Postare

This post makes a valid point about why tokenomics matter, but it overstates the case in a few places. Here's a balanced take: What's accurate: ✅ A low token price (e.g. $0.10) does not mean a token is cheap. Market capitalization and fully diluted valuation (FDV) are much more informative. ✅ Large token unlocks can create selling pressure, especially if early investors or team allocations become liquid. ✅ Checking the circulating supply, unlock schedule, and token distribution before investing is good practice. Where it oversimplifies: ⚠️ Unlocks don't always cause price crashes. Sometimes they're already priced in, or demand is strong enough to absorb the new supply. ⚠️ Calling all low-float, high-FDV projects bad investments is too broad. Some have performed well despite unlocks because of strong adoption, revenue, or ecosystem growth. ⚠️ Saying "Charts tell you where price was. Tokenomics tells you where it's going." is catchy, but not literally true. Future price depends on many factors, including: User adoption Revenue and fees Market sentiment Macroeconomic conditions Competition Tokenomics A practical checklist before buying any token is: Circulating supply vs. maximum supply. Upcoming unlock schedule. Who receives unlocked tokens (team, VCs, foundation, community, staking rewards). Whether demand is growing fast enough to offset new supply. FDV compared with current market cap. Overall, I'd rate the post 8/10. It's a useful reminder that tokenomics are important, but tokenomics should be considered alongside fundamentals and market conditions—not as the only predictor of price.