What is a Token Economy? An Introduction to Token Economy (Tokenomics)

Kajetan Olas

01 Mar 2024
What is a Token Economy? An Introduction to Token Economy (Tokenomics)

Token Economy is often defined as the study of determining and evaluating the economic characteristics of a cryptographic token.

Today most blockchain projects fund their operations through the sale of tokens. For that reason, founders need to have a good understanding of the tokenomics design process. Surprisingly, studies show that in most cases tokenomics design is unsound and based on intuition. In this article, we approach the topic from a perspective that’s backed by empirical data and shown to work.

Key Tokenomics Considerations

Optimal Tokenomics depends on the specifics of the project. Part of them is deciding what behaviors you want to incentivize (disincentivize) in a way that aligns with the projects’ interests. That’s a tricky task since you need to identify every relevant user behavior and corresponding incentive. You also need to pick quantitative parameters that will ensure the right balance. In the case of DeFi protocols, systemic risk is especially high. Arbitrary parameters and assumptions often lead to death spirals and vulnerability to attacks. For that reason, all tokenomics systems should be stress-tested and validated before release.

Key Principles

There are many good practices that founders should follow when designing tokenomics for their project. We’ll briefly cover the most important ones.

Utility is The Key

This one seems obvious, but let me explain... What matters in the context of tokenomics is the utility of your token - that’s not the same as the utility of your product. Demand for blockchain products doesn’t automatically translate to demand for their native tokens! While users’ adoption of your product is important, it’s not enough. You need to tie the value of your token to the success of the product. This can be done through different Value Capture mechanisms e.g. redistributing profits among holders.

(PS. Governance Rights and Staking are most definitely not enough!)

Look at comparable projects

When designing tokenomics it's good to look for projects similar to the one you’re creating. The more similar, the better. Read their whitepapers, study their tokenomics, and look at key metrics. Then ask yourself - what are the things they did well, and what are their mistakes? You’re guaranteed to find some inspiration. A key metric you can use when deciding upon the initial valuation of your project is Total Value Locked/market capitalization

Minimize Volatility

As a founder the key metric that will determine whether people call you a genius or a fraud is the price of your token. For that reason, many teams optimize tokenomics for high token price above everything else. This is often done by offering unsustainable APY in exchange for stacking tokens. Other common choices include burning, or buyback programs funded by anything other than revenue. While these mechanisms may be able to drive the hype and price up, they don’t increase the value of the protocol itself. The result is high volatility and a lack of resilience to malicious attacks and adverse market conditions. Ironically, optimizing for high prices usually results in the opposite effect. What you should do instead is focus on minimizing volatility, as it fosters sustainable growth.

Overview of Supply-Side

Supply-side tokenomics relates to all the mechanisms that affect the number of tokens in circulation and its allocation structure.

While supply is important for tokenomics design it’s not as significant as people think. Mechanisms like staking or burning should be designed to support the use of products and aren’t utilities on their own.

Capped or Uncapped Supply

Founders put a lot of attention into choosing between a capped or uncapped supply of the token. It’s a common belief that capping supply at some maximum level increases the value of currently circulating tokens. Research shows that it doesn’t really matter, but tokens without capped supply, statistically perform slightly better.

Inflation Rate

Projects should aim for low, stable inflation. Unless the annualized inflation rate is above 100%, there’s very little correlation between the rate of supply changes and the price of token. For that reason, it’s recommended to adjust token emissions in a way that fosters activity on the network. A reasonable inflation rate that won't affect the price is between 1-5% monthly.

https://tokenomics-guide.notion.site/2-5-Supply-Policy-ff3f8ab217b143278c3e8fd0c03ac137#1c29b133f3ff48a9b8efd2d25e908f5c

Allocation:

The industry standards are more or less like the following.

https://lstephanian.mirror.xyz/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fimages.mirror-media.xyz%2Fpublication-images%2FDnzLtQ1Nc9IIObEpyJTTG.png&w=3840&q=75
https://www.liquifi.finance/post/token-vesting-and-allocation-benchmarks

Overview of Demand-Side

Demand-side concerns people’s subjective willingness to buy the tokens. Reasons can be different. It may be due to the utility of your tokens, speculation, or economic incentives provided by your protocol. Sometimes people act irrationally, so token demand has to be considered in the context of behavioral economics.

