The core incentive is misaligned. Users earn tokens for engagement but need to sell them for real value, creating perpetual sell pressure. This turns the native token into a yield-bearing liability for the protocol, not a productive asset.
security-post-mortems-hacks-and-exploits
Blog
The Hidden Cost of 'X-to-Earn': When Incentives Destroy the Base Asset
An analysis of how models like StepN create a fundamental misalignment between user incentives and token value, leading to inevitable economic collapse. We examine the mechanics of infinite sell pressure and the Ponzinomic trap.
introduction
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
The Ponzinomic Trap: Earning a Token You're Incentivized to Sell
X-to-earn models create a structural sell pressure that collapses the token's utility and price.
Token velocity destroys value. Unlike Bitcoin's store-of-value or Ethereum's gas fee model, these tokens lack a sink. Every transaction is a sell order, as seen in the death spirals of STEPN (GMT) and Axie Infinity (AXS).
The protocol subsidizes its own collapse. Emission schedules fund user acquisition but dilute existing holders. This creates a Ponzi-like structure where new user inflows must cover the sell pressure from earlier cohorts, a dynamic that always fails.
Evidence: The STEPN treasury lost over 90% of its value in 2022. Axie's AXS/USD price fell 99% from its peak as daily active users collapsed, proving the model's unsustainability without a non-speculative utility sink.
key-insights
THE INCENTIVE MISALIGNMENT
Executive Summary
X-to-Earn models often create a fatal dependency on perpetual inflation, sacrificing long-term token viability for short-term user growth.
01
The Ponzi's Core: Sell-Side Pressure vs. Utility
The model's success is its failure. Every earned token is a future sell order. Without a sink stronger than the faucet, the token's primary utility becomes its own liquidation. This creates a death spiral where price decline kills engagement, which further crushes price.
- Key Metric: >90% of StepN's GMT token supply was earmarked for user rewards.
- Result: Token price fell >99% from ATH as emission schedules outpaced organic demand.
>90%
For Emission
-99%
Price Drop
02
The Illusion of Protocol Revenue
Protocols like Axie Infinity and STEPN touted high revenue, but it was a mirage. Revenue was denominated in the collapsing native token, not a stable asset. This meant real treasury value evaporated alongside the token, destroying the project's ability to fund development or sustain rewards.
- Case Study: Axie's $1.3B+ 2021 revenue (in AXS/SLP) became worth a fraction as tokenomics imploded.
- Verdict: Revenue must be measured in stable, exogenous assets to be meaningful.
$1.3B+
Nominal Revenue
~97%
Value Evaporated
03
The Sustainable Alternative: Fee-Burning & Real Yield
Successful models separate the utility token from the reward token. Protocols like GMX and dYdX use a real yield model, distributing fees generated from actual product usage (in stablecoins or ETH). Token value accrual comes from fee-burning or buybacks, not inflationary promises.
- Mechanism: User fees buy and burn the token, creating deflationary pressure.
- Result: Tokenomics are backed by cash flow, not speculation on future users.
$2B+
GMX Fees Paid
Deflationary
Token Model
thesis-statement
THE ECONOMIC VULNERABILITY
Core Thesis: The Incentive-Value Death Spiral
Protocols that pay users to interact with their token create a structural sell pressure that erodes the very value they promise.
The Ponzi-like emission schedule is the root flaw. Projects like StepN (GMT) and Helium (HNT) must mint new tokens to pay user rewards, creating perpetual inflation. This dilutes existing holders and establishes a constant sell pressure from users converting rewards to stablecoins.
Demand fails to match supply growth. The utility of the token rarely justifies its market cap. The speculative demand from new users chasing rewards is the primary price driver, not organic usage. When new user growth stalls, the sell pressure overwhelms buy pressure.
The death spiral is mathematically inevitable. As the token price falls, the protocol must mint more tokens to maintain the same USD-denominated reward, accelerating inflation. This creates a negative feedback loop where declining price begets more selling.
Evidence: Helium's HNT token supply increased by over 200% in two years while its price fell >95% from its ATH. The network's data transfer utility never scaled to match the token's inflated valuation.
case-study
THE HIDDEN COST OF 'X-TO-EARN'
Post-Mortem: The StepN Blueprint for Failure
StepN's collapse reveals how misaligned tokenomics can systematically destroy the very utility they promise to create.
