The token unlock system at launch really needs a redesign. It's problematic when developers can claim their full allocation right from day one—essentially walking away with unlocked tokens the moment a project goes live. We've seen this play out twice already within seven days. This kind of structure creates obvious incentive misalignment and raises red flags about project credibility. If devs are dumping immediately, it signals they're not actually invested in long-term success. Projects should rethink their vesting schedules and lock-in periods to align founder interests with community interests.

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.
  • Reward
  • 4
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
CryptoTherapistvip
· 8h ago
ngl this hits different when you see the psychological resistance levels breaking down in real time. devs dumping instantly? that's not just poor tokenomics, that's basically admitting "i don't trust my own project" on a neurological level. pretty wild self-sabotage if you ask me.
Reply0
AirdropJunkievip
· 8h ago
Projects that don't lock funds just run away, how can I trust you?
View OriginalReply0
ForkYouPayMevip
· 8h ago
ngl that's why I immediately pass on projects without lock-up periods now, it's really too obvious.
View OriginalReply0
NFTArchaeologisvip
· 8h ago
From an on-chain archaeology perspective, this design logic of zero lock-up periods actually contradicts the original intention of early digital assets — the lack of a proof of the creator's commitment.
View OriginalReply0
  • Pin

Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)