In Response to Criticism on $DEBEVIC

For a minute, I thought I was writing into the void about $DEBEVIC. Thankfully, one reader challenged my motivation, tokenomics, and goals. I want to address and respond to those concerns.

Image by Venice.ai

Criticism is not fun. Typically, our first reaction is to take offense, get defensive, and try to tear down the other person or their argument. Yesterday, I wrote a piece, A Wet Dream in Tokenomics, about the $DEBEVIC token. Today, the article got a well-thought-out response poking holes in my claims. This article is in response to those criticisms, which are all extremely valid.

Here is what the reader wrote:

Quite a bit of contradictory and dubious tokenomics issues here. Creator holds 50% with a 6 month vest — then what? A cliff or linear release? But stakers are locked for 1 year? Is there early unstaking with a penalty?

“25% APY is funded with new tokens minted by the smart contract.”
25%? Unsustainable. What is the token paired with?
Also thought no more tokens can be minted or can they?

“No presales, airdrops, VCs, snipers, advisors, KOLS, or team received tokens. The 50% of tokens go to me, and am committed.”

Err.. This is contradicting itself. You ARE the team, and you did receive tokens-50%, in fact. “Committed” is meaningless-what stops you from dumping…