01
The Death Spiral: Inelastic Supply vs. Hyperinflation
The core flaw was a fixed emission schedule of GMT/GST tokens into a user base with exponential growth potential. Every new user minted new sneakers, creating a perpetual oversupply of the base utility asset (GST).
- Inflationary Pressure: Daily token emissions far outpaced sustainable demand sinks.
- Sell-Side Dominance: Users earned to sell, not to hold, creating constant downward price pressure.
- No Natural Floor: Without a hard cap on user growth or emissions, the token's value was mathematically destined to approach zero.
>90%
Token Collapse
Uncapped
Supply Schedule
02
The Utility Mirage: Sinks That Couldn't Drain the Ocean
StepN's token sinks—minting, repair, upgrades—were feeble relative to emission volume and directly tied to user growth, creating a perverse feedback loop.
- Sink = More Supply: The primary sink (minting new sneakers) actually increased future token emissions.
- Negative Utility: As token price fell, the real-dollar cost of repairs became negligible, destroying the 'earn' proposition.
- Contrast with Axie: Unlike Axie's AXS staking and breeding fee burns, StepN's sinks were transactional, not value-accrual mechanisms.
Weak
Sink Strength
Ponzi-Like
Growth Model
03
The Oracle Problem: Real-World Activity as a Sybil Attack Vector
StepN's reliance on phone GPS and motion sensors to prove 'work' created a trivial Sybil attack surface. The 'move-to-earn' mechanism was fundamentally insecure and unverifiable at scale.
- Cheat Codes: Location spoofing and phone-jiggling scripts were rampant, further diluting token value with fraudulent earnings.
- No Cost of Fraud: Faking a run carried near-zero risk or cost, unlike Proof-of-Work's energy expenditure.
- Centralized Arbiters: The team's anti-cheat bans were a black box, highlighting the failure of decentralized verification.
Trivial
To Spoof
Centralized
Verification
04
The Blueprint for Sustainable 'Earn': Helium vs. StepN
Contrast StepN with Helium's IoT network, which succeeded longer by aligning token issuance with verifiable, capital-intensive infrastructure provision.
- Real Capital Lockup: Helium miners had to purchase and deploy physical hardware, creating a real cost barrier and commitment.
- Verifiable Work: Radio coverage proofs are cryptographically verifiable on-chain, unlike a step count.
- Utility-First: Tokens rewarded provision of a real-world service (network coverage), not just app engagement.
Hardware
Cost Barrier
On-Chain
Proof
TOKENOMIC DRAIN
The Sell Pressure Math: A Comparative Autopsy
Quantifying the structural sell pressure and capital inefficiency of popular 'X-to-Earn' models versus sustainable alternatives.
| Key Metric | Play-to-Earn (Axie Infinity) | Move-to-Earn (StepN) | DePIN (Helium, Hivemapper) | Sustainable Staking (Lido, Rocket Pool) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Primary Reward Asset | SLP (Inflationary Utility Token) | GST (Inflationary Utility Token) | HNT / HONEY (Network Token) | stETH / rETH (Yield-Bearing Derivative) |
Reward Emission Schedule | Uncapped, demand-based | Capped but high initial inflation | Halving-based, capped supply | Derived from Ethereum consensus (≈3-4% APY) |
Intrinsic Utility of Reward Token | Breeding fee sink (single use) | Mint/Repair fee sink (circular economy) | Network governance & data transfer settlement | Liquid staking derivative for DeFi composability |
Sell Pressure Source | Scholars cashing out SLP for stablecoins | Users selling GST to cover NFT costs/realize profit | Hotspot owners selling to cover hardware/operational costs | Minimal; rewards are auto-compounded in derivative |
Estimated Daily Sell Pressure (% of MC) | 3-8% at peak (2021) | 5-12% at peak (2022) | 0.5-2% (scaling with data transfer revenue) | < 0.1% (organic DeFi yield seeking) |
Required Daily New Capital Inflow for Price Stability | $3M - $8M (peak) | $10M - $25M (peak) | Scales with network utility & data revenue | Net positive yield from base chain (Ethereum) |
Capital Efficiency (Value Accrual) | ❌ | ❌ | ⚠️ (Requires physical utility) | ✅ |
Ponzi Designation (Crypto Definition) | True | True | False | False |
deep-dive
THE TOKENOMIC TRAP
The Mechanics of Infinite Sell Pressure
X-to-Earn models create a perpetual sell-side imbalance by decoupling token issuance from protocol utility.
