Different Token Release Schedules

Kajetan Olas

15 Mar 2024
Different Token Release Schedules

As simple as it may sound, the decision on the release schedule of tokens is anything but that. It's a strategic choice that can have significant consequences. A well-thought-out token release schedule can prevent market flooding, encourage steady growth, and foster trust in the project. Conversely, a poorly designed schedule may lead to rapid devaluation or loss of investor confidence.

In this article, we will explore the various token release schedules that blockchain projects may adopt. Each type comes with its own set of characteristics, challenges, and strategic benefits. From the straightforwardness of linear schedules to the incentive-driven dynamic releases, understanding these mechanisms is crucial for all crypto founders.

Linear Token Release Schedule

The linear token release schedule is perhaps the most straightforward approach to token distribution. As the name suggests, tokens are released at a constant rate over a specified period until all tokens are fully vested. This approach is favored for its simplicity and ease of understanding, which can be an attractive feature for investors and project teams alike.

Characteristics

  • Predictability: The linear model provides a clear and predictable schedule that stakeholders can rely on. This transparency is often appreciated as it removes any uncertainty regarding when tokens will be available.
  • Implementation Simplicity: With no complex rules or conditions, a linear release schedule is relatively easy to implement and manage. It avoids the need for intricate smart contract programming or ongoing adjustments.
  • Neutral Incentives: There is no explicit incentive for early investment or late participation. Each stakeholder is treated equally, regardless of when they enter the project. This can be perceived as a fair distribution method, as it does not disproportionately reward any particular group.

Implications

  • Capital Dilution Risk: Since tokens are released continuously at the same rate, there's a potential risk that the influx of new tokens into the market could dilute the value, particularly if demand doesn't keep pace with the supply.
  • Attracting Continuous Capital Inflow: A linear schedule may face challenges in attracting new investors over time. Without the incentive of increasing rewards or scarcity over time, sustaining investor interest solely based on project performance can be a test of the project's inherent value and market demand.
  • Neutral Impact on Project Commitment: The lack of timing-based incentives means that commitment to the project may not be influenced by the release schedule. The focus is instead placed on the project's progress and delivery on its roadmap.

In summary, a linear token release schedule offers a no-frills, equal-footing approach to token distribution. While its simplicity is a strength, it can also be a limitation, lacking the strategic incentives that other models offer. In the next sections, we will compare this to other, more dynamic schedules that aim to provide additional strategic advantages.

Growing Token Release Schedule

A growing token release schedule turns the dial up on token distribution as time progresses. This schedule is designed to increase the number of tokens released to the market or to stakeholders with each passing period. This approach can often be associated with incentivizing the sustained growth of the project by rewarding long-term holders.

Characteristics

  • Incentivized Patience: A growing token release schedule encourages stakeholders to remain invested in the project for longer periods, as the reward increases over time. This can be particularly appealing to long-term investors who are looking to maximize their gains.
  • Community Reaction: Such a schedule may draw criticism from those who prefer immediate, high rewards and may be viewed as unfairly penalizing early adopters who receive fewer tokens compared to those who join later. The challenge is to balance the narrative to maintain community support.
  • Delayed Advantage: There is a delayed gratification aspect to this schedule. Early investors might not see an immediate substantial benefit, but they are part of a strategy that aims to increase value over time, aligning with the project’s growth.

Implications

  • Sustained Capital Inflow: By offering higher rewards later, a project can potentially sustain and even increase its capital inflow as the project matures. This can be especially useful in supporting long-term development and operational goals.
  • Potential for Late-Stage Interest: As the reward for holding tokens grows over time, it may attract new investors down the line, drawn by the prospect of higher yields. This can help to maintain a steady interest in the project throughout its lifecycle.
  • Balancing Perception and Reality: Managing the community's expectations is vital. The notion that early participants are at a disadvantage must be addressed through clear communication about the long-term vision and benefits.

In contrast to a linear schedule, a growing token release schedule adds a strategic twist that favors the longevity of stakeholder engagement. It's a model that can create a solid foundation for future growth but requires careful communication and management to keep stakeholders satisfied. Up next, we will look at the shrinking token release schedule, which applies an opposite approach to distribution.

