Warnings
Available now. Warnings fire on risky design answers. They are not validation errors. You can still publish. Public pages and the studio computed panel show the same warning cards with worked examples.
Near-zero float does not fire when you are issuing and locking with no market. That path is intentional.
Float under 5%
Trigger: A distribution event or market at launch exists, and circulating float at launch is under 5%.
Meaning: A tiny circulating float makes the quoted price nearly meaningless. A small buy moves it violently up, the first unlock moves it violently down, and holders discover the fully diluted valuation was the real number all along. Low float plus high FDV is a common launch structure that ends badly.
Worked example: 3% float at a $10M FDV means $300k of real tokens set the price for the other $9.7M. When a month-6 cliff releases 15%, supply grows about 6× at once. Compare: a 15% float absorbs the same unlock as a 2× change.
Related: Computed outputs (4% float → 25× FDV:float).
Team cliff shorter than investors
Trigger: Team and investors both have allocation, and team cliff months are less than investor cliff months.
Meaning: The team can start exiting before the people who funded the project. Readers treat that as adverse selection. Standard practice is team terms at least as long as investor terms.
Worked example: Team 6-month cliff / 24-month vest vs investors 12-month cliff / 24-month vest. The team can sell for six months while investors are still locked. Flip the cliffs (team 12, investors 6 to 12) and the signal reverses.
Unlocks clustered in the same month
Trigger: Two or more cohorts’ first unlocks (after month 0) land in the same month.
Meaning: Cliffs that coincide concentrate sell pressure into a single date the market can see coming. Staggering them by even a quarter spreads the supply shock.
Worked example: Team and investors both cliff at month 12 → a large share of supply becomes liquid in one week. Staggered (investors month 9, team month 15), each event is smaller and the market has a price between them.
Sale with no undersubscription plan
Trigger: Distribution is a sale event (fixed-price, auction, or LBP) and undersubscription is “no plan yet.”
Meaning: If the sale does not fill, something happens by default. Default outcomes are often the worst: a half-funded treasury, an accidental low-float launch, or a quiet cancellation that burns trust. Decide: proceed, refund, or postpone.
Worked example: A 1,000 ETH hard-cap sale raises 180 ETH. Proceed anyway → you launch with 18% of planned runway and the same promises. Refund → buyers are whole and you re-scope. Postpone → you keep optionality. All three beat finding out live.
Does this actually need a token?
Trigger: Rationale “why” is “not sure yet,” or the “beyond a database row” text matches loyalty / points / cashback-style language.
Meaning: If a database row, a Stripe account, or a points table would do the same job, the token adds regulatory surface, sell pressure, and a second product to run, and removes nothing. Loyalty-style rewards are a classic false positive. A respectable exit is to publish a project and skip the token until it earns its place.
Worked example: “Users earn tokens for referrals” is a points column. “LPs stake the token to underwrite risk and get slashed on bad debt” cannot be a database row. The token is doing economic work a ledger entry cannot.
Related
Last updated
Was this helpful?