Get Tokenomics

Case Study: Perpetual DEX Tokenomics

Full tokenomics model for a perpetual DEX: allocation, vesting, fee structure, staking, market model, and treasury. Embedded Google Sheets with 15 tables.

9 min read

The Challenge: Designing Tokenomics for a Perpetual DEX

Perpetual futures are the largest segment of decentralized derivatives by trading volume: monthly volume on perp DEXs reached $1.36T at its October 2025 peak, though it has since cooled to ~$700B by early 2026. Most of this volume is concentrated among a few protocols, each solving the same problem: how to design a token that simultaneously attracts traders, retains liquidity, and generates sustainable cash flow.

A team building a multichain perp DEX with up to 100x leverage and liquidity aggregation from centralized venues approached us. The challenges at launch:

  • Cold-start liquidity — without volume there are no traders, without traders there is no volume
  • Sell pressure from airdrops and marketing — a standard problem for any token with a large community allocation
  • Competition for stakers — the DeFi market is saturated, and staking yield must be competitive without excessive inflation
  • Funnel unit economics — conversion from lead to paying trader is ~1%, requiring precise CAC and LTV calculations

Below is the full model we built: from allocation to scenario analysis. All tables are live, from the working Google Sheets model.

Anonymization note
All numbers in the model have been modified: proportions and mechanics are preserved, absolute values are not. The project name, token ticker, and partners are not disclosed.

Model Overview: Key Metrics

Before diving into details — a high-level view. The model consists of 13 linked sheets: from the user funnel to treasury P&L. Key parameters: 1B token supply ($PERT), fees of 0.036%/0.04% (native token/stablecoins), marketing budget from $5,000/month.

Allocation: 9 Categories

Allocation is the model’s foundation. We distributed supply across 9 main categories, balancing capital raising, growth incentives, and long-term sustainability.

Three principles shaped the structure:

1. Sale rounds — 25%. Seed (12.5%, TGE unlock 4%), Community/Launchpads (8.75%, TGE 15%), KOL Round (3.75%, TGE 10%). Three rounds instead of two — to spread sell pressure over time and create different price entry points. Note: 12.5% seed allocation is above average (typical 5–10%) — a deliberate choice to secure larger strategic investors early.

2. Marketing and ecosystem — 31.5%. The largest category. This funds trading competitions, loyalty programs, and an integration grant fund. Not to be confused with airdrops — that is a separate line item (5%).

3. Liquidity — 15%. For a perp DEX, deep order book liquidity from day one is critical. These tokens go to market making and liquidity pools on DEXs and CEXs.

The remaining 23.5% covers Team & Advisors, Staking rewards, and Reserve fund — detailed in the vesting schedule below.

Why 9 categories
Early versions of the model had 5 categories: staking, airdrops, and marketing were combined. We separated them because each has its own vesting logic and target audience. An airdrop with 60% TGE unlock cannot sit in the same bucket as a marketing budget that vests over 34 months.

Vesting: Differentiated Approach

Vesting is the primary tool for managing sell pressure. For each category, we set separate parameters: TGE unlock, cliff, duration, and type.

Key decisions:

Team: 15% TGE, 4-month cliff, custom schedule (17% every 4 months over 20 months). A deliberately aggressive approach: instead of the industry-standard 0% TGE / 6–12 month cliff / 3–4 year vesting, this model front-loads team liquidity. 15% unlocks immediately (launch bonus), the rest in stepped tranches over 24 months total. This is a conscious trade-off: faster team liquidity in exchange for higher investor scrutiny. Standard practice would suggest a 3+ year vesting for stronger alignment signals.

Airdrops: 60% TGE, 1-month cliff, 2-month vesting. Intentionally aggressive unlock. The airdrop is a viral growth tool. If you force airdrop recipients to wait a year, they simply move to a competitor. Better to release quickly and capture volume in the first weeks.

Marketing and ecosystem: 4% TGE, 2-month cliff, 34-month vesting. The longest vesting — a steady stream of funds for user acquisition and ecosystem development over three years.

Unlock Dynamics

The chart shows three phases:

  • Month 0–6: rapid growth from airdrops (60% TGE) and Community round (15% TGE)
  • Month 6–24: gradual growth as team (stepped) and seed investors (linear over 24 months) unlock
  • Month 24–48: flat curve, remainder is marketing and reserve fund
Sell_pressure(m) = SUM(Unlock_i(m) × Sell_rate_i)
  • Sell_pressure(m) — estimated tokens sold on market in month m (computed, in tokens)
  • Unlock_i(m) — unlock for category i in month m
  • Sell_rate_i — estimated sell share (shown for key categories): seed ~70%, team ~5%, airdrop ~90%, marketing ~30%, KOL ~60%, community round ~40%, liquidity ~10%, advisors ~15%, reserve ~5%
  • Peak pressure: month 1 (airdrops 60% TGE + Community round 15% TGE)

Revenue Model: From Volume to Revenue

A perp DEX earns from three sources: trading fees, funding rate commissions, and liquidations. We modeled month-over-month growth from $5M daily volume at launch to $500M within two years.

The model builds revenue bottom-up: from user distribution by cohort through average balance, leverage, and trade frequency — to trading volumes, then to fees.

Four revenue sources:

  • Trading fees (0.036% when paying in native token / 0.04% in stablecoins)
  • Liquidation fees
  • Funding rate commissions
  • B-book revenue (order flow internalization)

Fee Structure: 5 Tiers

The discount fee model is standard for perp DEXs. The higher the 30-day volume, the lower the fee. An additional discount for staking the token.

