.avif)
Why token allocation matters
Token allocation isn’t just a table in your whitepaper. It’s one of the first things investors check — often before your pitch deck, product, or even team. Why? Because it reflects how well you understand incentives, priorities, and risk.
Founders often copy token splits from other projects, hoping it will “look right.” But allocation isn’t about making numbers add up. It’s about telling a coherent story. A careless split reveals a lack of strategic thinking and raises doubts about everything else.
If you can’t clearly explain who gets tokens, why they get them, and how those tokens unlock — investors won’t just be confused. They’ll assume you don’t understand your own business model.
At Mezen, we’ve seen investors pass on otherwise strong products just because the token allocation made them uneasy. In Web3, where trust is fragile and attention is scarce, that’s all it takes.
Who needs tokens — and why
Your token allocation should reflect the utility behind it. Once you’ve defined how your token creates value in the product — and for whom — allocation becomes the quantitative expression of that utility. Each stakeholder group should receive tokens for a reason directly tied to their role, and on a schedule that reflects it:
Team
This is your core. Their tokens should vest longer than anyone else's — often 3 to 5 years. Anything faster signals weak commitment and creates selling pressure.
Investors
They take early risks and expect returns, but smart vesting protects against short-term flips. Structures like 12-month lock-up periods followed by 18–24-month linear unlocks are common.
Community
These tokens should encourage real engagement — participation, not speculation. Airdrops are fine, but only if paired with ongoing incentive mechanisms.
Treasury
Think of this as your capital reserve for future development and unexpected needs. Lack of clarity on treasury usage often spooks both communities and investors.
Ecosystem development
These tokens fuel collaborations, integrations, and network growth. But the allocation should match actual plans — otherwise, it looks like filler.
Each percentage should map directly to your strategic needs. If you're copying numbers from a competitor without understanding why they work, your model will fall apart under scrutiny.
What investors look for
Investors read token allocations like a map of your priorities. Here’s what they focus on:
Circulating supply at TGE: How many tokens hit the market at launch? Too many = instant sell pressure. Too few = poor liquidity. Investors want a healthy float, not a flood.
Vesting and lock-ups: Long vesting with meaningful lock-up periods shows commitment. If the team waits 4 years but VCs can sell in 6 months, it’s a red flag. Vesting doesn’t have to be equal — but it must make sense.
Who unlocks first — and why: Early unlocks should have a reason. If marketing tokens unlock fast to drive growth, fine. If the founding team can sell before the product is live, that’s a problem.
Unlocks vs. roadmap: Tokens should unlock as the project matures. If a large portion of your total supply unlocks before the product is usable, it looks like you’re front-running value. Align unlocks with real milestones — launches, partnerships, user growth.
Total supply and inflation: Is your token supply capped? Can new tokens be minted? If yes — for what? Too much future inflation scares investors. Be transparent. Show you’ve thought about long-term value, not just launch hype.
One infamous case: Aptos launched with 48.98% of its total supply allocated to insiders — including core contributors (19%), the foundation (16.5%), and investors (13.48%). The backlash was immediate, even before full vesting schedules were published. Why? Because perception matters. A fair-looking allocation builds trust. A lopsided one — even with lockups — destroys it.
Mistakes in allocation that kill trust
Even promising projects can be undermined by mistakes in token allocation. It’s tragic but common: a team with a great idea loses investor interest or community support because their token distribution raises too many concerns. To avoid that fate, watch out for these common token allocation mistakes:
Huge team allocation, no lock-up: If the team takes a large share with no vesting, expect people to walk away. Founders need to earn their rewards over time. Anything else looks like a cash-out.
Early unlocks, no product: If tokens flood the market before there’s anything to use them for, price crashes are almost guaranteed. Align unlocks with actual progress, not just time.
Oversized ecosystem funds with no plan: A big allocation labeled “ecosystem” without clear initiatives looks like a blank check. Be specific: grants, partnerships, incentives — what exactly will it fund, and when?
Simultaneous unlocks: When multiple lock-up periods expire at the same time — team, advisors, VCs — the market gets flooded, and price tanks. Stagger unlocks to avoid panic. Investors hate sudden supply spikes.
These aren’t minor errors. They can sabotage fundraising and damage reputation.
A notorious example is Internet Computer (ICP). At launch, nearly 50% of the supply went to insiders with no lock-up. Within weeks, the foundation moved ~$3.6B worth of tokens to exchanges. The price crashed by 95%. Whether or not it was intentional, the damage was done — and a once top-10 project became a cautionary tale.
If you’re unsure, get a second opinion
At Mezen, we’ve reviewed dozens of allocation plans. 90% of founders who arrive with a pre-made allocation plan think it is "almost final." In 80% of those cases, we find issues — some minor, some critical.
Ask yourself: Can you justify every category? Every percentage? Every unlock date? If not — neither will your investors.
A strong allocation is more than a line item in your tokenomics. It’s a strategic foundation for launch, fundraising, and long-term trust.
📩 Need a second opinion? Book a call to review your allocation plan. We’ll pressure-test your model, highlight weak spots, and help you design a structure that investors will understand — and fund.
