The sources provided do not explicitly address Golden Tides's token allocation and vesting schedule, leaving significant gaps in understanding.
There is no information on the percentage allocation of tokens among team members, advisors, early investors, or gamers.
The absence of details on the vesting schedule, including whether it employs a linear or graded approach or includes cliff periods, makes it impossible to assess fairness or transparency.
No measures are discussed to ensure team commitment or prevent token dumping, raising concerns about market manipulation.
The lack of communication about allocation details or changes indicates minimal transparency, which is a critical aspect of fairness and strategic alignment.
Without clear information, the tokenomics cannot be compared to industry standards or evaluated for alignment with long-term project goals.
Introduction
Token allocation and vesting schedules are critical components of Web3 games, as they influence fairness, transparency, and long-term project sustainability.
In the case of Golden Tides, the provided sources do not explicitly address these aspects, leaving significant gaps in our understanding of the game’s tokenomics.
This report will cover:
The limited available information on Golden Tides's token allocation and vesting schedule.
The challenges in assessing fairness, transparency, and strategic alignment without explicit details.
The need for additional information to conduct a comprehensive evaluation.
Limited Information on Tokenomics
The sources provided focus primarily on gameplay mechanics, NFTs, and the broader game economy, rather than specific details about token allocation and vesting schedules.
While the game features two in-game currencies, $DOUBLOONS and $GT, the sources do not detail how these tokens are distributed or the mechanisms governing their release.
[1a]
The sources discuss $DOUBLOONS and $GT as in-game currencies but do not provide specifics on allocation or vesting.
[1b]
No information is provided on the percentage of tokens allocated to the team, advisors, early investors, or gamers.
The vesting schedule, including whether it employs a linear or graded approach or includes cliff periods, is not discussed.
Challenges in Assessing Fairness and Transparency
Without explicit details on token allocation and vesting schedules, it is difficult to assess the fairness, transparency, and strategic soundness of Golden Tides's tokenomics.
The absence of information raises questions about whether the team’s incentives are aligned with the project’s long-term success and whether other stakeholders’ interests are adequately protected.
It is unclear whether the team’s token allocation aligns with the project’s long-term goals.
There is no evidence of measures to ensure team commitment throughout the vesting period.
The lack of transparency makes it impossible to determine if the tokenomics are strategically sound or if there are risks of token dumping.
Conclusion
The lack of explicit information on Golden Tides's token allocation and vesting schedule limits our ability to assess its fairness, transparency, and strategic alignment.
Addressing these gaps is essential for a more comprehensive evaluation of the game’s tokenomics and its alignment with long-term project success.
The available sources do not provide details on token allocation or vesting schedules.
The absence of this information makes it impossible to determine if the tokenomics are fair, transparent, or strategically sound.
Future research should focus on obtaining detailed information on token allocation and vesting to provide a more comprehensive analysis.
