In the Web3 ecosystem, there are some things that industry insiders are well aware of but rarely openly discuss.

**The Dislocation Between Token and Project Value**

Looking at most projects in the industry, you'll find an interesting paradox—the design of tokenomics often diverges significantly from the actual operation of the project.

Take DEX tokens as an example. The surface logic seems perfect: trading volume ↑ → fees ↑ → tokens should rise. But the truth is, the revenue generated by the protocol has no necessary connection to the tokens you hold. The tokens in your hands are essentially "governance tokens," used just for voting and to show presence.

Recently, a leading DEX started buyback actions on fees, which even made headlines in the industry, highlighting how abnormal the current ecosystem state is.

**Why are AI-related tokens gaining attention this round?**

The reason is straightforward—they are trying to do something truly meaningful: genuinely linking token value with project revenue. Some projects buy back tokens with income; others require users to hold tokens to access services. This direction is fundamentally correct.

But the implementation issues are also obvious:
- Are the restrictive mechanisms truly in place? Who enforces oversight?
- What if the team changes the rules?

Most projects are vague on these key issues, claiming "we don't really understand either," but in reality, it's "if we clarify, we won't have any room to retreat."

**Three Hard Metrics for Spot Trading**

If you plan to choose small and medium-cap tokens for spot allocation during this cycle, focus on these three real standards:

**Metric One: Tiered Holding System**

Your token holdings should directly correspond to different levels of permissions. More tokens = access to more services and features. This isn't some hollow governance voting; it's a real, usable differentiated experience.

**Metric Two: Genuine Token Buybacks**

The project earns money from its business and genuinely uses that to buy back tokens. This is equivalent to the team providing "floor support" for the token, indicating they have real vested interests in the project.

**Metric Three: Deflationary Burn Path**

A more aggressive approach is to use all protocol income for token burning. The team can choose to earn less or even forgo profits, while users watch the token supply decrease in real-time—this is the most direct support for value.

**Practical Advice**

Meeting two of these three metrics makes a project a decent choice; if the project is solid enough to meet one, it's worth deeper research. Of course, the most important thing is for you to do your own due diligence and understand the current state of the tokens you favor.

The crypto market cycle is long, and choosing tokens shouldn't rely solely on stories and concepts. Ultimately, it depends on whether the project is willing to genuinely align its revenue with the interests of token holders. This is the key to distinguishing real assets from speculative tools.