In the cryptocurrency market, pricing is a core skill that impacts both project teams’ token designs and retail investors’ strategies. This concept is abstract and challenging to cover comprehensively in one article. Instead, this piece aims to spark discussion by examining recent successful cases and exploring how projects can maximize value through thoughtful pricing strategies in the current cycle.
Lessons from Successful Cases
MyShell: Low-Cost Concessions for Community Support
MyShell’s tokenomics were far from ideal: 29% allocated to private sales, 12% to the team, and 3% to advisors, totaling 44% held by VCs and insiders—a textbook “VC project.” With a large airdrop, broad coverage, a 4% low-priced Binance wallet IDO, and a 22% circulating supply at launch, it risked a Solv-level disaster if listed directly on an exchange. Yet, MyShell exceeded expectations by strategically conceding a portion of its chips at ultra-low costs, trading reasonable profits for community attention and goodwill. Rather than rushing to Binance, it allowed further trading on DEXs, ultimately achieving a healthy chip structure and a $500 million FDV upon listing. The key takeaway: sacrificing short-term gains for lower entry costs and a gradual listing timeline stabilized market expectations.Kaito: Long-Tail Airdrops and Sentiment Play
Kaito excelled in its outreach but faced initial pressure from KOL sell-offs and airdrop dissatisfaction, resulting in a suboptimal early chip structure. The team made two smart moves: first, distributing airdrops to long-tail users, reducing early selling pressure and making total claims unpredictable, thus curbing concentrated dumps; second, pricing at $1 billion after observing the IP and Bera shorting frenzy, a balanced figure in a market where bulls and bears were at odds. This allowed confident users to absorb early sell-offs at a reasonable price point, followed by positive signals to drive upward momentum. In contrast, Solayer, a prior project, priced at $1 billion amid high TGE dumping and strong shorting sentiment, proving too lofty. It relied on Binance listing hype and short squeezes for a brief spike but struggled to sustain organic growth.Movement: Seizing the Perfect Timing
Movement’s success has been widely discussed (see past articles). It thrived by aligning its pricing with market sentiment and launching at an optimal moment, leveraging solid tokenomics and product strength.
Pricing Logic in the New Cycle
In the last cycle, life was easy for projects. Releasing technical breakthroughs (public chain rallies), partnerships (Chainlink being a prime example), or tokenomics (DeFi projects) was enough to trigger market buying, as traders formed habits based on past successes. However, as market participants evolved, these signals became “topping indicators” or “rat pool” traps. Without proactive market-making, projects lost attention, spiraling into a negative feedback loop of neglect.
In the new cycle, projects must understand traders’ needs—not just manipulating prices but knowing what signals the market craves. Specifically, they should:
Assess Their Value Clearly
Chip Structure: Airdrop composition and TGE acquisition costs matter. Solv’s airdrops, effectively costing zero, left buyers with sky-high entry prices, worsening its structure.
Exchange Liquidity: Is the market short- or long-dominated? Pricing must adapt accordingly.
Market Sentiment: Movement’s launch timing capitalized on peak positivity.
Product Strength: Can it consistently deliver good news? Kaito and Sign exemplify this.
Highlight Strengths, Downplay Weaknesses
Projects should tailor their market exit based on their profile. MyShell traded profits for consensus, Kaito stabilized chips via long-tail airdrops and sentiment timing. Solv, however, floundered: with a lukewarm product, mediocre sentiment, and a $1.5 billion opening despite zero-cost airdrops, it chased short-term pumps through questionable means, only to alienate supporters and ruin its chip structure.
Traders’ Valuation Systems and Market Evolution
Money in this cycle is “smarter,” with traders developing their own valuation frameworks. If pricing consistently leaves buyers unprofitable, expectations drop, making new token launches harder to price. From ARB to Ena, launch hype peaked, but as the market cooled and projects cashed out, buyers lost money, plunging sentiment to a low point—evidenced by recent “collective shorting at launch” phenomena.
For many projects, relying solely on “luck” (market conditions) and “cashing out” yields limited gains. A better approach is to align opening prices with market acceptance, rally core users, nail the first month, and plan long-term once stabilized. Exchanges also discourage dumping millions daily (e.g., $10M+), forcing teams to strategize pricing and pacing.
Conclusion
Pricing is an art and a strategy. In the new cycle, projects can’t lean on simple hype or inflated launches—they must grasp market sentiment, user needs, and their own positioning. Whether it’s MyShell’s concession for consensus, Kaito’s long-tail play, or Movement’s timing, success hinges on a clear value assessment and precise rhythm. Rather than chasing quick exits, projects should play the long game, earning both market and user trust.
