Viewpoint: The market lacks a mindset that truly designs Tokens as long-term assets.

Author @sleepy0x13 Doodles TGE completely met my expectations, it's very typical, and I really can't think of anyone who would buy its coin, so this kind of trend now is not surprising, but rather reasonable.

I would like to talk about my views on issuing tokens for application layer projects in light of this matter.

Many Web3 application projects have an illusion: "If I issue a token and design sufficient utility, everything will be able to turn around."

Maybe they really think this way, or perhaps they have been educated by exchanges and VCs. But I believe this kind of thinking is fundamentally wrong.

1｜No one will buy your coin because of utility.

The first step for many projects designing tokens is: I want it to be usable. So they start designing reward mechanisms, ticket mechanisms, platform fee discounts, unlocking content, community governance, upgrade items... It looks very rich.

But the problem is: being able to use ≠ wanting to use, and it doesn't mean they will buy it.

I believe that the logic of an application layer token relying on functionality to drive demand has been untenable from day one. Why?

① Users have no motivation to use it at all.

You have set a path for users: use features → buy coins first → then consume. However, this action of "buying coins first" will not be initiated by the users.

• Discounts, unlocking, and permissions are features that users consider to be "default expectations" and are not sufficient to drive coin purchasing behavior.
• The features are not exclusive, and do not create pain points, so why should I use yours? Not to mention the cumbersome process and having to bear asset volatility.
• Users have a short-term usage mentality, while tokens are long-term tradable assets, resulting in a mismatch between the two.

② Functions cannot form sovereignty

The points, membership, and coupon systems of Web2 are fine, but no one has turned them into tokens.

• Tokens are circulating sovereign assets, and what you grant them is "ownership rights," not "one-time functionality."
• Functional scenarios (such as tipping and voting) are weak, temporary, and replaceable relationships, making them inherently unsuitable for assetization.

You turned the coffee loyalty card into a token, and users are confused: I just finished my coffee, why do I still have to bear the price fluctuations?

③ Consumption-type tokens are destined to face value spillover.

This is actually an underlying structural issue.

After users tip, the coins flow to the creator; when the creator cashes out, it means selling pressure. There is no value return mechanism, and the token becomes a one-sided circulation from users → creators → market.

There is no closed loop, only an open loop.

So it is not a question of whether one is willing to hold functional assets, but rather that the functional token lacks any "value retention mechanism" after use, which naturally creates continuous selling pressure.

In summary: Tokens are not tools, but sovereignty. Functions can only create one-time motivations, while assets require long-term faith, and the two are inherently in conflict.

2 | Products have a life cycle, while assets must be oriented towards the long term.

This is the most fatal yet easily overlooked issue with application layer tokens: lifecycle mismatch.

The lifecycle of consumer products is inherently short, especially for Web3 application products:

• User bonuses are consumed quickly, and retention costs are high.
• The migration barrier for creators and users is extremely low.
• Popularity is a scarce resource that is continuously diluted.

But a token is something else:

• It is a financial asset
• Can be priced, traded, valued, and allocated
• The existence time is unlimited.

You are endorsing a product with a lifecycle of 6 to 8 months for an asset that can theoretically be traded for 6 to 8 years. This is not a narrative issue; it is a structural mismatch.

Once you launch the token, the market immediately asks you from an asset perspective:

• Where does your income come from? Can it be sustained?
• Can the profits be distributed? How are they distributed?
• Can business growth drive token appreciation?

As a result, you pulled out community activity + product roadmap to explain the token value... this is not a valuation model, this is fantasy.

Therefore, tokens should not be tied to a specific "product", but should be linked to an "organization" that can continuously generate income and has an assetization logic.

That is to say: What you sent is not a token of a specific product, but rather a financial representation of a company, a complete content system, and even a cultural IP.

If you do not have such scalability, it means you are anticipating short-lived products while packaging the imagination of a perpetual asset. This is not building an ecosystem; it is prematurely hollowing out the future.

3｜Most utilities are a reluctant substitute for dividend logic.

I have talked to many project teams, and many of them actually understand that the most reasonable value anchor for a token is an asset-based incentive logic: dividends, buybacks, and protocol revenue sharing.

But why don't they do it? It's not that I don't understand; regulation is a hurdle that cannot be avoided.

