Supply and Demand in Crypto Markets

Kajetan Olas

01 Mar 2024
Supply and Demand in Crypto Markets

From the creators' perspective, we steer supply and demand in crypto markets to incentivize (disincentivize) certain behaviors in a way that benefits the project. 

Often, a project’s best interest is seen as equivalent to a high token price. For that reason, tokenomics often incentivizes participating in pyramid schemes that give an illusion of growth and value appreciation.  Here we explore how to design sustainable tokenomics that will help your project thrive in the long run.

Price Swing Effects

As an entrepreneur, the valuation of your digital asset often determines if you're seen as a visionary or an impostor. Consequently, many teams prioritize strategies aimed at boosting their token's value, frequently through methods like offering exorbitantly high annual percentage yields for token staking. Other tactics include token destruction or repurchase schemes, financed by means other than actual earnings. While these strategies may temporarily elevate excitement and price, they fail to enhance the intrinsic worth of the platform. This leads to significant price instability and diminishes the platform's ability to withstand hostile actions or negative market trends. Paradoxically, the pursuit of elevated prices typically backfires. Instead, the focus should be on reducing price volatility, which supports steady and long-term development.

Price per Token

The Initial price of a token unit should reflect the utility it provides. That price depends on the total value of the project divided by quantity of tokens in circulation. Theoretically, the nominal value of tokens shouldn’t matter. 100$ worth of tokens corresponds to the same share in market cap, regardless of whether we have 100 tokens worth 1$ each, or 1 token worth 100$. But just like in traditional markets - human psychology plays a big role. Market participants show a preference for tokens priced between 10$ and 100$. Such tokens statistically perform slightly better on the market. For this reason, we suggest choosing a supply quantity, that will cause the price per token to oscillate in the 10$-100$ range.

On the opposite end - tokens with prices below 0.01 are shown to underperform and be more volatile.

Supply

Supply-side of 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. In 99% cases, project’s value relies mostly on demand. This means product adoption by users and the ability to generate and capture value.

Initial and maximum supply

How many tokens do we want to initially distribute, and what’s the maximum number of tokens? This relates to the maximum inflation rate - the total dilution of tokens' value over the lifespan of a project. The maximum inflation rate can be calculated through dividing maximum supply by initial supply.

It doesn’t matter if the circulating supply makes 20% or 80% of the maximum supply. In fact, you can be successful even without a capped maximum supply. Many of the 100 projects with the largest capitalization have no capped supply, with Ethereum being the prime example. 

Interestingly supply increases don’t matter that much in the short term. On a month-month basis correlation between token emissions rate and price is less than 5%. For that reason, you shouldn’t worry too much about the dilution of value. As long as the annualized inflation rate is below 100% your project will be stable. 

Allocation:

A typical allocation structure that’s often considered to be industry’s best practice is oscillating in the following ranges:

  • Team: 10% - 20%
  • Venture Capital: 10% - 20%
  • Advisors: 3% - 5%
  • Treasury: 15% - 30%
  • Protocol emissions (e.g. staking reward): 30% - 50%
  • Airdrops (optional): 3% - 7%

Vesting

Vesting relates to the process of locking a portion of tokens for a chosen amount of time and gradually releasing them. It’s a concept taken from the world of startups. Traditionally these companies would vest equity allocated to founders so that they can’t abandon the project early. That’s because if these entrepreneurs would be able to sell their equity in the early stages then they might lose motivation to keep working on the project. In DeFi, on top of aligning incentives, vesting reduces volatility and big price dumps in the early stages.

Vesting usually applies to institutional investors, advisors, and founders. Industry standard is setting its length between 2 and 5 years.

https://www.liquifi.finance/post/token-vesting-and-allocation-benchmarks

Demand

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.

Utility

Your product should provide real value to the customer, and be able to capture some of it. If the price of your token increases for any reason not related to its utility, then it’s due to speculation on utility in the future.

Expected Utility

If you’re looking to fund your project before developing an MVP then you base on investors’  trust in your ability to deliver utility in the future.  A key way to increase this trust, and be more successful with an ICO, is through having a strong founding team, and an innovative idea. You should show people, that you’re likely to deliver something that will have a lot of value to a lot of users.

Hype

There are also cases when demand comes from pure hype. While this euphoria may be pleasant in the short-term, it's worth remembering that in the long term, a crash will follow.

Conclusion

Supply and Demand are key concepts in the crypto space just like in real economy. Though the equilibrium is after all set by the market forces, we can influence it by various adaptive mechanisms. It’s key to remember, they can only work if your product provides actual value to customers. That’s because customer-driven demand is the only sustainable way of increasing project’s value.

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

How to know what portion of demand can be attributed to speculation?

  • Fear and Greed Index is often used to measure market sentiments in that regard.

Can supply and demand mechanisms be manipulated in crypto markets?

  • Yes, it’s not uncommon for big investors to engage in speculative attacks.

How does supply affect the tokenomics of a project?

  • There are many ways in which supply affects tokenomics. Key things to consider are emissions rate and allocation.

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.