What is an Initial Dex Offering (IDO)?

Maciej Zieliński

15 Mar 2022
What is an Initial Dex Offering (IDO)?

The development of the cryptocurrency industry and IDO is progressing every year. Thanks to this, new ways of raising funds appear frequently. Initial Dex Offering is one such form. This is one of several ways to raise funds for crypto projects. It is worth noting that the first approach to raising funds for a project's token was the Initial Coin Offering (ICO), which in 2017 brought many advantages and negatives. At the same time, ICO has led to the fact that many investors have become millioners within a few days. How does ICO compare to IDO? Why can IDO be a more interesting concept for raising funds? We are writing about this in thie article below!

ICO and IDO

As we have written earlier, ICO is an unregulated approach to crowdsourcing funds from retail investors. In the crypto space, the main challenges of initial coin offering were related to lack of control and protection of investors' funds. Cryptocurrency projects access was based on complete trust. ICO creators were not due diligence tested. This has led to a time when almost every initial coin offering project could promise significant profits - but these promises have repeatedly proved to be empty.

ICO vs IDO

Many ICO projects have simply proved to be a fraud. Decentralized finance (DeFi) can help with this, as they aim to address this problem through alternative fund-raising models. One such model is the decentralized Exchange (DEX) model. DEX offers cryptocurrency investors access to another, more egalitarian model of crowdfunding in the crypto market.

What is a DEX offer or IDO?

It is worth noting that the original concept of the initial offers of DEX has changed enormously over the years and in its current most popular form has little to do with what it planned to implement at the start of the initial IDO (Initial DEX Offering). In fact, the initial offer of DEX is the successor to initial coin offering and IEO, because its goal is to collect money and launch the project. However, unlike ICO and IEO, in which tokens are sold before being listed, in the case of initial dex offering, they are immediately listed on a decentralized exchanges. For this reason, the name DEX was created.

DEX

What is the Raven Protocol? The first ever Initial DEX Offerings took place in June 2019 – it was called the Raven Protocol. The protocol team selected the decentralized Binance DEX exchange. They place a new token at a specific price, and the traders could buy it until the hard cap has been reached on binance dex. 

In theory, this particular way of fundraising had several powerful benefits, including:

  • Quick Trading
  • Immediate liquidity was achieved
  • An open and transparent means pf collecting money has been achieved

However, investors were not satisfied. The reason was that these symbolic sales would be sold out in a few seconds, leaving a small opportunity for the average investor to participate in the project. As a result of the immediate selling of the entire offer, there was speculation that it was done by bots. This is how the first initial dex offering start platforms, which are gaining popularity today, were formed.

What is a starting offer for DEX and IEO (Initial Exchange Offerings)

The first offer of DEX (IDO) is a way to raise funds that receives investment capital from retail investors. IDO was created to address the shortcomings of the 'traditional' model of cryptocurrency community funding, the initial coin offering. Given that IDO works with DEX, unlike centralized exchange, DEX can be regarded as a decentralized liquidity exchange. Decentralized liquidity exchange and  initial dex offering is the latest model for funding cryptocurrency projects that want to raise funds from investors. However, let us remember that DEX is less scalable than ICO and IEO, and many trading processes are based on DeFi platforms

Token Generation EVENT and decentralized exchange

Today, in its most popular iteration and form, the initial offers of DEX are particularly similar to Initial Exchange offerings (IEO) with some key differences.

  • In the case of IEO, it was an echange which reviewed projects and conducted token sales. With initial dex offering, it is a third-party platform that checks the stock exchange, while token sales themselves take place in a slightly decentralized manner.
  • In theory, anyone can raise funds through IDO (initial dex offerings) using a third-party start platform because everything he or she would have to do is open the pool.
  • The way it works is quite simple. The project is sent to the starter, and if it meets the requirements, it is selected for the initial dex offering. The process itself may vary from one starter to another, but the concept is always the same.
  • There is a pool from which users can buy an "IOU" of the token that the project wants to run. The IOU is a confirmation of the debt. In other words, investors pay for their tokens in advance, but receive them at the Token Generation Event (TGE), which usually takes place very shortly after the IDO itself (usually within a few hours).
  • Once the IDO has been successfully concluded and TGE has started, the token is immediately traded on a decentralized exchange. In most cases, this is the case with Uniswap because the vast number of projects is still built on Ethereum and their tokens are based on the ERC20 protocol standard.

However, other blockchains are also gaining popularity, including Solana, Polkadot and Binance Smart Chain (BSC). Therefore, some projects prefer to run their tokens on them to avoid high network charges in Ethereum. In this case, the token would be listed on a native stock exchange, such as the BSC’s PancakeSwap.

How do IDO cryptocurrencies work?

IDO (initial dex offering) works because DEX can provide instant liquidity for tokens based on smart contracts. That is why DEX tends to reward liquidity pool providers with attractive rewards. Liquidity pools allow DEX to operate without unexpected problems for their users. In order to help trade, most projects provide liquidity to DEX by allocating a part of the funds. This approach has become standard practice. Many projects are also supported by the “Proof of Stake (POS) mechanism. The POS consensus is designed to keep the network secure. But in this case, the mechanism mainly serves to discourage investors from selling tokens too fast. This ensures that investors hold their token capital in their portfolio. In return, they earn rewards for their "participation" in the network. Then, when the project is launched, investors can immediately start trading the token. Investors who have purchased tokens faster can sell them at a higher price when initial dex offerings begins to operate. When the public sale starts, the token value increases.

Fees and smart contracts

In the event of an ecchange, the fees for the performance of the new smart contract are negligible, as the trading pairs provide a high degree of liquidity. Smart contracts help manage the asset token and the liquidity pool. It should be stressed that unlike traditional fund-raising models, IDO can immediately create tokens. In addition, any meaningful IDO project can be qualified to raise funds from retail investors. The same can be said about avoiding the high costs of Initial Exchange Offerings (IEO). Investors do not have to wait long for the desired tokens to appear on the stock exchange. The list usually appears immediately after the initial dex offerings is complete. This time allows investors to make money on their investments much quicker compared to initial coin offering .

Pros and cons of IDO

Like any funding method, IDO has its advantages and disadvantages for project's token, which we have decided to present below:

Pros of IDO

  • Availability - IDO has no procedures that can be associated with IEO. As a result, many people can raise capital without unnecessary bureaucracy.
  • Speed - investors are quickly informed of the arrival of tokens on the stock exchanges and start trading because they have immediate access  to trade. The listing occurs almost immediately after the IDO has ended. Its good for token projects. 
  • Immediate liquidity - in connection with the promotion of PoS, significant capital is leftavailable on the stock exchange, thus improving its liquidity.
  • Transparency - anyone can review token contracts and projects beforehand.

Cons of IDO

  • Verification - the low level of verification leads to many rogue creators who attempt to defraud funds.
  • Competition - it is extremely difficult to participate in IDO because of a huge number of competitors who wish to purchase tokens.
  • Token sharing - most tokens in IDO generally reach the team and private investors first, and afterwards to the rest of the entities.
  • However, IDO still seems to be an attractive form of investment, with little bureaucracy and tempting, significant profits.

Crypto projects offered by IDO are lightning-fast. The initial waiting period for selling tokens at the exchange is short, which allows many people to profit quickly. Unfortunately, these offers are often attractive and, as a result, an average crypto trader may not be able to make the purchase in time, as you will see if do your own research into the matter. Moreover, IDO are not usually present on centralized exchanges, which means that they are also directed towards a smaller group of people. However, IDO is attractive due to the lack of bureaucracy, quick access to funds and the immediate provision of liquidity to the platform.

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.