Time-based emission is arbitrary. It decouples supply growth from network utility, creating inflationary pressure irrespective of actual demand. This forces protocols like Avalanche and Solana to rely on speculative demand to absorb new tokens.
tokenomics-design-mechanics-and-incentives
Blog
Why Token Supply Should Be a Function of Network Usage, Not Time
Time-based token emissions are an arbitrary relic. This post argues for a first-principles model where new supply is minted only in response to verifiable, fee-paying demand, creating sustainable alignment between tokenholders and network utility.
introduction
THE MISALIGNED INCENTIVE
The Arbitrary Clock
Token emission schedules based on calendar time create misaligned incentives and economic fragility.
Usage-based emission aligns incentives. Supply expansion should be a function of verified network activity, like transaction volume or compute consumption. This creates a self-correcting economic flywheel where growth justifies inflation.
Proof-of-Work was usage-based. The Bitcoin block reward is a function of hashrate, a proxy for security expenditure. Modern protocols should index emissions to state growth or fee burn to achieve similar alignment.
Evidence: EIP-1559's fee burn mechanism demonstrates the stabilizing effect of linking token flow to usage. Protocols like Helium migrated to a usage-based model to correct for chronic oversupply.
key-trends
WHY CALENDARS ARE POOR PROXIES FOR VALUE
The Flaws of Time-Based Emissions
Legacy token models issue supply on a fixed schedule, decoupling inflation from utility and creating predictable sell pressure.
01
The Problem: Predictable Dumping
Time-based schedules create a mechanical sell-side pressure that markets front-run. This leads to perpetual underperformance versus the network's actual growth.
- Vesting cliffs create concentrated, predictable sell events.
- Yield farmers harvest and dump, extracting value without building.
- Token price becomes a function of emission schedule, not adoption.
>80%
Post-Vesting Drop
0 Utility
Link to Usage
02
The Solution: Usage-Bound Money
Supply expansion should be a direct function of on-chain economic activity. This aligns token issuance with value creation, turning inflation into a reward for utility.
- Mint tokens proportional to fees paid or value secured.
- Burn mechanisms create deflationary pressure during low activity.
- Examples: EIP-1559's base fee burn, Solana's priority fee distribution.
$8B+
ETH Burned
Direct Feedback
Supply <> Demand
03
The Problem: Misaligned Incentives
Paying for security or work with time-based emissions subsidizes idle capital. This attracts mercenary validators/stakers who exit during bear markets.
- Security budget is wasted on passive, non-productive stake.
- Protocols overpay for security during low-usage periods.
- See: The "Secure Capital" problem in early PoS networks.
-90%
Staker Drop-Off
Inefficient Spend
Security Budget
04
The Solution: Work-Based Staking Rewards
Rewards should be earned by performing verifiable work—processing transactions, providing liquidity, or proving data—not just locking tokens.
- Dynamic rewards tied to MEV captured, cross-chain messages relayed, or compute provided.
- Aligns staker revenue with user demand.
- Examples: EigenLayer restaking yields, Axelar interchain security fees.
Variable APR
Tied to Demand
Active Security
Not Passive
05
The Problem: Capital Inefficiency & Slippage
Emissions as a growth hack create phantom TVL that provides little real utility. Liquidity mining programs on Uniswap or Curve often see >70% capital flight post-incentives.
- Yield is a subsidy, not a sustainable revenue share.
- Capital chases emissions, not optimal price execution.
- Results in high slippage and shallow real liquidity.
70%+
TVL Flight
High Slippage
Real Depth
06
The Solution: Fee-Based Liquidity Rewards
Liquidity providers should earn a direct share of protocol fees, with emissions acting as a bootstrap mechanism that phases out. This creates a self-sustaining flywheel.
- Real Yield model replaces inflationary subsidies.
- Protocols like GMX and dYdX v4 pay LPs from trading fees.
- Emissions become a temporary accelerator, not the engine.
100% Fee Share
Sustainable Yield
Phased-Out
Inflationary Subsidy
thesis-statement
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
First Principles: Supply as a Derivative of Demand
Token supply schedules based on time create misaligned incentives, while supply derived from usage directly monetizes network demand.
Supply follows demand is the foundational economic principle. A token's primary function is to pay for network services like block space on Ethereum or compute on Solana. Issuing new tokens based on a calendar, as seen in Bitcoin's halving or most L1/L2 emission schedules, decouples supply from its actual utility.
Time-based emissions subsidize speculation. Protocols like Avalanche and Polygon use fixed schedules to bootstrap validators and liquidity. This creates a constant sell pressure from validators and farmers that the network's organic usage must offset, leading to inflationary pressure during low-demand periods.
