Finally, the situation is becoming clearer. MARU's tokenomics has been released, but the allocation for the creator campaign is much less than expected, and it seems the community is getting restless. The design of the allocation ratio reveals the project's direction, so it's understandable that such reactions are happening. Well, disputes over token distribution are quite common, after all.
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
21 Likes
Reward
21
6
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
RetroHodler91
· 11-14 18:49
The allocation is too little, isn't it a bit ridiculous?
View OriginalReply0
OnchainUndercover
· 11-12 05:04
Once again, it's about using distribution to provoke conflicts and stir up community disputes.
View OriginalReply0
quiet_lurker
· 11-11 22:16
Token allocation never ends, does it?
View OriginalReply0
SchrodingerGas
· 11-11 22:16
Classic Case in Behavioral Economics: Failure of Expectation Management
View OriginalReply0
DeFiDoctor
· 11-11 22:12
One-eye token distribution is uneven, a typical sign of centralization syndrome.
View OriginalReply0
WenMoon
· 11-11 22:07
play people for suckers and it's done. Looking forward to the next peak.
Finally, the situation is becoming clearer. MARU's tokenomics has been released, but the allocation for the creator campaign is much less than expected, and it seems the community is getting restless. The design of the allocation ratio reveals the project's direction, so it's understandable that such reactions are happening. Well, disputes over token distribution are quite common, after all.