# Tokenomics Review > Review a crypto token's economics for red flags — supply & FDV, insider allocation & vesting, emissions/inflation, unlock overhang, liquidity, and rug vectors. Outputs a risk scorecard and verdict. Use for token due diligence, launch review, or investment screening. - Skill: `viprasol-tech/tokenomics-review` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 6 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add viprasol-tech/tokenomics-review` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/viprasol-tech/tokenomics-review/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: Viprasol-Tech (https://skillmd.com/u/viprasol-tech) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/viprasol-tech/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: | Field | Why it matters | |---|---| | **Token / ticker** | Identifies the asset; enables on-chain and tracker lookup. | | **Chain(s)** | Determines tooling, standard (ERC-20/SPL/etc.), bridge & liquidity context. | | **Contract address** | The ground truth. Everything else (supply, mint authority, taxes) is verifiable here. | | **Total / Max / Circulating supply** | Total = minted; Max = hard cap (or "unbounded"); Circulating = liquid float. The gap is future dilution. | | **FDV vs Market cap** | FDV = price × max/total supply; MC = price × circulating. A wide gap = large unlock overhang. | | **Allocation breakdown** | Team, investors/VCs, community/airdrop, treasury/DAO, liquidity/LP, ecosystem/rewards — as % of total. | | **Vesting, cliffs & unlock schedule** | When and how each bucket unlocks: cliff length, then linear/stepped release; % of float unlocking over the next 30/90/365 days. | | **Emission schedule** | New tokens minted over time (staking/farming rewards, inflation rate %/yr) and whether it tapers. | | **Utility / sinks** | What the token is *for* and what removes it from supply (fees, burns, buybacks, locked staking, collateral). | | **Liquidity** | DEX/CEX liquidity depth ($) vs market cap; is the LP **locked or burned**, and for how long? | | **Team & audit** | Doxxed vs anonymous team; reputable audit(s) vs none; verified source on the explorer. | 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: | Severity | Icon | Meaning | |---|---|---| | **Critical** | 🔴 | Likely-rug or structurally insolvent economics — an active rug vector (unlocked LP, mint authority, blacklist/pause owner) or an extraction design that predictably transfers value from buyers to insiders. Treat as disqualifying absent strong mitigation. | | **High** | 🟠 | Severe, value-destroying risk — e.g. insiders > 50% with weak vesting, FDV/MC > 10, a large near-term unlock cliff, ponzi-style emissions. Materially raises the odds of a large drawdown. | | **Medium** | 🟡 | Notable concern that needs monitoring or context — elevated but not damning (moderate insider share, FDV/MC 3–10, thin-but-locked liquidity, gradual inflation). | | **Low** | 🟢 | Minor / acceptable — within healthy benchmarks; note for completeness. | | **Info** | ⓘ | Neutral context, assumption, or item that couldn't be verified (mark data gaps here, not as a pass). | 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): | Metric | Value | Flag | |---|---|---| | Insider (team+investor) allocation | 55% | 🔴 | | Vesting (cliff / linear) | 6-mo cliff, then 12-mo | 🟡 | | FDV / MC | 15× | 🔴 | | Top-10 holders (ex-LP/treasury) | 41% | 🟡 | | Unlock in next 30d (% of float) | 4% | 🟢 | | Emission / inflation | 6%/yr, tapering | 🟢 | | Liquidity depth vs MC | 7% | 🟢 | | LP lock / burn | Locked 12 mo | 🟢 | | Mint / pause / blacklist | None; owner renounced | 🟢 | | Transfer tax | 0% | 🟢 | ### 3. Allocation & unlock-schedule table Allocation by bucket (% of total) plus each bucket's cliff/vesting and the near-term unlock load: | Bucket | % of supply | Cliff | Vesting | Notable unlock | |---|---|---|---|---| | Team | 20% | 12 mo | 36-mo linear | — | | Investors | 25% | 6 mo | 24-mo linear | 6-mo cliff release | | Community / airdrop | 20% | none | 50% at TGE | TGE | | Treasury / DAO | 20% | none | DAO-controlled | — | | Liquidity | 10% | locked | — | — | | Ecosystem / rewards | 5% | none | emissions | ongoing | ### 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.