Usage-based issuance monetizes growth. A model where new tokens are minted only when fees are paid—akin to a direct monetization of demand—aligns long-term value. EIP-1559's fee burn on Ethereum is a primitive step, creating a net supply reduction correlated with activity.
The derivative is the mechanism. The ideal system treats token supply as a derivative function of network usage metrics (e.g., fee revenue, total value settled). This turns the token into a direct claim on future cash flows, similar to how a share's float expands with secondary offerings tied to performance.
TOKEN SUPPLY DYNAMICS
Emission Models: Time vs. Usage
Comparing the core mechanics and economic outcomes of time-based (scheduled) versus usage-based (reactive) token emission models.
| Key Metric / Property | Time-Based (Scheduled) Emission | Usage-Based (Reactive) Emission | Hybrid Model |
|---|---|---|---|
Primary Emission Trigger | Elapsed time (e.g., per block, per epoch) | Proven network usage (e.g., fees paid, compute units) | Time-based base rate + usage-based bonus |
Supply Predictability | Fully deterministic, known inflation schedule | Indeterminate, depends on user demand | Base supply is predictable, total is not |
Tokenholder Dilution | Constant, regardless of network utility | Dilution scales with proven utility and revenue | Moderate, dilution increases with success |
Economic Alignment | Weak. Rewards participation, not necessarily value creation | Strong. Directly ties new supply to proven economic activity | Moderate. Balances predictability with alignment |
Example Protocols | Early Ethereum (pre-EIP-1559), many L1s at launch | Ethereum (post-EIP-1559 burn), Helium (Data Credits) | Solana (base inflation + transaction fee burn) |
Inflation During Bear Markets | High, constant dilution despite low usage | Low to zero, emission slows with network activity | Moderate, base dilution continues |
Primary Criticisms | Inefficient capital allocation, 'farm and dump' dynamics | Supply volatility complicates valuation models | Increased complexity in model design and communication |
Long-Term Viability Signal | Weak. Does not signal sustainable demand. | Strong. Expanding supply requires proven user-paid fees. | Moderate. Depends on the weight of the usage component. |
deep-dive
THE SUPPLY FUNCTION
Blueprint for a Demand-Driven Network
Token emission must be algorithmically pegged to core network activity, not a predetermined schedule.
Supply follows demand. Legacy tokenomics like Bitcoin's halving or Ethereum's fixed issuance are supply-side relics. A modern network's token supply function must be a real-time feedback loop, where new tokens are minted only to service verifiable demand for block space and state.
The metric is state growth. The primary cost for a network is storing permanent data. Protocols like Arbitrum and zkSync already charge fees for L1 state writes. Token inflation should directly fund this cost, creating a self-sustaining system where usage pays for its own infrastructure.
Counterpoint: Staking is secondary. Staking rewards for security are a subsidy, not a primary emission driver. In a demand-driven model, staking yield becomes a derivative of network utility, aligning security incentives with actual economic activity rather than passive capital.
Evidence: EIP-1559 as a precursor. Ethereum's fee burn mechanism creates a dynamic equilibrium between issuance and usage. A demand-driven network extends this logic by making the issuance variable, not just the burn. This is the natural evolution from EIP-1559 to a full tokenomic flywheel.
protocol-spotlight
DYNAMIC SUPPLY MODELS
Protocols Pointing the Way
Static token emission schedules are legacy thinking. The next generation of protocols ties supply directly to economic activity.
01
Ethereum's Post-Merge Deflation
The Problem: A fixed block reward is a subsidy, not a reward for utility.\nThe Solution: Burn a portion of transaction fees (EIP-1559) and make net issuance a function of network congestion.\n- Result: Ethereum supply has decreased by ~1.5% since The Merge during high-usage periods.\n- Mechanism: High gas demand > More ETH burned > Net negative issuance.
-1.5%
Net Supply Change
>4M ETH
Burned
02
MakerDAO's Direct Redemption Engine
The Problem: Governance token (MKR) value accrual is indirect and speculative.\nThe Solution: Use protocol surplus to buy and burn MKR, directly linking token supply to protocol revenue.\n- Result: ~$200M+ in MKR burned since 2020, reducing supply by over 10%.\n- Mechanism: DAI stability fees & liquidations generate surplus > Surplus buys MKR from market > MKR is permanently destroyed.
10%+
Supply Reduced
$200M+
Value Burned
03
The Frax Finance Flywheel
The Problem: Algorithmic stablecoins fail when collateral is exogenous.\nThe Solution: Frax Protocol uses its revenue to buy back and stake its governance token (FXS), making FXS supply a function of Frax's usage and profitability.\n- Mechanism: Frax minting fees & AMO profits > Buy FXS from market > Stake FXS to earn more revenue.\n- Result: Creates a reflexive loop where protocol growth directly increases FXS scarcity and staker yield.
