A funded project’s token launch strategy comes down to four decisions the board should take explicitly: the valuation and float, who receives tokens, where the token trades first, and when. Get the first one wrong and the other three rarely save it. Memento Research data, as reported by CryptoSlate, found that none of the 28 major 2025 launches priced at or above $1 billion were trading above their opening valuation, with a median decline of about 81%.
Who decides this
The CEO proposes the launch strategy and the board approves it. The board is accountable for the valuation it lets the market see, the commitments made to investors and the risk the organization takes on with regulators. The CEO is accountable for turning the approved strategy into a plan that people can execute, with a named owner for each part. The board should approve the four decisions below as separate resolutions, not as one launch deck.
What valuation and float should the board accept at launch?
The board should accept the launch valuation that the circulating supply can actually support, and treat any higher number as a risk rather than a win. The headline fully diluted valuation is set by the private rounds. The market price is set by the float.
The pattern behind 2025’s results was described a year earlier. Binance Research warned in May 2024 of a trend toward launches with small circulating supply and high fully diluted valuations, and, as ForkLog reported, estimated about $155 billion of tokens would unlock between 2024 and 2030. In some cases it cited, circulating supply was only 6–20% of projected issuance. Its advice to projects was a deliberate tokenomics strategy and close work with venture investors on unlocks.
There is no market standard for the right float, and we would distrust any adviser who quotes one as fact. The useful test is internal. Compare the launch float with the supply that unlocks in the first twelve months. If new supply is several multiples of the float, the board is approving a price that the calendar will test, and it should say so in the minutes.
The board also holds the lever Binance Research pointed to: investor unlocks. Where private-round investors are represented on the board, a launch strategy that asks them to accept a longer cliff, or a slower linear release, is in our view worth more than most marketing budgets. Keyrock’s study of more than 16,000 unlocks, as reported by BeInCrypto, found that about 90% put negative pressure on price, and that price effects often began before the unlock date. That is a cost the cap table bears together, and the conversation is easier before the token trades than after.
Who should receive tokens at launch, and how?
Distribution should be designed around who will still hold the token in six months, not around how many wallets receive it on day one. Each route brings a different holder, a different selling pattern and a different legal footprint.
| Route | Who receives | Typical selling pattern | Main legal question | What the team controls |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Airdrop | Past users and farmers | Fast, concentrated in the first days | Eligibility rules and disclosure | Criteria, phasing, claim window |
| Public sale or launchpad | Retail and community buyers | Tied to the gap between sale and listing price | Public offer rules in each market | Price, caps, vesting on sale tokens |
| Exchange programmes | That venue’s users | Depends on programme terms | Venue’s own terms | Allocation size, timing |
| Ecosystem grants | Builders and partners | Released as milestones are met | Grant agreements | Milestones and schedule |
| Market-maker loans | Liquidity providers | Can add supply during price discovery | Contract terms and conduct | Loan size, strikes, obligations |
Airdrops deserve the hardest look. A study of nine large airdrops, published on arXiv, found that in some cases up to 66% of tokens were sold quickly. About two thirds of 1inch recipients sent tokens to exchanges within a day of claiming. The authors recommend multi-phase airdrops, rewards scaled to what users actually spent, and incentives with ongoing use inside the protocol.
Public sales raise a different issue. As of October 2026, an offer to the public in the EU that no exemption covers requires a crypto-asset white paper notified to the home regulator at least 20 working days before publication, under Article 8 of MiCA. Counsel owns that question. The board should know the answer before it approves the route.
Where should the token trade first?
The token should trade first where the deepest order books are likely to be, and where the team can show the venue a clean file. A listing on a thin venue sets a public price that more serious venues will see.
Liquidity is concentrated. Kaiko’s liquidity concentration report found in 2023 that the top eight exchanges held 91.7% of market depth. That is 2023 data; Kaiko said then that the concentration had held steady for years. A first listing outside that group is a choice the board should make knowingly.
The team does not control the listing timetable. Coinbase’s published listing guide says applications are free and merit-based, run through legal, compliance and technical security reviews, and that it will not say when or whether an asset will list. The strategy should therefore name a first venue and an alternative, with the on-chain pool timed to the listing. The board should also ask who will quote the token on that venue from the first minute. A listing without committed market makers, written depth obligations and a funded on-chain pool is a listing with a price and no market. That is the head of markets’ question to answer before the venue is announced, not after.
The chain itself is a separate decision, covered in our comparison of launch venues for a funded launch.
When is the right time to launch?
The right time is when the gates are closed, not when the calendar says. A funded team usually has the runway to wait a quarter. It rarely has the reputation to survive a launch that fails in public.
Market conditions matter, but they are not controllable. CryptoSlate noted that the wider market lost roughly $1.2 trillion between mid-October and late November 2025. Teams that launched into that period had little room for error. Memento’s reading of the year was that much price discovery had already happened before TGE, so the launch often marked the top.
We would set a launch window, not a date, and tie it to readiness: locks deployed and verified, market-maker terms signed, filings made, a listing confirmed in writing. The sequence is set out gate by gate in the token generation event guide. Arrakis, which provides on-chain liquidity, states on its own figures that 85% of tokens launched in 2025 ended the year negative. A funded token launch that waits for its gates is trying to be in the other 15%, not guaranteeing it.
Who executes each part?
A strategy is only as good as the names next to it. Every decision above should leave the board meeting with one owner, one deadline and one piece of evidence that shows it is done.
In practice that means the CFO owns valuation, float and the unlock calendar. The head of markets owns venues, market makers and the pool. Counsel owns filings and the distribution route’s legal footprint. The CMO owns how the launch is explained to holders. The CEO owns the go or no-go call. If two people own something, nobody does.
The board’s job after approval is to check progress against those names, not to revisit the strategy every meeting. A one-page tracker with each decision, its owner, its evidence and its status is enough. If the same line is amber at two meetings in a row, the launch window should move.
What goes wrong: the strategy nobody could execute
The board approves a launch strategy that reads well. It names a valuation, a distribution plan, two exchanges and a quarter. Nobody asks who will do each part, or whether they can.
Then the gaps appear. The exchange wants documents that legal has not drafted. The market maker sends terms the CFO has not read. The airdrop criteria are still being argued in week ten. Each delay is small, so the date holds, and the team launches with half the plan built and the other half improvised. The token trades on a strategy that existed only on slides.
The fix is to approve execution, not intent. Before the board signs off, each of the four decisions should have an owner who has confirmed in writing that the work is resourced. If an owner cannot confirm, the strategy is not ready, however good it reads.
How Alcyone approaches it
Alcyone builds a launch strategy around the people who will execute it. Alcyone’s strategy and growth advisory starts with a fixed-scope, fixed-fee assessment, credited against further work, and then builds a plan over three to six weeks with a named owner for every part. The partners behind it built and operate the TrustSwap Launchpad, through which more than 80 projects have launched. Clients are under no obligation to use TrustSwap products, and Alcyone says on the first call if it is not the right fit.