• Clear dividends will trigger the determination of securities attributes.
• Add protocol fee sharing, and comply with the disclosure of income and distribution logic.
• Designing a staking profit-sharing mechanism can easily be regarded as a passive income scheme.

Once you embark on this path, it means you will face a series of issues such as compliance, auditing, KYC, financial transparency, and cross-border legal structures.

Therefore, most projects choose to "avoid" designing "pseudo-utility" that appears useful but is actually impossible to value. These mechanisms seem "legitimate and safe," but there is no real valuation structure that can support the token.

They all avoid the pricing logic of asset attributes. However, even if you don't treat tokens as assets, the market won't really treat them as points.

Investors, communities, and secondary market traders see this: this coin, if I hold it, can it bring cash flow, network dividends, or resource permissions in the future?

If you don't provide answers, they will give you a more direct response - selling off. The more you avoid, package, and use complex mechanisms to cover up the dividend logic, the faster the market will "see through your intention of not distributing profits," and then vote with their feet.

Is there a way to design a reasonable token model without crossing the red line? Maybe there is, but it must be very difficult. If you issue a long-term token that has asset attributes, then you must face this reality.

You may not distribute dividends, but you must clearly explain why the token is valuable.

Ultimately, utility is not the goal; it is a stopgap measure. The market is always grounded in reality and won't be deceived by narratives and mechanisms for too long.

You can design it to be roundabout, but in the end, you must answer that question: "What makes this coin worth holding?"

4｜Web3 does not need so many coins, what it needs is a real business closed loop.

Looking back at the development trajectory of Web3 over the past few years, we will find a trend that is becoming increasingly apparent: Tokens are becoming less like assets and more like hooks for narratives.

Many projects issue tokens not because they are indispensable in the model, but because they are too "useful":

• Build communities, conduct airdrops
• Set VC, uplift valuation
• Create narrative, cold start Tokens are seen as a tool for managing market expectations rather than as assets.

But if you use a token to carry the hype and narrative, but the underlying value capture logic is absent, then it will always just be a narrative container, rather than a profit-sharing mechanism.

From the moment this coin was launched, it was treated as an option by the market:

• When not making money, cast it aside like a worn-out shoe.
• If it rises a little, cash in on the arbitrage.
• No motivation for long-term holding, lacking valuation anchor

It's not that the token failed, but rather that you never intended for it to succeed from the beginning - you just let it fulfill its utility and then gave up on it.

A truly viable token must meet: ① Represents a real and sustainable value creation system ② There is a clear and verifiable value return mechanism. ③ Its issuance is not the goal, but rather a financial expression that naturally evolves from your business closed loop. In other words, issuing tokens is not a growth hack, but a manifestation of your business model maturing to the point where future profits can be tokenized.

Projects that do not create value are simply cashing in the bubble by issuing tokens. Projects without value backflow, issuing tokens is just creating a secondary relay race; A team without long-termism sees issuing tokens merely as a disguised path to exit.

Web3 is not lacking in technology, players, or money. What it lacks are projects that can design tokens as a form of structured financial responsibility.

5｜Token is a value contract, not an operational tool.

Issuing tokens, at its core, is not just a technical task or merely a matter of trust, but rather a design of financial structure.

You issue a token, which essentially equals signing a value commitment across time to the market: This system can create value. ② Holders have the right to receive a portion of the returns. ③ The issuer will use a certain mechanism to fulfill this right. This is a quasi-contractual relationship that does not need to be written down in black and white, but will be recorded by the market in every transaction and every candlestick.

So when you issue a token, the market assumes you have completed three things:

• You understand that what you are issuing is a financial instrument, not a platform point.
• You accept that you must distribute profits in a rational, transparent, and sustainable manner.
• You agree on a fact: Tokens are a trust asset that transcends time, and cannot be supported by popularity, but can only be realized through value.

But the reality is that most projects have no intention of structuring their assets:

• Use tokens to attract people, drive growth, and boost expectations
• Do not establish value return, do not assume asset liability. This is not building Web3, it's harvesting Web1 using the Web3 narrative.

Application layer tokens seem to have never been designed from an asset perspective. There has never been a closed loop established for value capture + distribution from the very beginning, nor has there been an assumption of the necessary financial responsibilities.

Web3 is not lacking in protocols, creativity, or narratives. What it lacks is a mindset that truly regards tokens as long-term assets. A respect for the capital markets, a sense of responsibility towards the holders, and a professional understanding of financial models.