70%+
FXS Staked
Multi-Asset
Revenue Backing
04
Helium's Shift to Usage-Based Mining
The Problem: Token emissions for hardware deployment created inflation without proven demand.\nThe Solution: Migrate to Solana and tie new HNT issuance exclusively to verifiable data transfer (IoT, Mobile).\n- Result: Supply growth is now gated by real-world utility, not a predetermined schedule.\n- Mechanism: Devices transfer data > Proof-of-Coverage validates > HNT minted proportional to data usage.
~100%
Usage-Gated
Solana
Settlement Layer
counter-argument
THE USAGE-DRIVEN SUPPLY ARGUMENT
Objections and Rebuttals
Addressing core critiques of dynamic token supply models tied to network utility.
Critique: It's Just Inflation: Critics equate dynamic supply with uncontrolled inflation. This is a false equivalence. Programmatic supply changes are a feedback mechanism, not a monetary policy. The model directly ties new token issuance to proven demand, unlike traditional inflationary models that dilute holders irrespective of network value creation.
Critique: It Destroys Predictability: Fixed schedules like Bitcoin's provide certainty but ignore network state. A usage-responsive supply creates superior long-term predictability by aligning token economics with actual utility. Protocols like Ethereum's EIP-1559 demonstrate that variable, demand-driven burn rates enhance economic stability more than rigid schedules.
Evidence from DeFi: Look at liquid staking tokens (LSTs). Their supply expands and contracts based on staking demand, creating a dynamic equilibrium. This model outperforms fixed-supply assets in capturing and retaining value within their respective ecosystems, as seen with Lido's stETH and Rocket Pool's rETH.
takeaways
THE NEW TOKENOMICS IMPERATIVE
TL;DR for Builders and Investors
Traditional token emission schedules are broken. Here's why dynamic, usage-based supply is the only viable model for sustainable growth.
01
The Problem: Inflation as a Subsidy
Time-based emissions create a permanent sell pressure from validators and farmers, decoupling token value from utility.
- Incentivizes mercenary capital and yield chasing.
- Creates a $10B+ annual inflation tax across major L1s/L2s.
- Leads to chronic underperformance vs. BTC/ETH for governance tokens.
$10B+
Annual Subsidy
-90%
Avg. Token Return
02
The Solution: Elastic Supply Anchors
Tie token minting/burning directly to core network state variables like gas consumed, fees paid, or TVL secured.
- Positive feedback loop: Usage growth directly increases token demand/scarcity.
- Automatic equilibrium: Supply contracts during low activity, reducing sell-side pressure.
- Real yield foundation: Validator rewards are funded by real economic activity, not dilution.
1:1
Usage-to-Supply
0%
Baseline Inflation
03
The Precedent: EIP-1559 & The Burn
Ethereum's fee burn mechanism proves the model works, creating a deflationary bias under high usage.
- $10B+ ETH burned since London fork, equivalent to a major buyback program.
- Net-negative issuance achieved post-Merge during congestion.
- Sets the standard: Makes 'security via inflation' models obsolete for L1s.
$10B+
Value Burned
-0.5%
Net Issuance
04
The Implementation: Dynamic Staking Rewards
Replace fixed APY with a revenue-sharing model where stakers earn a percentage of network fees.
- Aligns stakeholders: Validator income scales with network success.
- Eliminates dead subsidies: No rewards for securing an empty chain.
- See projects like: Solana's priority fee reform, Avalanche subnet economics, Celestia's data availability fee rollup.
Variable
APY
100%
Fee Capture
05
The Investor Lens: Scarcity as a Signal
Usage-based supply transforms tokens from governance coupons into network equity.
- Fundamental valuation: Token value directly tied to protocol cash flows (fees).
- Reduced volatility: Supply adjustments act as a built-in stabilizer.
- Due diligence shift: Focus on fee potential & burn mechanisms, not just emission schedules.
P/E Ratio
New Metric
Lower Beta
Volatility
06
The Builder's Playbook: Designing for Burn
Architect your protocol's fee mechanism to maximize sustainable token demand.
- Fee diversity: Implement multiple fee sinks (e.g., Uniswap's switch to fee-on-transfer).
- Strategic burning: Allocate a % of all revenue (not just gas) to buy-and-burn.
- Avoid the trap: Don't let treasury emissions become the primary sell pressure.
>50%
Revenue to Burn
Multi-Sink
Fee Design
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall