Tokenomics Review

Tokenomics Review

A structured methodology for reviewing a crypto token's economics for red flags. Given a token's supply schedule, allocation breakdown, vesting and unlock calendar, emission model, liquidity, and contract permissions, this skill produces a disciplined read of supply & FDV, insider allocation & vesting, emissions/inflation, unlock overhang, liquidity depth, and rug vectors — and returns a risk scorecard and a single verdict (Healthy / Caution / High-risk / Likely-rug), grounded in standard token due-diligence practice.

Not financial advice. This is an educational analytical framework. Crypto is a high-risk asset class; tokens can go to zero, contracts can be exploited, and "tokenomics" can be designed to look healthy while extracting value. Always verify on-chain, read the audited contract, and do your own research (DYOR).

For related Viprasol skills, see smart-contract-audit (Solidity/contract vulnerability review) and defi-protocol-review (protocol-level economic and mechanism review). Tokenomics review pairs naturally with both: this skill asks "is the token's economy sound and non-predatory?", the contract audit asks "is the code safe?", and the protocol review asks "is the mechanism sound?".

When to Activate

Activate this skill when the user:

• Shares a token's tokenomics (supply, allocation, vesting, emissions, unlock schedule, contract address) and asks whether it's healthy, fair, risky, or a potential rug.
• Asks for token due diligence, launch review, allocation/vesting analysis, unlock-overhang analysis, or investment screening on a named token or pasted tokenomics.
• Asks "is this a rug?", "is the FDV too high?", "are insiders dumping?", "is the liquidity locked?", "is the supply inflationary?", or "are these tokenomics fair?".
• Is reviewing a presale, IDO/ICO/IEO, fair-launch, or airdrop allocation.

If only a fragment is given (e.g. just "price" or "market cap"), ask for the minimum inputs needed (see Step 1) before scoring. Do not fabricate supply, allocation, or unlock numbers — request the source (docs, token contract, vesting contract, a tracker like a token-unlocks dashboard) or mark anything derived as (est.).

Step 1: Scope & Data

Before any scoring, establish and restate the inputs so the review is anchored. Pull these explicitly and flag whatever is missing or estimated:

State each explicitly in the output header. If supply or allocation is unknown, ask — a scorecard without supply and allocation is meaningless.

Step 2: Severity Model

Grade each finding by severity. Use this table consistently:

A single Critical rug vector caps the verdict at Likely-rug regardless of how clean the rest looks. Severity reflects economic harm × likelihood, not just presence of a feature.

Step 3: Checklist

Work through every dimension below. For each: what it is, how to check it, why it matters, and a healthy benchmark. Cover all of them — note explicitly when a dimension can't be assessed (mark it ⓘ, don't skip silently).

3.1 Supply concentration & top-holder %

• What: how concentrated holdings are among the largest wallets.
• How to check: explorer "Holders" / top-100 list; net out known burn, bridge, LP, staking, and CEX-omnibus wallets before judging.
• Why: concentrated supply lets a few wallets crash the price or rug.
• Healthy: top-10 (ex-contract/LP/treasury) < 30%; no single non-team wallet dominating the float.

3.2 Insider (team + investor) allocation % and vesting structure

• What: combined team + VC/investor share and how it's locked.
• How to check: docs/token distribution + the on-chain vesting contract (cliff length, linear vs cliff-dump, total duration).
• Why: large insider allocations with weak vesting = sustained sell pressure and misaligned incentives.
• Healthy: insiders < 35–40% of supply; ≥ 12-month cliff then linear vesting over ≥ 24–48 months (not a cliff-then-dump).

3.3 FDV / MC ratio & dilution overhang

• What: fully-diluted valuation vs current market cap.
• How to check: FDV = price × total/max supply; MC = price × circulating; ratio = FDV ÷ MC.
• Why: a high ratio means most supply isn't circulating yet — future unlocks must be absorbed by demand or price falls.
• Healthy: FDV/MC < 3** is comfortable; **3–10** watch; **> 10 heavy overhang.

3.4 Emission / inflation rate vs demand sinks

• What: rate of new-supply issuance vs mechanisms that remove supply.
• How to check: annual emission ÷ circulating supply (= inflation %/yr); compare against burns/fees/locked-staking demand.
• Why: if emissions outrun real demand, price bleeds structurally ("emissions-funded yield").
• Healthy: inflation < ~5–10%/yr and tapering, with genuine sinks; uncapped/unbounded emission with no sinks is a red flag.

3.5 Upcoming unlock cliffs (% of float unlocking in next 30 / 90 days)

• What: scheduled near-term unlocks relative to circulating float.
• How to check: vesting calendar / unlock-tracker; compute unlocking amount ÷ current circulating supply for 30d and 90d windows.
• Why: a large cliff into thin liquidity is a predictable dump.
• Healthy: < 5% of float unlocking in 30 days, **< 15%** in 90 days; no single cliff > ~10% of float at once.

3.6 Real utility vs reflexive / ponzi yield

• What: whether token demand is organic or self-referential.
• How to check: identify what the token does; is "yield" paid in real fees or in freshly minted tokens? Does APR depend on new deposits?
• Why: reflexive "X% APY in our own token" designs collapse when inflows stop — a classic ponzi pattern.
• Healthy: demand from real usage (fees, gas, collateral, governance over real value); yield sourced from real revenue, not pure emissions.