Role of incentives

The primary incentive that drives the demand for your token should be its utility. Utility is its real-world application or a way in which it captures value generated by the use of your product. Staking, liquidity providing, deflationary policy, and other supply-control mechanisms may support tokens’ value accrual. A common way to do that is through revenue-funded buybacks. Projects may use collected fees to buy their tokens on DEXs. Then burn them, or put them into a treasury fund.

How to design incentives?

  • Make them tangible. If you want to promote desired behaviors within the ecosystem you need to provide real rewards. People don’t care about governance rights, because these rights don’t translate to any monetary value. On the other hand, they care about staking rewards, which can be sold for profits.
  • Make them easy to understand. If you want to incentivize or disincentivize user behavior, then you should make it clear how the mechanism works. Users often have no time to dive into your whitepaper. If they don’t understand how your product works then they won’t use it.
  • Test, test, test. If you don’t test how different incentives balance the tokenomy of your product, then you’re setting yourself up for a terra-luna style collapse.

Conclusion

Proper design of projects’ tokenomics is not easy. Even though it may seem like choosing different parameters and incentives intuitively will work, it’s a reason why the value of projects’ tokens often goes to 0. There are however sound and tested design practices. Stick with us, and get to know them!

If you're looking to design a sustainable tokenomics model for your DeFi project, please reach out to contact@nextrope.com. Our team is ready to help you create a tokenomics structure that aligns with your project's long-term growth and market resilience.

FAQ

What is a token economy?

  • A token economy refers to the study and analysis of a cryptographic token's economic characteristics, crucial for blockchain projects' funding and success.

What are the key principles of designing a token economy?

  • Essential principles include ensuring the utility of tokens, analyzing comparable projects, and aiming to minimize volatility to foster sustainable growth.

How does supply and demand affect token economy?

  • The supply side involves mechanisms like capping token supply or adjusting inflation rates, while the demand side focuses on creating genuine utility and incentives for token holders.

What are the common pitfalls in designing a token economy?

  • The most common problems occur when token’s main function is the transfer of value, rather than supporting the creation of value. (e.g. you can stake useless token to get more of that useless token)

How can token economies be tested and validated before launch?

  • Tokenomics can be tested by constructing a mathematical model and running a large number of randomized simulations.

Most viewed


Never miss a story

Stay updated about Nextrope news as it happens.

You are subscribed

Aethir Tokenomics – Case Study

Kajetan Olas

22 Nov 2024
Aethir Tokenomics – Case Study

Authors of the contents are not affiliated to the reviewed project in any way and none of the information presented should be taken as financial advice.

In this article we analyze tokenomics of Aethir - a project providing on-demand cloud compute resources for the AI, Gaming, and virtualized compute sectors.
Aethir aims to aggregate enterprise-grade GPUs from multiple providers into a DePIN (Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Network). Its competitive edge comes from utlizing the GPUs for very specific use-cases, such as low-latency rendering for online games.
Due to decentralized nature of its infrastructure Aethir can meet the demands of online-gaming in any region. This is especially important for some gamer-abundant regions in Asia with underdeveloped cloud infrastructure that causes high latency ("lags").
We will analyze Aethir's tokenomics, give our opinion on what was done well, and provide specific recommendations on how to improve it.

