Token generation events have long become a carnival for speculators. Early sellers make a fortune, while the community becomes the bagholders, and the project's popularity cools down. This vicious cycle needs to be broken.



Alignerz Labs has decided to break this cycle with a different approach—combining IWO (Impact Work Offering) with the TVS mechanism. The core logic is simple: shift value distribution from pure speculation to actual contribution. The IWO model rewards those who are genuinely involved in building, rather than short-term players rushing to arbitrage. At the same time, the TVS constraint mechanism ensures the effectiveness of long-term incentives. This design philosophy reflects a new approach for Web3 projects in addressing early-stage funding traps—truly aligning participants' interests with the project's long-term growth.
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.
  • Reward
  • 8
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
BearMarketSurvivorvip
· 01-05 02:52
It's the same old story, IWO, TVS... sound good, but can they really prevent the next round of rug pulls? Early investors always make money, latecomers always lose—that's the truth. To put it nicely, it's "actual contribution," but frankly, it's just exchanging your time for bad coins. However, I have to admit, at least some projects are trying to figure out how not to be so blatantly exploitative.
View OriginalReply0
LiquidityNinjavip
· 01-05 02:52
Another "breakthrough" plan? Sounds good, but let's see the execution. Truly binding interests is the real skill; otherwise, it's just a PPT revolution. The logic behind IWO isn't new; the key is whether anyone will actually contribute. The problem of the "bag holder" can't be solved at all; as long as there's a price difference, someone will take the cut. The TVS mechanism sounds reliable, but we need to watch out for project teams secretly changing the rules. I just want to know if this is genuine innovation or just a rehash. This idea is interesting, but why wouldn't Alignerz follow the trend? All in all, it still depends on how the token performs after launch.
View OriginalReply0
gas_fee_therapistvip
· 01-05 02:50
It's the same old story, sounding nice, but in the end, it's just a sickle changing its angle to cut again. The old routine, IWO, TVS sound impressive, but what about in reality? It still depends on who holds the distribution rights. Truly participating in the construction? Ha, most people are just jumping on the bandwagon to boost their numbers.
View OriginalReply0
BlockchainWorkervip
· 01-05 02:44
Uh... another new mechanism, is this really just another way to scam newbies? --- IWO sounds good, but the key is how to verify who is truly building. --- Same old tricks, just a different name. I'm watching. --- Wow, someone finally wants to solve this problem. Let's see how effective it is. --- Long-term incentives? Come on, let's see how many are willing to stick around after the price drops. --- If this could really work, projects would have done it long ago. Why is it only appearing now?
View OriginalReply0
NftBankruptcyClubvip
· 01-05 02:32
Is it just another trick to attract attention, or can it truly change the current situation? It depends on how they follow up later. Sounds good, but the key is whether real people are actually using it. IWO sounds fresh, but could it just be another disguise to cut the leeks again? Destroying the old system is easy; the hard part is execution. Can Alignerz withstand the pressure? Finally, someone wants to solve this problem, but unfortunately most still can't escape the trap of taking over the burden. TVS constraint mechanism? Just another set of theories. Whether it can be implemented in reality is another matter. If this set of tools can truly benefit contributors, I am willing to give it a try.
View OriginalReply0
FantasyGuardianvip
· 01-05 02:28
Is it the same old story? Early sellers have already left, and we're still here discussing how to break the deadlock... IWO sounds good, but can it actually be implemented? It feels like just a different name for the same old approach. Finally, someone wants to change this situation. Let's wait and see how Alignerz plays out. TVS constraints? Nice words, but it all depends on whether there's real execution power. The fate of being a bag-holder can't be changed unless the project is truly ridiculously reliable. This model is indeed fresh, at least the idea is good, but what I fear most is still the execution.
View OriginalReply0
BearWhisperGodvip
· 01-05 02:27
It's the same old story again and again. True builders have already been rewarded long ago. What's with all this talk about long-term incentives? It's hilarious.
View OriginalReply0
Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
English
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)