2025-12-31 10:27:50

The core standard for measuring the quality of any token mechanism is actually very simple—imagine if these rules were applied to the person you dislike the most, would you still find it fair?

This is the true test standard. Everything else is not important.

A good token design should withstand this kind of reverse thinking scrutiny. Regardless of who the token holders are or their backgrounds, the rules should treat everyone equally. When this logic is implemented on the blockchain, it makes the token mechanism more transparent and trustworthy. Many projects overlook this point, resulting in community disappointment and loss of confidence. So next time you evaluate a blockchain project's tokenomics, try looking at it from this perspective—it often reveals the essence of the problem.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

9 Likes

Reward
9
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

TrustMeBro

· 10h ago

That's a harsh way to put it, but it really hits the point. Most projects can't withstand such questioning. Basically, it's about whether the rule design is effective—don't do sneaky stuff. I've seen too many projects claim to be decentralized, but the core team has special privileges—it's laughable. One word: fairness. Without it, any mechanism is useless. Do your projects dare to think in this reverse way? Or are you scared?

View OriginalReply0

MetadataExplorer

· 10h ago

Speaking frankly, but most projects simply can't do it --- This theory sounds good, but in reality, 99% of them fail --- Exactly, so I’ve long abandoned those VC projects --- Honestly, there are very few tokens that can pass this test --- Reverse thinking really works, why isn’t anyone truly using it --- Wait, isn’t this just a game of利益相关方? Basically, everyone wants privileges --- That makes sense, but how can we identify which ones are truly impartial --- Project team: We designed it this way. In other words, no one really believes it --- Ironically, the projects that need to read this the most will never see it --- The core point is, finally someone has broken through this barrier --- But I’ve really never seen a truly fair token mechanism

View OriginalReply0

UnluckyValidator

· 10h ago

It's true, but how many projects have actually achieved that in reality? Ironically, those who talk the most about fairness are actually the ones with the most inside information.

View OriginalReply0

gm_or_ngmi

· 10h ago

That's a brilliant statement, but the reality is that most projects simply can't do it. There are very few projects daring enough to design like this, most are just thinking about how to exploit users. If this set of standards were truly implemented, half of the projects would have to be DED.

View OriginalReply0

ForkPrince

· 10h ago

That's a bold statement, but in reality, how many projects actually dare to do this...

View OriginalReply0

GasFeeTherapist

· 10h ago

You're right, this is indeed a quick way to see through a project. Most projects can't withstand this kind of scrutiny. Really, just thinking about some special terms in the VC rounds, I... never mind.

View OriginalReply0