Coin Ownership or Equity Ownership? The Real Question Is Being Asked Wrong

By: blockbeats|2026/03/30 03:44:29
0
Share
copy
Original Article Title: more on dual token + equity models in crypto
Original Article Author: @mdudas
Translation: Peggy, BlockBeats

Editor's Note: Amid the ongoing debate on "whether tokens are equivalent to equity" and "whether the dual structure is doomed to fail," this article offers a more restrained judgment, emphasizing that the key lies not in the structure, but in the people. Mike Dudas points out that tokens are not inherently superior to equity, and DAOs have not proven to be suitable for carrying application-layer projects requiring long-term leadership. What can truly survive the cycles are teams with long-term vision and execution.

As the boundary between tokens and equity becomes increasingly blurred, the dual structure of token + equity is becoming a common choice for application-layer projects. As observed by institutions like Delphi Digital, equity is moving onto the blockchain, and tokens are also converging toward equity-like properties. Mike Dudas reminds in the article that whether this hybrid model can be successful ultimately depends on whether incentives are aligned and commitments are continually fulfilled — this is becoming a watershed for application-layer projects in the next cycle.

The following is the original article:

There is no simple answer or "one-size-fits-all" solution to whether the "dual token + equity" structure is feasible. But there is one core principle: you must genuinely believe that this team is exceptional and possesses long-term thinking — they are the kind of team willing and capable of running things as if they were leading a company for decades to come.

In many cases, I would argue that for application-layer projects requiring long-term leadership, tokens may even be inferior to equity as a tool. For example, you will see that many protocol founders from the DeFi 1.0 era have largely stepped away from the projects; many projects are now maintained in a "maintenance mode" under the governance of DAOs or other part-time contributors, struggling to operate.

It turns out that DAOs and token-weighted voting are not good decision-making mechanisms, especially in application-layer projects — they struggle to make high-quality judgments in situations that require quick decision-making and rely on "founder-level" knowledge and capabilities.

Of course, the "pure equity model" is also not strictly superior to tokens in any sense. Binance is a good counterexample: tokens enable them to offer fee rebates, be used for airdrops and permissioned staking mechanisms, and a range of incentives and benefits related to the core business and blockchain ecosystem... things that are challenging to clearly express and achieve through traditional equity.

The so-called "Ownership Coins" themselves also have clear limitations: currently, they are difficult to truly embed in a product or protocol for internal use. Distributed applications and networks are fundamentally different from traditional companies (otherwise, why are we doing these things?), and pure equity tools themselves are not flexible enough. In the future, it is certainly possible that some form of "Equity-Plus" token will emerge, but this is not today's reality; coupled with the lack of clear market structure laws in the U.S. to date, launching a "quasi-equity token" with direct value attribution and legal rights remains highly risky.

Anyway, you can imagine a world similar to what Lighter describes: equity entities operating on a "cost-plus" basis, becoming the engine serving the token-driven protocol.

In this scenario, the equity entity is not aimed at maximizing profit but rather at maximizing the value of the token protocol and its ecosystem.

If successful, this would be an extremely valuable gift to token holders — because you own a well-funded lab-type entity (Lighter has a token treasury for long-term development), while core participants hold a significant amount of tokens and are thus strongly incentivized to drive token value growth; and the core token design still remains crypto-native, on-chain, and distinct from a relatively independent, more complex structured lab entity.

In such a structure, you have to trust the team. Because in most current designs, token holders do not have strong legal rights. But if you don't trust the team to execute and create value for the tokens they hold a large amount of, why did you get into the token in the first place?

Ultimately, everything depends on the team's ability, credibility, execution, vision, and proven behavior. The longer an excellent team stays in the market, continually delivering on what they promised to do, the more "Lindy Effect" their token will become.

Assuming the team communicates well and clearly conveys value through buybacks, meaningful governance mechanisms, and the real-world usability of the underlying protocol to the token, you will see in 2026: even in the presence of equity/lab entities, the very best tokens will truly stand out.

[Original Article Link]

You may also like

ZachXBT: Humanity private key leak and abnormal surge in H token should be viewed separately

On June 9, according to related disclosures, on-chain investigator ZachXBT posted an update on Humanity’s roughly $31 million security incident, saying that after further analyzing fund flows, he currently tends to believe the project team was not involved in an “inside job” or a self-staged attack. According to him, the official explanation about the private key leak was broadly accurate, but before the token unlock, the price of H had been artificially pushed higher, and the hacker later took advantage of that market environment; therefore, the private key leak and the earlier abnormal price pumping should be regarded as two separate and independent events. This reframing has shifted the market’s understanding of the nature of the incident. Earlier discussion around Humanity had focused on whether the team directly participated in the attack or used the security incident to cover up internal operations. ZachXBT’s latest remarks shift the focus from “whether it was self-theft” to “whether there were pre-unlock market structure issues.” He also questioned whether the team may have.

Morning Report | OpenAI has submitted an S-1 registration statement draft to the U.S. SEC; Morpho completes $175 million financing

Overview of Important Market Events on June 9th

Morning Report | BitMine increased its holdings by 126,971 ETH last week; trader Eugene announced his exit from the crypto market

Overview of Important Market Events on June 8th

Wang Chuan: How can one not feel anxious after the neighbor Old Wang made thirty times profit by investing in storage stocks? (Seven) - A quarter-century cycle

In-depth analysis of the "reflexivity" bubble trap in storage stocks: Beware of the backlash from the bullwhip effect and the false narrative of high growth; do not let the short-term myth of wealth become a wealth abyss that cannot be recovered for 25 years.

Cryptocurrency CEXs are flocking to sell US stocks, and traditional brokerages are facing an "uninvited guest."

The major reshuffle has just begun.

$75 billion in foreign capital has fled, and South Korean retail investors have absorbed it all using leverage

Despite the accelerated migration of Korean funds from cryptocurrency to the stock market, the Korean market remains an important barometer for global cryptocurrency retail liquidity and recovery turning points.

Popular coins

Latest Crypto News

Read more
iconiconiconiconiconiconicon
Customer Support:@weikecs
Business Cooperation:@weikecs
Quant Trading & MM:bd@weex.com
VIP Program:support@weex.com