Evaluation Summary

Aethir Tokenomics Structure

The total supply of ATH tokens is capped at 42 billion ATH. This fixed cap provides a predictable supply environment, and the complete emissions schedule is listed here. As of November 2024 there are approximately 5.2 Billion ATH in circulation. In a year from now (November 2025), the circulating supply will almost triple, and will amount to approximately 15 Billion ATH. By November 2028, today's circulating supply will be diluted by around 86%.

From an investor standpoint the rational decision would be to stake their tokens and hope for rewards that will balance the inflation. Currently the estimated APR for 3-year staking is 195% and for 4-year staking APR is 261%. The rewards are paid out weekly. Furthermore, stakers can expect to get additional rewards from partnered AI projects.

Staking Incentives

Rewards are calculated based on the staking duration and staked amount. These factors are equally important and they linearly influence weekly rewards. This means that someone who stakes 100 ATH for 2 weeks will have the same weekly rewards as someone who stakes 200 ATH for 1 week. This mechanism greatly emphasizes long-term holding. That's because holding a token makes sense only if you go for long-term staking. E.g. a whale staking $200k with 1 week lockup. will have the same weekly rewards as person staking $1k with 4 year lockup. Furthermore the ATH staking rewards are fixed and divided among stakers. Therefore Increase of user base is likely to come with decrease in rewards.
We believe the main weak-point of Aethirs staking is the lack of equivalency between rewards paid out to the users and value generated for the protocol as a result of staking.

Token Distribution

The token distribution of $ATH is well designed and comes with long vesting time-frames. 18-month cliff and 36-moths subsequent linear vesting is applied to team's allocation. This is higher than industry standard and is a sign of long-term commitment.

  • Checkers and Compute Providers: 50%
  • Ecosystem: 15%
  • Team: 12.5%
  • Investors: 11.5%
  • Airdrop: 6%
  • Advisors: 5%

Aethir's airdrop is divided into 3 phases to ensure that only loyal users get rewarded. This mechanism is very-well thought and we rate it highly. It fosters high community engagement within the first months of the project and sets the ground for potentially giving more-control to the DAO.

Governance and Community-Led Development

Aethir’s governance model promotes community-led decision-making in a very practical way. Instead of rushing with creation of a DAO for PR and marketing purposes Aethir is trying to make it the right way. They support projects building on their infrastructure and regularly share updates with their community in the most professional manner.

We believe Aethir would benefit from implementing reputation boosted voting. An example of such system is described here. The core assumption is to abandon the simplistic: 1 token = 1 vote and go towards: Votes = tokens * reputation_based_multiplication_factor.

In the attached example, reputation_based_multiplication_factor rises exponentially with the number of standard deviations above norm, with regard to user's rating. For compute compute providers at Aethir, user's rating could be replaced by provider's uptime.

Perspectives for the future

While it's important to analyze aspects such as supply-side tokenomics, or governance, we must keep in mind that 95% of project's success depends on demand-side. In this regard the outlook for Aethir may be very bright. The project declares $36M annual reccuring revenue. Revenue like this is very rare in the web3 space. Many projects are not able to generate any revenue after succesfull ICO event, due to lack fo product-market-fit.

If you're looking to create a robust tokenomics model and go through institutional-grade testing please reach out to contact@nextrope.com. Our team is ready to help you with the token engineering process and ensure your project’s resilience in the long term.

Quadratic Voting in Web3

Kajetan Olas

04 Dec 2024
Quadratic Voting in Web3

Decentralized systems are reshaping how we interact, conduct transactions, and govern online communities. As Web3 continues to advance, the necessity for effective and fair voting mechanisms becomes apparent. Traditional voting systems, such as the one-token-one-vote model, often fall short in capturing the intensity of individual preferences, which can result in centralization. Quadratic Voting (QV) addresses this challenge by enabling individuals to express not only their choices but also the strength of their preferences.

In QV, voters are allocated a budget of credits that they can spend to cast votes on various issues. The cost of casting multiple votes on a single issue increases quadratically, meaning that each additional vote costs more than the last. This system allows for a more precise expression of preferences, as individuals can invest more heavily in issues they care deeply about while conserving credits on matters of lesser importance.

