In the ever-evolving world of crypto, some traditions linger longer than they should, much like that one meme that refuses to fade from your feed. Recently, Haseeb Qureshi, a prominent voice in the venture capital scene (you might know him from his time at Dragonfly Capital), took to X to call out one such "sacred cow": the post-airdrop "50% to community" token allocation. In his tweet, he argues it's time to put this practice out to pasture.

For those not deep in the tokenomics weeds, token allocations refer to how a project's total supply of tokens is divided up—think insiders, investors, and yes, the community. The "community" bucket often sounds noble, promising funds for growth, rewards, or ecosystem development. But as Haseeb points out, it frequently turns into an "amorphous slush fund" where the team decides later what to do with it, lacking real transparency.

Haseeb gives a shoutout to Jon Charbonneau (@jon_charb) for pushing the envelope—or as he puts it, shifting the Overton window, which is a fancy way of saying expanding what's considered acceptable in public discourse. Jon, along with Hasu, co-authored a proposal to reduce the total supply of HYPE tokens by a whopping 45%. HYPE, for the uninitiated, is the native token of Hyperliquid, a decentralized perpetuals exchange that's been making waves in DeFi. This move aims to address the very issue Haseeb highlights: those massive community allocations that inflate the fully diluted valuation (FDV) without clear plans.

FDV is basically the market cap if all tokens were in circulation right now. Investors, Haseeb notes, mentally discount it by about 50% when they see huge unlocked community reserves, because those tokens aren't likely to hit the market unless there's a solid return on investment (ROI) justification. For HYPE, this means its FDV might be overstated, making it look undervalued when you crunch the numbers on cash flow relative to that valuation.

This whole setup, according to Haseeb, is a relic from the "performative 2021 token socialism" era—think peak bull market when projects were all about decentralization theater to appease regulators and communities. Back then, slapping a big "community" label on half the supply was a way to seem fair and inclusive. But in practice, it often leads to opaque decision-making.

Instead, Haseeb suggests a more straightforward approach: if you need tokens for growth, be transparent about it. Take it to governance—let token holders vote on supply expansions or specific spends. This way, everything's out in the open, and holders can decide if it's worth it. No more hiding behind vague allocations that make up nearly half the total supply.

Now, why does this matter for meme tokens? At Meme Insider, we see a lot of parallels. Meme coins often launch with even wilder allocations—sometimes 100% to liquidity or community, but without real mechanisms for accountability. This proposal could inspire meme projects to rethink their tokenomics, moving away from hype-driven distributions toward sustainable, governance-backed models. Imagine a world where your favorite dog-themed coin actually has a transparent treasury for marketing or development, voted on by holders.

Jon's proposal, cross-posted to DBA (likely referring to a decentralized blog or forum like DBA Research), thanks contributors like Comfy Capital and Felipe Montealegre for feedback. While the full details aren't in the tweet, it's clear this is about realigning incentives in crypto to favor clarity over clever accounting.

As blockchain practitioners, keeping an eye on these debates is crucial. They shape how projects fund themselves and interact with communities, ultimately affecting token values and ecosystem health. If you're building or investing in meme tokens, consider how ditching these sacred cows could lead to stronger, more resilient projects. What do you think—time to evolve, or is there still value in the old ways? Drop your thoughts in the comments below.