I’d like to start a discussion on a fundamental question for the Internet Computer ecosystem:
Should we continue copying the Ethereum model (every new project launches its own token), or should ICP projects focus on building new business models using only $ICP as the core currency for payments, staking, and investment?
The logic is simple:
When investors buy a new project’s token, they expect future returns. For the project to deliver, it needs revenue.
Instead of minting new tokens, projects could share a % of revenues with early supporters or stakers directly in ICP.
NFT-based accounts could be used as access keys, giving holders governance rights and enabling them to stake ICP. Revenues from the app could then be automatically distributed to those who stake.
Potential Benefits:
Stronger demand concentrated on ICP → healthier ecosystem.
Simpler experience for users and investors → no endless “scam tokens.”
Sustainable revenue-based models instead of speculation.
Clearer long-term value alignment between projects and ICP.
Challenges:
How would liquidity work for investors?
Could this still be seen as a “security” by regulators?
Would developers lose flexibility compared to having their own tokens?
I believe it’s worth starting this discussion. If we want ICP to differentiate from other L1s, maybe focusing on a single-token economy with innovative staking/revenue models could be the right path.
The text pushes a single-token ($ICP) economy for the ICP ecosystem, framing it as better than projects launching new tokens. It overstates benefits, downplays challenges, and dismisses new tokens as “scam tokens,” skewing the discussion.Arguments
One-Sided Benefits: Touts ICP demand and simplicity without evidence or downsides like reduced project incentives.
Dismissive Language: Calls new tokens “scam tokens,” ignoring their potential for tailored economics or governance.
Shallow Challenges: Mentions liquidity, regulation, and flexibility issues but brushes them off as minor.
Assumed Alignment: Claims ICP aligns all projects, ignoring diverse needs new tokens could address.
No Counterarguments: Ignores benefits of new tokens, like innovation or competition within ICP.
Loaded Question: Frames new tokens as copying Ethereum, steering toward $ICP preference.
The text biases toward $ICP by hyping its benefits, sidelining challenges, and dismissing new tokens, lacking balance.
Interesting idea however in practice this would be very difficult to implement.
Ultimately every project / dapp / business entity is essentially issuing a percentage stake and you need to some way to represent that stake in XYZ. These are not technically securities but are represented as such in order to make it easy to trade them.
Ethereum benefits from each ERC20 token on its blockchain via transaction fees and from network effects.
ICP benefits in two ways from each project and token created.