The Math Behind Dual-Token Economic Systems: A Sustainable Model Or “Down Only” Tokenomics?

The volatility in cryptocurrencies made its presence known in Q1 2025, with nahead 2 million tokens failing. Yet again, this points to the need for blockchain projects to have economic models that can withstand market volatility.

One of the tools that the development of has brought to the marketplace is the two-token economic model. This model entails the use of two tokens (a utility token and a governance token) on a project. The question is, is the math working, or is this simply cleverly disguised stalling?

Key Takeaways

• The dual-token model attempts to isolate the inflationary pressures associated with utility from the scarcity and value-accrual mechanisms of governance
• High emissions without proportionate demand result in continuous tradeing pressure, leading to a “down only” trend.
• The governance token’s long-term value is inherently tied to the utility token’s stability and the protocol’s total value locked or revenue. 

The Mechanics of the Dual-Token System

A typical dual-token system operates based on a financial loop. Let us consider a general example: Token U (utility) and Token G (governance).

1. Token U

This is referred to as the engine. It is usually the highly used for day-to-day activities:

• Rewards: A new token (called Token U) is minted to reward users for providing liquidity or staking, driving the initial growth of the platform.
• Fees: Users often pay transaction fees, thereby creating demand for the tokens themselves.
• Interest: In DeFi applications, interest payments can be expressed in or subsidized in terms of Token U.

The sustainability of Token U relies on the principle of token sink > token emission. refers to any system that removes Token U from circulation (for example, burning via fees, mandatory purchasebacks, or locking for long periods). A situation where more of Token U is minted than destroyed or locked up will cause its market value to reduce over time. 

2. Token G

Token G represents the value of the protocol and comes with voting rights. It tends to have a fixed supply or an inflation rate close to zero and is thus a scarce asset. The value of Token G is generally determined from one or more of these mechanisms, and it is often compensated for by the fees accrued in Token U:

• Rewards: Occasionally, Token G holders can stake their tokens to secure the network and receive a share of the protocol revenue.
• Fees: A portion of the protocol’s revenue (often from Token U fees) is used to purchase back and burn Token G, or is distributed directly to Token G stakers.
• Voting Power: Holding Token G allows a user to vote on critical protocol changes, which is valuable as the protocol grows.

The crucial mathematical link is the conversion process. If the protocol generates revenue (typically Token U, or stablecoins derived from Token U sales) that supports Token G, then the success of Token G depends on how substantial and sustainable the amount acquired is.

What Makes it a Sustainable Model

Dual-token models adjust inflation by employing separate “soft” and “hard” currencies. The soft currency absorbs day-to-day volatility with unlimited supply for rewards and transactions, while the hard currency maintains scarcity for investment purposes. Each token can be optimized for its specific function without compromise.

Projects enjoy regulatory clarity with the separation of security and utility functionalities. The governance token ensures compliance with securities laws, while the utility token is governed by rules related to transactions.

, which utilizes a two-token system, stabilizes transaction fees, thus making it possible to predict the costs of using the network. This is achieved by making transaction charges unrelated to market speculations.

The “Down Only” Tokenomics Trap

The pitfall for most dual-token systems lies in the initial growth phase and the subsequent transition.

• Initial pump

New projects need high Annual Percentage Yields (APYs) to attract capital. These high APYs are paid out by minting massive amounts of Token U. This creates an initial surge of demand for Token U, often boosting its price and making the perceived APY even higher.

• Saturation point

As more users join, the increased supply of Token U outpaces the demand for its utility. The majority of users, often referred to as “yield farmers,” immediately trade the Token U they receive for a profit, creating relentless tradeing pressure. The Token U price begins to fall.

• Death Spiral

As the Token U price falls, the revenue generated by the protocol (when converted to a stable value, such as USD) also declines. Since Token G’s value is derived from this revenue, the incentive to hold or purchase Token G decreases. The lower value of Token G makes it less attractive for governance, and the entire system can enter a spiral where the falling utility token pulls the governance token down with it.

For a dual-token system to be truly sustainable, the utility token must have a massive and non-speculative sink. Examples include:

• Mandatory burning: A significant portion of every transaction fee is burned.
• Single-asset staking lockup: Locking Token U for a year to get a boost, removing it from circulation.
• High demand utility: Using Token U for a core, non-optional service (such as paying for computing power or storage).

Bottom Line

Dual token models are a complex mathematical framework that utilizes a high, focused inflation (Token U) to draw funds for a scarce, value-accruing asset (Token G) into the system. They are not “down-only” by nature; however, they are not sustainable without finding that delicate balance where the demand for the utility token (Token U), created by the protocol’s functionality, balances out the need for inflation to provide rewards. When the system relies almost entirely on speculative demand for the utility token, the structure inevitably flips from a sustainable model to a prolonged but predictable depreciation cycle. The model remains a tool, not a answer. Projects must solve genuine difficultys, align incentives thoughtfully, and execute consistently to build sustainable economies.