#代币发行与分配 Seeing Brevis's token allocation plan, I was reminded of the various models I've seen over the years. 37% ecosystem, 32.2% community, 20% team, 10.8% investors—looking at these proportions in 2024, it indeed reflects a clear trend of change.

I remember those early projects where investors and the team often took over 60% of the tokens, and community incentives were almost meaningless. Only after experiencing a few losses did project teams realize that a low proportion of community incentives was like digging their own pits. The success of projects like Uniswap and Optimism proves the leverage effect of community incentives—more incentives lead to higher ecosystem activity and participation.

Brevis's current design clearly adopts this logic. The 32.2% community incentive share, combined with a dual incentive system for validators and stakers, indicates that they are focusing on mid- to long-term ecosystem development in the ZK track. The 24-month linear unlock after TGE also avoids the awkward situation of a dump right after launch. The team and investors unlocking after a year shows a particularly mature approach—at least initial users won't be immediately trapped and resentful.

However, there is still something worth observing. The 37% ecosystem development allocation seems healthy, but how efficiently it is executed and where the funds actually flow are the key factors determining the project's success or failure. I've seen too many projects where the ecosystem fund is piled high, only to end up as management’s private money.

The current question is whether Brevis can turn this allocation model into real attractiveness in the specific ZK verification track. No matter how sophisticated the tokenomics design is, without solid technological application and market demand as a foundation, it’s just talk on paper.