Interestingly, for this kind of token, if the project is too good, the market may not be very active, and the recent enthusiasm has also decreased significantly 🧐
Many project tokens only serve governance and incentives, while the design of ERA is more 'hardcore' because it is directly tied to network operations. ERA tokens have three essential needs: security staking, cross-domain fees, and sorting collateral. This means that tokens are not 'optional' but are necessary conditions for the network's operation.
Nodes and service providers need to stake ERA to gain the power to process messages, sort, and settle; malicious behavior will result in penalties. Cross-domain messages and settlements require fees, which are settled in tokens, then redistributed to validators, sorters, and public goods pools. Network revenue is linked to node incentives, forming a closed loop of supply—service—revenue.
This is for participants, and the paths are roughly divided into two:
Developers and institutions: Gradually integrate a business chain, focusing on monitoring three metrics: message success rate, end-to-end latency, and liquidity utilization rate; scale up only after meeting standards.
Individual users: The way to participate is through staking, delegation, or providing liquidity, but be mindful of the pace; it is best to invest small amounts in batches, not just look at APY, but pay attention to the network's real usage.
From a governance perspective, ERA places parameters (such as fee curves, queue depth, DA options) on-chain governance, combined with data disclosure and auditing, avoiding 'black box changes'. As a result, the value of tokens is not only in market price but also in use value + governance rights.
It seems that the ERA token is not simply a 'reward ticket', but a 'gear' that unifies security and incentives into the network logic. Only by understanding this can participants know what they are getting and judge its long-term sustainability.
@Caldera Official #Caldera $ERA