Token Classification

Kajetan Olas

11 Mar 2024
Token Classification

Tokens, the lifeblood of blockchain ecosystems, are more than mere currency—they embody varying rights, functions, and roles. In this article, we demystify the complexities of token types, exploring how they differ and what makes each unique. Stay with us, as we dive into the intricacies of Token Classification!

Technology Domain of Token Classification

The technology underpinning a token determines its potential and applicability in a blockchain ecosystem. Here's a closer look at the technical classification:

Chain Type

  • Chain-Native Tokens: These are the foundational tokens of a blockchain, crucial for the network's operation and maintenance.
  • Forked Chain Tokens: Born from divergences in consensus, these tokens represent the evolution and diversity within blockchain technology.
  • Tokens Issued on Top of a Protocol: These tokens utilize existing blockchain infrastructures, showcasing the adaptability and expansiveness of digital assets.

Permission Levels

  • Permissioned Blockchains: With controlled access, these blockchains offer a more regulated environment.
  • Permissionless Blockchains: Open and decentralized, these blockchains champion freedom and inclusivity in network participation.

Number of Blockchains

  • Single-Chain Tokens: Confined to one blockchain, these tokens often signify simplicity and stability.
  • Cross-Chain Tokens: The bridgers of the blockchain world, they facilitate interoperability and connectivity among diverse networks.

Representation Type

  • Common Representation: Uniform in their features, these tokens reflect the collective movement of the market.
  • Unique Representation: Each token is distinct, carrying specific characteristics that set it apart from its peers.

Understanding these technical facets of tokens is crucial for stakeholders to navigate the blockchain landscape effectively. From developers shaping the next decentralized application to investors gauging the value of digital assets, recognizing these classifications is key when reading about blockchain technology.

Behavior Domain of Token Classification

Diving into the Behavior Domain, we uncover the functional characteristics that define the roles and uses of tokens within their ecosystems. This domain is pivotal because it dictates what you can do with a token and how it behaves independently of external factors.

Burnability

  • Burnable: These tokens can be destroyed, often to manage supply and add scarcity.
  • Non-Burnable: These tokens cannot be destroyed, providing a consistent supply.

Expirability

  • Expirable: With a digital "shelf-life", these tokens can be programmed to expire.
  • Non-Expirable: These tokens remain indefinitely, preserving their utility over time.

Spendability

  • Spendable: These tokens can be used as a medium of exchange within their ecosystems.
  • Non-Spendable: Often representative or for governance, these tokens aren't meant for transactions.

Fungibility

  • Fungible: Interchangeable and identical in value, like traditional currency.
  • Non-Fungible (NFTs): Unique and distinct, each with individual characteristics.
  • Hybrid: Combining traits of both, with conditional fungibility.

Divisibility

  • Fractional: These can be divided into smaller units, allowing for micro-transactions.
  • Whole: Indivisible, these tokens maintain their value as a single unit.
  • Singleton: Unique, one-of-a-kind tokens that cannot be replicated or divided.

Tradability

  • Tradable: These tokens can be exchanged or sold.
  • Non-Tradable: Tied to their owner, these tokens often relate to rights or memberships.
  • Delegable: Ownership remains, but usage rights can be passed on.

The Behavior Domain is essential for understanding what actions a token can facilitate, whether it's trading, voting, or accessing a platform's features. This knowledge enables users to navigate the complexities of the blockchain space more confidently and make informed decisions about the tokens they interact with.

Coordination Domain of Token Classification

The Coordination Domain addresses how tokens incentivize and manage participant interactions within the ecosystem. This domain highlights the strategic elements designed to guide behaviors towards achieving collective goals.

Underlying Value

  • Asset-based: Value tied to physical or digital assets.
  • Network Value: Dependent on the ecosystem's activity and token utility.
  • Share-like: Reflects equity-like characteristics and often faces regulatory scrutiny.

Supply Strategy

  • Schedule-based: Tokens are released according to a predetermined plan.
  • Pre-mined: Tokens are created all at once, with distribution occurring over time.
  • Discretionary: Issuance at the issuer's discretion, often for unique assets.
  • Matching demand: Supply adjusts in response to market demands.

Incentive Enablers

These are the token features that enable stakeholders to participate meaningfully in the ecosystem, including:

  • Rights to work or use: Tokens provide access to network functionalities or services.
  • Rights to vote: Tokens allow participation in governance decisions.
  • Financial roles: Tokens can serve as units of account, mediums of exchange, or stores of value.

Incentive Drivers

Incentive Drivers motivate stakeholders to use tokens in ways that benefit the network and themselves. This can include:

  • Access: Using tokens to engage with the network's offerings.
  • Financial incentives: Earning potential through dividends, rewards, or appreciation.
  • Governance: Influencing the ecosystem's evolution.

The Coordination Domain ultimately combines the token's economic and strategic designs to create a cohesive system that aligns individual actions with the broader objectives of the blockchain ecosystem.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2096720922000094

Conclusion: The Multifaceted World of Token Classification

In our journey through token classification, we've unpacked the intricate layers that define tokens in the blockchain realm. From the foundational technology that undergirds their existence to the behaviors they exhibit and the strategic roles they play. Tokens are as varied as they are vital to the ecosystems they populate. Understanding these classifications is more than academic; it empowers participants to navigate, innovate, and invest with greater clarity and purpose. As blockchain technology continues to evolve, so too will the taxonomy of tokens. At Nextrope, we're not just observers but active participants and builders in this vibrant and ever-expanding digital landscape.

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.

source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2096720922000094

FAQ

What are the main categories for token classification?

  • Tokens are categorized based on technology, behavior, and coordination domains.

How to define Chain-Native Tokens?

  • As foundational tokens crucial for a blockchain's operation.

What is the significance of Burnability in token classification?

  • It indicates whether a token can be destroyed to manage supply.

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.