3.7 DEX liquidity depth vs market cap & LP lock/burn

• What: how much liquidity backs the token and whether it can be pulled.
• How to check: DEX pool TVL / depth ($) vs MC; check whether LP tokens are locked (time-locked) or burned (sent to dead address), and the lock expiry.
• Why: a "pull liquidity" rug is only possible if the deployer still holds LP; thin liquidity also means a small sell tanks price.
• Healthy: liquidity ≥ 5–10% of MC and LP locked (long) or burned; unlocked LP held by deployer is a Critical rug vector.

3.8 Mint / pause / blacklist / owner admin functions (rug vectors)

• What: privileged contract functions the owner can call.
• How to check: read the verified contract: mint, owner-mintable supply, pause/setTradingEnabled, blacklist/setMaxTx, fee-setter, proxy upgradeability, owner not renounced or behind a timelock/multisig.
• Why: these let an owner print supply, freeze sells, or block specific wallets — direct rug/honeypot enablers.
• Healthy: no unbounded mint; ownership renounced or behind a timelock + multisig; no blacklist/arbitrary-pause; non-upgradeable or governance-gated. (Cross-check with smart-contract-audit.)

3.9 Transfer tax / honeypot patterns

• What: buy/sell taxes and asymmetric or sell-blocking logic.
• How to check: read tax variables; simulate a sell (honeypot checker / test swap); look for sell-only fees, max-tx limits applied only to sells, or hidden owner-only transfer paths.
• Why: high or asymmetric taxes extract value; honeypots let you buy but not sell.
• Healthy: 0% or low symmetric tax (≤ ~5%), no sell-blocking, sells confirmed to work. Tax > 10% is a red flag; un-sellable = honeypot.

3.10 Treasury runway & funding

• What: whether the project is funded to deliver without dumping its own token.
• How to check: treasury holdings (stables vs own-token), burn rate, raise size; is the treasury denominated in its own token (circular) or in stables/blue-chips?
• Why: a treasury that's only its own token must sell into the market to pay bills — structural sell pressure.
• Healthy: meaningful non-native runway (stables/blue-chips) covering development for 18+ months; transparent treasury wallet.

3.11 Governance centralization

• What: who actually controls upgrades, emissions, treasury, and parameters.
• How to check: multisig signer count/threshold, admin keys, proxy admin, voting-power distribution, whether insiders hold a governance majority.
• Why: "decentralized" governance where insiders hold the votes (or a 1-of-1 admin key) can change the rules against holders.
• Healthy: multisig (e.g. ≥ 3-of-5) + timelock on sensitive actions; no single party holding a governance majority of the float.

Aim to assess at least 11 dimensions (the list above). Add token-specific ones (e.g. rebasing, bridge-mint risk, oracle dependence, ve-token lock dynamics) where relevant.

Step 4: Red-Flags Quick Scan

Fast triage — any hit warrants a deeper look; clusters of hits push the verdict toward High-risk or Likely-rug:

• Team + investors > 50% of supply (insider-dominated distribution).
• No vesting, or a very short cliff (insiders can dump near launch).
• FDV / MC > 10 (massive dilution overhang waiting to unlock).
• > 10% of float unlocking within 30 days (imminent cliff into the market).
• Top-10 holders > 50% of float (extreme concentration / dump risk).
• Mintable or unbounded supply (owner can print / dilute at will).
• LP not locked or burned (deployer can pull liquidity — classic rug).
• Anonymous team + unaudited contract (no accountability, unverified safety).
• Transfer tax > 10% (or asymmetric sell tax / honeypot pattern).

Step 5: Output Format

Produce the report in this order:

1. Header

Token · ticker · chain(s) · contract address · total/max/circulating supply · price/MC/FDV (with units) · data sources · what couldn't be verified (ⓘ).

2. Risk scorecard table

One row per key metric; columns: Metric · Value · Flag, using 🔴 (Critical) / 🟡 (Watch — Medium/High) / 🟢 (Healthy):

3. Allocation & unlock-schedule table

Allocation by bucket (% of total) plus each bucket's cliff/vesting and the near-term unlock load:

4. Top risks (prioritized)

Most material first, each with the evidence (the numbers / contract finding) behind it and its severity icon.

5. Verdict (one rating + one paragraph)

Conclude with exactly one rating and a one-paragraph justification:

• Healthy 🟢 — fair distribution, insiders well-vested, FDV/MC low, manageable unlocks, real utility/sinks, deep & locked liquidity, no rug vectors.
• Caution 🟡 — fundamentally workable but with one or two watch items (elevated FDV/MC, moderate insider share, gradual inflation) that need monitoring.
• High-risk 🟠 — multiple serious concerns (insider-heavy + weak vesting, FDV/MC > 10, large near-term unlocks, emissions-funded yield) that make a large drawdown likely.
• Likely-rug 🔴 — one or more Critical rug vectors (unlocked LP, mint/blacklist/pause owner, honeypot) or an extraction-by-design economy; treat as disqualifying absent strong, verifiable mitigation.

Disclaimer

This skill provides educational tokenomics analysis, not financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Cryptocurrency is a high-risk asset class — tokens can lose all value, smart contracts can be exploited, and tokenomics can be engineered to appear sound while extracting value from buyers. The benchmarks here are heuristics, not guarantees; passing this review does not make a token safe, and a clean scorecard can still precede a collapse. Always verify every figure on-chain against the token and vesting contracts, read any audit in full, and do your own research (DYOR) before interacting with or investing in any token. This skill is not affiliated with or endorsed by Anthropic or any data provider, exchange, or project.