allegedly processed ~5x more

• 3.7M transactions vs. ~1.65M for Circle + Tether combined
Even if inflated, it can show that DeFi protocols are where user activity concentrates

Most crypto launchpads might look great on paper, but how are they actually doing?

All of them may be able to brag about ATH ROI, but current ROI tells a different story. Hype against reality.

Only 3 out of the 10 top launchpads are in the green over the past year

Important reminder

https://calendly.com/enquiries-simplicity/tokenomics

How much revenue should go to buybacks vs. the business itself?


For one of our clients, we break it down like this:

- Revenue from non-transaction sources stays with the company

- Up to 50% of transaction fee revenue goes to buybacks, if there’s enough income from other sources


If there’s not?

We cover the shortfall using TX fees first. Then, 50% of the remaining TX fee capital is used for buybacks.

The buyback share is calculated based on the original TX fee revenue using internal formulas.

“Stablecoins flipped Visa”. Not really


Yes, 2024 volume was higher, but much of it includes whales, MMs, and exchange flows. Not consumer payments

Infra is catching up fast, but UX and real-world use are still lacking. Still bullish, but capacity ≠ adoption

Hope you’re building sustainable tokenomics and no rugs

But wait, you haven’t called us yet


https://calendly.com/enquiries-simplicity/tokenomics

One of our clients raised $10M in equity.


The VC got:

- 33% of the company

- A token warrant for 33% of the insider allocation (the tranche reserved for VCs, team, advisors, not total supply)


The warrant gave them the option to buy those tokens for $1

not market value, just a nominal price for tax purposes. So basically free.


We modelled other options, as a bonus, too:


→ Let the VC buy those same tokens at a discount
30%, 50%, 80%, up to the project.

At 50%, the project raises an extra $5.85M → total token raise: $32.75M


→ Let them buy at full token price, but drop the token valuation to $50M instead of $90M

This bumps the token raise to $33.4M


Things we said no to:

- Giving 33% of the entire token supply because the VC got 33% equity.

- Letting the VC push token valuation down to $30M.
That kind of mismatch with listing FDV (expected $100M–$120M) breaks credibility and investor trust.


This is what professional equity + token warrant structuring looks like

Last week, our Co-Founder Alex Fatuliaj broke down how to align your token supply and emissions with user growth.

This is exactly what founders need to keep in mind when designing emissions, valuations, and broader token models.

(drop an extra reaction if that Paint presentation made things click)

BABY hasn't fully collapsed, yet. The token is down 37% from launch


The problem? Tokenomics


• 49% insider allocation (30.5% investors, 18.5% team)

• 8% inflation and unlocks = sustained sell pressure

• 18% for project development (there's governance, but for network upgrades)

Three teams tried to build their tokenomics in-house. They ended up burning $135K and months of work.

We broke down what went wrong and what we had to fix:

https://x.com/SimplicityWeb3/status/1919669145433427994