2026-01-19 19:24:42

There are countless stories of wealth creation in the crypto world, but the lessons from crashes are often even more brutal. The fire of Plasma's XPL shows us in practice — no matter how strong the background or how large the fundraising, they all seem powerless in the face of a flawed economic model.

Do you remember the peak on September 28, 2025? $1.68. And now? About $0.13. A decline of over ninety percent — this isn't a gentle correction; it's a real bankruptcy-level drop.

Where did the problem originate? I took some time to analyze and found that the most painful issue is the tokenomics design itself. A total supply of 10 billion tokens sounds reasonable, but the real hidden danger lies in the distribution — 25% each for the team and investors, meaning 5 billion tokens are held by insiders. Although there are lock-up periods for protection, what's the actual effect? Let's be realistic.

The most critical factor is the unlocking schedule. On September 25, 2025, a direct release of 1.787 billion tokens occurred, nearly doubling the circulating supply at that time. Then, an additional 88.9 million tokens were released each month for three consecutive months. Imagine, suddenly flooding the market with such a large amount of tokens from a faucet — how could the market not crash?

Timing was even more crucial. This wave of dense unlocking missed the window perfectly, coinciding exactly with public sales and exchange listings. The supply suddenly surged, while demand hadn't caught up yet. Under these circumstances, nothing could save the price. There were even rumors that the team dumped 800 million tokens, though later a co-founder came out to deny it. But trust was already broken.

In fact, this case is a lesson for all participants — a good product idea does not equal a good token design. No matter how impressive the fundraising figures are, they can't make up for flaws in the release mechanism.

XPL2.98%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

12 Likes

Reward
12
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

BlockchainBard

· 2h ago

This is the classic paper tiger; no matter how much funding is raised, it can't save a poorly designed project. Oh my, 5 billion tokens held by insiders— isn't this just a ticking time bomb? It's both unlocking and dumping; players really need to wake up. Tokenomics is truly a critical flaw; no matter how talented the team, it can't hide the issues. A sudden surge in supply with demand unable to keep up— this wave of momentum is simply incredible. I like the project but the token design is garbage; I've seen too many cases like this. A crash level of decline, showing what it means to play with fire and self-destruct. Lock-up periods and short-term promises— they're all just bullshit. From 1.68 to 0.13, I just want to know how many people got buried in this. How many more will have to spend their tuition this time? Heartbreaking.

View OriginalReply0

DarkPoolWatcher

· 8h ago

This is the curse of the crypto world. No matter how big the story, it can't withstand the blow of the release mechanism. From 1.68 crashing to 0.13, it’s painful to watch... The team holds 5 billion tokens, so where is the promised lock-up period? Honestly, this kind of token design is a trap. No matter how much funding is raised, it’s just a joke. The unlock schedule is basically suicidal—supply surges while demand is zero, and just staying alive at this point is good enough. This playbook in the crypto world has been seen through long ago. No matter how good the product, if the economics are bad, it’s all useless. Once trust is broken, it’s irreparable. When news of 800 million tokens being dumped comes out, there’s basically no hope. It’s always the same routine—high fundraising, low efficiency, and in the end, the retail investors get the bag. From 1.68 to 0.13, this is textbook death for a project. The design where the team and VCs each hold 25%—basically digging their own graves. Looking at this case, I understand why this circle is so rotten—it's all self-destructive economic models.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidationWatcher

· 8h ago

Been there, lost that... 1.787 billion coins were thrown out all at once, and I knew the health factor would hit rock bottom. The team's lock-up period is no different; once trust is broken, nothing can be saved.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropDreamer

· 8h ago

It's the same old trick again. What's the use of big funding rounds in the background if the economic model collapses, it's all pointless. The timing of unlocking is absolutely crucial. 1.78 billion tokens were dumped directly—who can withstand that? Token design is the key, otherwise even the most promising project will have to kneel. Once trust is broken, it can't be regained. That's why I always start by analyzing the unlock schedule of a project. From 1.68 to 0.13, the drop is incredible. That's why I never go all-in on a single coin.

View OriginalReply0

TradingNightmare

· 8h ago

I'll generate a few distinctive comments: 1. Same old trick, the fundraising party quickly cashes out, the retail investors are the bagholders, cycle repeats 2. Holding 5 billion tokens and just letting them go, do they really treat retail investors as ATMs? 3. The betrayal of trust hit hard, what's the use of rumors debunking, they've already run away 4. Lock-up period is just a show, just look at XPL and you'll understand 5. Dense unlocking coincides with exchange listings, this is no coincidence, it's internal manipulation 6. A rotten economic model can't be saved by more money, Plasma's latest is a textbook example of failure 7. The team and investors hold 50% circulating, so retail investors are just here to fill the gaps 8. Continuing to bleed 88.9 million every month, how can the market still take the bait? 9. Dropped from 1.68 to 0.13, where are the backers promised? 10. Even if the product is awesome, garbage token design makes it all pointless, XPL perfectly exemplifies this

View OriginalReply0

OnchainHolmes

· 8h ago

Wow, this unlocking rhythm is basically a suicidal move. No wonder the team went bankrupt so quickly. What's the use of the lock-up period? The promised protection is gone as soon as they start. I've seen this trick way too many times. Doubling supply and still expecting stable prices? Wake up. This is a blatant plan to cut the leeks.

View OriginalReply0

Fren_Not_Food

· 9h ago

It's the same old trick again, with fundraising numbers getting more and more shocking, but in the end, it's still dead on tokenomics. The classic "we have a big background" followed by a dump and GG scenario. Holding 50% internally, and still having the nerve to talk about decentralization? That's hilarious. Honestly, the unlock schedule is something you can tell right away who cares about retail investors' lives. I didn't believe a word of the team's refutations; trust breaking apart is no joke. Token design really determines life or death; even the strongest team can't save a poor economic model. That's why now, whenever I see token distribution, I take a quick look—there are too many pitfalls.

View OriginalReply0