1. The three questions of tokenomics
Who owns what, when can they sell it, and what forces new supply? Every token analysis reduces to these three. A token with 40% team allocation (vested), 30% investor allocation and 15% annual emissions is structurally different from one with 90% public float and no emissions - regardless of the chart.
2. Unlocks: the scheduled sell pressure
Vesting schedules are public calendars of future supply. A $300M unlock into a $500M market-cap token is not a detail - it is the dominant fact for the unlock month. Charts do not show calendars; supply pages do. Trading into unlocks without checking is paying tuition without the lesson.
3. Distribution: who can sell to you
Max supply is trivia; circulating vs. reserved is the substance. Deep reserves held by foundations or insiders mean a permanent counterparty ready to sell. The FTX-type collapses and many ICO-era disasters share this shape: concentrated control over supply and narrative.
Remember: Burns and buy-backs funded by actual revenue are capital return. Burns funded by a treasury of the same token are spreadsheet theatre.
4. Staking yield, price-adjusted
A 7% staking yield on an asset that falls 40% is a -36% year. Yield is paid in the asset; it is not a return on your capital until the price cooperates. Add slashing risk (network penalty) and unlock delay (your exit is a schedule, not a button).
5. When this fails
Tokenomics analysis fails when it treats supply mechanics as a price oracle: supply is a headwind or tailwind, not a forecast. It also fails against governance reality - the written schedule can be changed by vote, and it has been (inflation "temporarily" raised is a crypto classic).
Risk: Low-float, high-fdv (fully diluted valuation) structures are engineered for the same pump-and-unlock shape repeatedly. Small float + big narrative = the retail supply at the top of the cycle.