Looking at how projects launch on-chain, there's a fundamental design flaw worth examining: speed-based incentives reward the wrong participants.
Bots dominate the allocation race. Early exits capture most gains. Meanwhile, actual price discovery gets distorted. The mechanics naturally favor those with faster execution rather than genuine project believers.
What if token launches rewarded commitment instead? Think about it differently—structure incentives around holding periods, governance participation, or ecosystem contribution rather than raw execution speed. This shifts the game from a bot arms race to something that actually builds community.
It's a simple reframe but could reshape how projects go to market. Merit through engagement, not merit through milliseconds.
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.
13 Likes
Reward
13
4
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
OnlyUpOnly
· 13h ago
Bots winning everything has been really annoying; it really needs to change.
View OriginalReply0
SerLiquidated
· 13h ago
Oh no, it's the old trick of Bots winning everything again.
True believers end up losing instead; this design is indeed a bit extreme.
Instead of racing, why not see who really cares?
View OriginalReply0
FloorPriceNightmare
· 13h ago
Grass, it's that trap of Bots winning everything again, so annoying.
Holding on instead of catching milliseconds, how many projects does it take to realize this?
You're right, but it can't be changed, too greedy.
View OriginalReply0
PonziWhisperer
· 13h ago
Oh no, it's the old trick of Bots playing people for suckers again.
---
Really, this speed competition is ridiculous. Whoever is faster wins? I might as well write a script.
---
The commitment mechanism is right, but who actually does that in reality?
---
Long-term holders are always the ones losing the most. Wake up, everyone.
---
The problem isn't with the incentive design, it's that no one wants a real community; everyone just wants to get in and out quickly.
---
Want to reward commitments? You need to make sure the project party has commitments too, haha.
---
This analysis is a bit naive; the project party just wants Bots to boost liquidity.
---
The millisecond advantage here is indeed pathological.
---
Instead of changing the incentives, why not change those VC round financing tricks to pump?
---
Sounds good, but I haven't seen any new coin really do this.
Looking at how projects launch on-chain, there's a fundamental design flaw worth examining: speed-based incentives reward the wrong participants.
Bots dominate the allocation race. Early exits capture most gains. Meanwhile, actual price discovery gets distorted. The mechanics naturally favor those with faster execution rather than genuine project believers.
What if token launches rewarded commitment instead? Think about it differently—structure incentives around holding periods, governance participation, or ecosystem contribution rather than raw execution speed. This shifts the game from a bot arms race to something that actually builds community.
It's a simple reframe but could reshape how projects go to market. Merit through engagement, not merit through milliseconds.