Incentive misalignment is structural. Protocols like STEPN and Axie Infinity issue tokens for user actions, but the base asset lacks intrinsic utility beyond speculation. Users earn to sell, not to hold, creating a permanent sell-side imbalance.
Token emissions outpace demand. The inflationary token supply must be absorbed by new capital. This is a Ponzi-like dynamic where sustainability requires exponential user growth, a condition no market can maintain indefinitely.
The death spiral is mathematical. When new user inflow slows, sell pressure exceeds buy pressure, collapsing price. This reduces user earnings, accelerating the negative feedback loop until the token is worthless.
Evidence: Axie Infinity's SLP token fell >99% from its peak. The daily token emissions consistently dwarfed any utility-based demand, proving the model's fundamental flaw.
counter-argument
THE INCENTIVE DESIGN
Steelman: Could It Ever Work?
A viable X-to-Earn model requires a closed-loop economy where rewards are funded by sustainable protocol revenue, not token dilution.
Sustainable reward sourcing is the non-negotiable prerequisite. The model fails when rewards are pure token emissions, as seen with StepN's GMT or Axie Infinity's SLP. Successful systems like Helium Mobile fund rewards directly from user subscription fees, creating a real economic flywheel.
The base asset must be utility-first. The token's primary function cannot be its own speculation; it must be a required input for a valuable service. Filecoin's FIL for storage or Ethereum's ETH for gas are canonical examples of this dynamic.
Protocol-owned value capture is the escape hatch. A treasury that accumulates fees from network activity, similar to Frax Finance's sFRAX vault or Uniswap's fee switch, can subsidize early growth without infinite inflation, transitioning to a revenue-sharing model.
Evidence: Helium's Mobile sub-DAO demonstrates this, where over 90% of token rewards to node operators are now sourced from telecom revenue, not new token minting, creating a net-positive sink for the HNT token.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
FAQ: Builder's Guide to Avoiding the Trap
Common questions about the hidden economic risks of 'X-to-Earn' models and how to avoid destroying your protocol's base asset.
Incentive misalignment occurs when user rewards are decoupled from the protocol's core value creation. Projects like STEPN and Axie Infinity paid users in their native token for activity, creating massive sell pressure that collapsed the token's price and utility. This turns the token into a yield-bearing liability instead of a governance or utility asset.
takeaways
INCENTIVE DESIGN
TL;DR for Builders
X-to-Earn models often create a fatal misalignment between protocol growth and token value, leading to hyperinflationary death spirals.
01
The Core Flaw: Token as Both Reward and Currency
Using the same token for staking, governance, and user payouts creates a permanent sell-side pressure. Every earned token is a potential sale, diluting holders and decoupling price from utility.\n- Problem: Rewards are a liability, not a cost.\n- Result: >90% of such tokens underperform ETH after 12 months.
>90%
Underperform ETH
High
Sell Pressure
02
The Solution: Dual-Token or Fee-Burning Mechanics
Separate the incentive token from the value-accrual asset. See Axie Infinity's (AXS/SPL) shift or StepN's (GMT/GST) model. The base asset (AXS, GMT) captures protocol fees and governance, while the utility token (SPL, GST) absorbs inflationary rewards.\n- Key: Base asset supply must be deflationary or fixed.\n- Example: Helium's (HNT) migration to Solana and burn mechanisms.
Dual
Token Model
Fixed
Base Supply
03
The Metric: Protocol-Controlled Value (PCV) Over TVL
Forget Total Value Locked (TVL). Measure Protocol-Controlled Value—assets owned by the treasury and used to back the token. Projects like Olympus DAO (OHM) pioneered this. It creates a non-dilutive war chest for incentives and establishes a hard price floor.\n- Action: Design for PCV growth > reward emissions.\n- Result: Sustainable subsidies without inflating circulating supply.
PCV
Key Metric
Non-Dilutive
Incentives
04
The Pivot: From Speculation to Utility Sinks
Move beyond pure speculation. Force earned tokens into in-protocol utility sinks that create real demand. Think NFT upgrades, feature unlocks, or staking for premium access. Games like Parallel tie card power to staked assets.\n- Rule: Sink demand must exceed farm sell pressure.\n- Tool: Implement veTokenomics (like Curve's CRV) to lock supply and align long-term holders.
Utility Sinks
Create Demand
veTokenomics
Align Holders
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