#代币持有者收益 Looking at Lighter's token distribution structure, I am contemplating a very practical question—when 50% flows to the team and investors with a 1-year cliff and a 3-year linear unlock, what exactly is the "return promise" that holders can truly expect to receive?

The documentation mentions that the value generated by the protocol will accumulate to token holders, but the specific paths and timelines for subsequent buybacks are not provided. This reminds me of an old adage: even the best promises require clear execution mechanisms to support them.

Compared to Hyperliquid, which reserves 42.888% for future airdrops, Lighter only allocates 25%, and the difference is clearly more than just numbers. This reflects different allocation philosophies—one leans toward retaining flexibility to incentivize ecosystem participants, while the other follows a typical VC-led model.

My straightforward thought is: the sustainability of token returns ultimately depends on two things. First, whether the protocol itself can continue to generate real value (Lighter's revenue has dropped from $377 million to $66.5 million, an 82.5% decline that warrants caution). Second, whether the distribution mechanism truly creates a positive cycle between holders and ecosystem development, rather than merely delivering early participants' dividends.

Short-term controversy may subside, but in the long run, the more important considerations are how to choose projects to participate in, how to establish holding expectations, and how to plan risk management. These are the aspects worth deeper reflection. No single distribution number should be the sole criterion for judgment.