Two features that distinguish our model:

Discount for native token payment. The fee when paying in native token (0.036%) is lower than in stablecoins (0.04%) — this creates an economic incentive to buy and hold the token. A 10% discount is a meaningful argument for active traders.

B-book as an additional source. The model includes revenue from order flow internalization — where the protocol’s market maker acts as direct counterparty to trades instead of routing to external liquidity. This is controversial (conflict of interest: the protocol profits when traders lose) but widespread in early-stage DEXs with thin order books. Risk: reputational damage if users discover adverse execution, and potential regulatory scrutiny as DeFi regulation tightens.

Users: 4 Cohorts

Perp DEX unit economics depends heavily on who is trading. We identified four cohorts by account balance.

The model builds a complete funnel: marketing budget → leads (paid + 10% organic) → user conversion (10%) → wallet connection (10%) → conversion to paying users. Each stage has its own inputs and targets.

Key observation: lead acquisition cost is $0.50, but conversion to paying user is only 1% (10% × 10%). This means CAC of ~$50, requiring high LTV from active traders.

Retention is the Achilles' heel
30-day retention at launch is modeled at 20% — already above typical DeFi trading platform benchmarks (5–15%). By M24, the model targets 40% through staking, loyalty programs, and fee reductions. This 2x retention growth is an optimistic but achievable assumption, contingent on sustained product differentiation and competitive fee structure.

Staking: From Emission to Real Yield

The staking model serves two purposes: reduce circulating supply (lower sell pressure) and create a sustainable income source for holders.

The model breaks down staking across five holder groups: investors, marketing, team and advisors, reserve and liquidity, other. Each group has a different staking participation rate — and they differ: investors stake more actively (it’s profitable), while marketing tokens are staked less frequently (they’re needed for operations).

Staking_rewards(m) = Staked_tokens(m) × APY(m) / 12
  • Staking_rewards(m) — tokens distributed as staking rewards in month m (computed)
  • Staked_tokens(m) — total staked tokens across all categories in month m
  • APY(m) — set as an input parameter, can vary month by month
  • Note: division by 12 assumes simple interest (no compounding within the month). At typical DeFi APYs (10–50%), compound interest would yield 2–5% more

The model also calculates token buyback: a portion of stablecoin revenue is converted to native tokens on the market. Cumulative buyback volume and share of total supply are key metrics for assessing deflationary pressure.

Market Model: AMM Pricing

The model uses Uniswap v2 mechanics (constant product, x·y=k) to simulate token price on the open market. This shows how token and stablecoin flows affect the exchange rate.

Key stabilization mechanisms:

  • Min/max price corridor — if price breaches the range, the treasury intervenes
  • Stablecoin flows into the pool — token buybacks, stabilization injections
  • Native token flows — vesting, treasury sales, stabilization

AMM pool formula:

x × y = k, where x = native tokens in pool, y = stablecoins
  • Buying tokens: x decreases, y increases → price rises
  • Selling tokens: x increases, y decreases → price drops
  • k is recalculated when liquidity is added or removed

Treasury: Buyback, Burn, Sell

The treasury manages three flows:

  • Buyback — a portion of stablecoin revenue goes to market token purchases
  • Burn — a percentage of net token flow is destroyed, reducing supply
  • Sale — the treasury can sell a portion of tokens to fund operations

The model details all cash flows: inflows (stablecoin fees, token sale proceeds) and outflows (COGS, marketing, OPEX, team salaries, tokenomics expenses). Net cash flow and cumulative treasury balance are the key sustainability metrics.

Token Demand: Fee Payment and Buyback

The model calculates what share of fees is paid in the native token (across four types: trading, liquidation, funding rate, B-book). This creates natural token demand: traders buy it on the open market to pay fees at a discount.

Key model insight
The combination of staking, native token fee payment, and burn mechanics creates multi-layered demand that offsets vesting sell pressure.

Lessons Learned

What worked

  • Differentiated vesting — 9 categories with different schedules allowed month-by-month pressure management, not "everyone unlocks at once"
  • Aggressive airdrop (60% TGE) — generated a volume spike in the first two weeks, attracting market makers
  • End-to-end financial model — from user acquisition to treasury P&L in one model, 13 linked sheets
  • AMM pricing model — Uniswap v2 mechanics (x·y=k) for token price forecasting based on liquidity flows
  • Staking by holder category — different participation rates for investors, team, and marketing produce realistic forecasts

    • Where caution is needed

  • Low funnel conversion — overall lead-to-paying-user conversion is ~1%, meaning high CAC
  • B-book risk — order flow internalization revenue is volatile and carries reputational risk
  • Airdrop pressure — 60% TGE means 30M tokens hit the market on day 1. A strong liquidity pool is essential
  • Cohort 3 dependency — large traders ($1,000+) generate a disproportionate share of volume

    • When this model is justified

  • Project raised $5M+ — budget allows subsidizing liquidity and marketing for the first 12 months
  • Team can secure MMs pre-TGE — without market makers the model doesn't work
  • Product has real volume — the model assumes $5M/day from month 1, requiring a testnet audience
  • Long-term strategy — real yield reaches break-even only by M12–M18

    • Need tokenomics for your DEX?

    We design models for DeFi protocols: from allocation to scenario simulation. 40+ projects in our portfolio.

    Get in touch
    #case study #defi #perp-dex #derivatives #allocation #vesting #staking #unit economics

    Related Articles