Shrinking Token Release Schedule

The shrinking token release schedule is characterized by a decrease in the number of tokens released as time goes on. This type of schedule is intended to create a sense of urgency and reward early participants with higher initial payouts.

Characteristics

  • Early Bird Incentives: The shrinking schedule is crafted to reward the earliest adopters the most, offering them a larger share of tokens initially. This creates a compelling case for getting involved early in the project's lifecycle.
  • Fear of Missing Out (FOMO): This approach capitalizes on the FOMO effect, incentivizing potential investors to buy in early to maximize their rewards before the release rate decreases.
  • Decreased Inflation Over Time: As fewer tokens are released into circulation later on, the potential inflationary pressure on the token's value is reduced. This can be an attractive feature for investors concerned about long-term value erosion.

Implications

  • Stimulating Early Adoption: By offering more tokens earlier, projects may see a surge in initial capital inflow, providing the necessary funds to kickstart development and fuel early-stage growth.
  • Risk of Decreased Late-Stage Incentives: As the reward diminishes over time, there's a risk that new investors may be less inclined to participate, potentially impacting the project's ability to attract capital in its later stages.
  • Market Perception and Price Dynamics: The market must understand that the shrinking release rate is a deliberate strategy to encourage early investment and sustain the token's value over time. However, this can lead to challenges in maintaining interest as the release rate slows, requiring additional value propositions.

A shrinking token release schedule offers an interesting dynamic for projects seeking to capitalize on early market excitement. While it can generate significant early support, the challenge lies in maintaining momentum as the reward potential decreases. This necessitates a robust project foundation and continued delivery of milestones to retain stakeholder interest.

Dynamic Token Release Schedule

A dynamic token release schedule represents a flexible and adaptive approach to token distribution. Unlike static models, this schedule can adjust the rate of token release based on specific criteria. Example criteria are: project’s milestones, market conditions, or the behavior of token holders. This responsiveness is designed to offer a balanced strategy that can react to the project's needs in real-time.

Characteristics

  • Adaptability: The most significant advantage of a dynamic schedule is its ability to adapt to changing circumstances. This can include varying the release rate to match market demand, project development stages, or other critical factors.
  • Risk Management: By adjusting the flow of tokens in response to market conditions, a dynamic schedule can help mitigate certain risks. For example: inflation, token price volatility, and the impact of market manipulation.
  • Stakeholder Alignment: This schedule can be structured to align incentives with the project's goals. This means rewarding behaviors that contribute to project's longevity, such as holding tokens for certain periods or participating in governance.

Implications

  • Balancing Supply and Demand: A dynamic token release can fine-tune the supply to match demand, aiming to stabilize the token price. This can be particularly effective in avoiding the boom-and-bust cycles that plague many cryptocurrency projects.
  • Investor Engagement: The flexibility of a dynamic schedule keeps investors engaged, as the potential for reward can change in line with project milestones and success markers, maintaining a sense of involvement and investment in the project’s progression.
  • Complexity and Communication: The intricate nature of a dynamic schedule requires clear and transparent communication with stakeholders to ensure understanding of the system. The complexity also demands robust technical implementation to execute the varying release strategies effectively.

Dynamic token release schedule is a sophisticated tool that, when used judiciously, offers great flexibility in navigating unpredictable crypto markets. It requires a careful balance of anticipation, reaction, and communication but also gives opportunity to foster project’s growth.

Conclusion

A linear token release schedule is the epitome of simplicity and fairness, offering a steady and predictable path. The growing schedule promotes long-term investment and project loyalty, potentially leading to sustained growth. In contrast, the shrinking schedule seeks to capitalize on the enthusiasm of early adopters, fostering a vibrant initial ecosystem. Lastly, the dynamic schedule stands out for its intelligent adaptability, aiming to strike a balance between various stakeholder interests and market forces.

The choice of token release schedule should not be made in isolation; it must consider the project's goals, the nature of its community, the volatility of the market, and the overarching vision of the creators.

FAQ

What are the different token release schedules?

  • Linear, growing, shrinking, and dynamic schedules.

How does a linear token release schedule work?

  • Releases tokens at a constant rate over a specified period.

What is the goal of a shrinking token release schedule?

  • Rewards early adopters with more tokens and decreases over time.

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.