sounds like you’re trying to convince us it will be big... save the sales pitch.
what went wrong? What could the rest of us learn from this?
Lots of reasons why not.
lots of reasons to do it too.
Which is why I am looking to hear fro. Those who have.
I can’t code anything. Lol
Where are you seeing the $1,000 price? Most companies I have talked to about making the token is $4-5,000
what part of tokenomics do you see being troubling?
I got a team from several major startups and relevant experience to my token idea, plus a marketing person.
I have an idea for a token that plays 100% at hearts/minds while also generating revenue independent from the token.
We considered Metcalfe’s law into the token’s value, and actually into it’s purpose.
Our foundershave all agreed to 10yr stake in their shares, no selling, nothing, just hodl for 10yrs.
now as for the value build of the token I’m looking at:
Role: toll; purpose: skin in the game; features: holding token qualifies 1 for x amount of credit within system(sorry to be a bit vague there but I’m sure you understand).
The “system” for the holder is something providing value to people and companies in a public relations sense, so that is the intrinsic value.
So, what part of tokenomics do you see being the issue?
Anyone charging you $4,000/$5,000 to create an ERC20/BEP20 token are categorically ripping you off. Crypto/defi dev companies are setup to take advantage of founders that have no technical background. You can get a boilerplate smart contract, customise a few lines, and have it live on the ETH/BSC networks within about 30 minutes for free.
The $1,000 was at the absolute top end of anything reasonable, but even that's a pisstake tbh. It comes down to exactly what you want it to do though. I wouldn't pay $1,000 myself, but if you knew nothing about ETH dev and wanted to get a token made that could at least be reasonable for the effort of them building it and the value it would provide your project.
For your second question, there's not a part of tokenomics that would be problematic. The process as a whole if done wrong is problematic.
The way that value is economically infused with your token in an undeniable way (ie. any user can clearly understand the reasons that the token holds value) is the important consideration.
You need to understand core concepts like what token velocity is, for example, and if that is not managed correctly, your token will fail with a fair degree of certainty. As well as the mechanical considerations of your ecosystem being really,
REALLY important, the perceptions of your community and potential users is almost equally important and stem from questions like "how would users perceive a lack/abundance of burning mechanisms within the context of the fact that the token has a limited/unlimited supply?".
So it's something that you or someone in your team will have to understand in a very deep way, or you'll need to hire people that understand it in a very deep way, or you can take a punt and try to build your own tokenomics which may lead to every minute and dollar you spend going to waste.
For a start, what I've noticed is that the token seems to be a major concern for you. The token should be a tool used to make an entire ecosystem function well, not the center of the ecosystem. If value is infused into your token and transported effectively throughout the model, that's very different to the token being the main consideration within the model.
Look at Theta (who I think have seriously amazing tokenomics). The value users can get from Theta and TFuel is present only because of the significantly more valuable functionality those tokens unlock. TFuel is a tool to create revenue streams and partnerships between retail users and corporate users, it's not the main focus of the value within the system for either of those groups though.
There's a lot to it and it's really important to dedicate significant time/effort/cash resources into getting it right mate.
I’m looking more at a real coin/token
My statements above are even more critical if this is the case.