Understanding Quadratic Voting

Quadratic Voting (QV) is a voting system designed to capture not only the choices of individuals but also the strength of their preferences. In most DAO voting mechanisms, each person typically has one vote per token, which limits the ability to express how strongly they feel about a particular matter. Furthermore, QV limits the power of whales and founding team who typically have large token allocations. These problems are adressed by making the cost of each additional vote increase quadratically.

In QV, each voter is given a budget of credits or tokens that they can spend to cast votes on various issues. The key principle is that the cost to cast n votes on a single issue is proportional to the square of n. This quadratic cost function ensures that while voters can express stronger preferences, doing so requires a disproportionately higher expenditure of their voting credits. This mechanism discourages voters from concentrating all their influence on a single issue unless they feel very strongly about it. In the context of DAOs, it means that large holders will have a hard-time pushing through with a proposal if they'll try to do it on their own.

Practical Example

Consider a voter who has been allocated 25 voting credits to spend on several proposals. The voter has varying degrees of interest in three proposals: Proposal A, Proposal B, and Proposal C.

  • Proposal A: High interest.
  • Proposal B: Moderate interest.
  • Proposal C: Low interest.

The voter might allocate their credits as follows:

Proposal A:

  • Votes cast: 3
  • Cost: 9 delegated tokens

Proposal B:

  • Votes cast: 2
  • Cost: 4 delegated tokens

Proposal C:

  • Votes cast: 1
  • Cost: 1 delegated token

Total delegated tokens: 14
Remaining tokens: 11

With the remaining tokens, the voter can choose to allocate additional votes to the proposals based on their preferences or save for future proposals. If they feel particularly strong about Proposal A, they might decide to cast one more vote:

Additional vote on Proposal A:

  • New total votes: 4
  • New cost: 16 delegated tokens
  • Additional cost: 16−9 = 7 delegated tokens

Updated total delegated tokens: 14+7 = 21

Updated remaining tokens: 25−21 = 425 - 21 = 4

This additional vote on Proposal A costs 7 credits, significantly more than the previous vote, illustrating how the quadratic cost discourages excessive influence on a single issue without strong conviction.

Benefits of Implementing Quadratic Voting

Key Characteristics of the Quadratic Cost Function

  • Marginal Cost Increases Linearly: The marginal cost of each additional vote increases linearly. The cost difference between casting n and n−1 votes is 2n−1.
  • Total Cost Increases Quadratically: The total cost to cast multiple votes rises steeply, discouraging voters from concentrating too many votes on a single issue without significant reason.
  • Promotes Egalitarian Voting: Small voters are encouraged to participate, because relatively they have a much higher impact.

Advantages Over Traditional Voting Systems

Quadratic Voting offers several benefits compared to traditional one-person-one-vote systems:

  • Captures Preference Intensity: By allowing voters to express how strongly they feel about an issue, QV leads to outcomes that better reflect the collective welfare.
  • Reduces Majority Domination: The quadratic cost makes it costly for majority groups to overpower minority interests on every issue.
  • Encourages Honest Voting: Voters are incentivized to allocate votes in proportion to their true preferences, reducing manipulation.

By understanding the foundation of Quadratic Voting, stakeholders in Web3 communities can appreciate how this system supports more representative governance.

Conclusion

Quadratic voting is a novel voting system that may be used within DAOs to foster decentralization. The key idea is to make the cost of voting on a certain issue increase quadratically. The leading player that makes use of this mechanism is Optimism. If you're pondering about the design of your DAO, we highly recommend taking a look at their research on quadratic funding.

If you're looking to create a robust governance model and go through institutional-grade testing please reach out to contact@nextrope.com. Our team is ready to help you with the token engineering process and ensure that your DAO will stand out as a beacon of innovation and resilience in the long term.