The issue with pointing to recent tokens and saying they have a good model is there's not enough data on how this impacted the project long term. I'm all for experimenting but be careful copying playbooks with assumptions it's the way to go. You can't really undo adding a token

Co-founder @bountycaster (bountycaster.xyz). Co-producer @ethereumfilm. Previously co-founder of Scalar Capital and product at Coinbase

You’re absolutely right. In crypto, the long-term impact of tokenomics, or adding a token to a project, is still largely uncharted territory, and there’s a lot of speculation based on short-term successes or trends. Projects that get hyped for having strong token models can sometimes face unintended consequences, especially when the infrastructure, community, and long-term utility haven’t been properly tested.

The problem is that adding a token is like a permanent commitment—it’s not easy to retract or adjust, especially if it becomes central to a project's value proposition. The token itself might look good on paper, but without a solid model that includes sustainability, scalability, and actual use cases, it can lead to complications down the road. Many projects fail to properly anticipate the long-term effects of inflationary token models or liquidity issues, for instance.

What do you think could be some safer ways to introduce tokens while minimizing the risks associated with them?