Relooking into the tokenomics

Hey guys, being an IDO investors and believer in Uno, these 2 years have been an amzing journey. I have seen how the team lead by Jas and Sujith has truly grown. We have been through thick and thin together, bull and bear, FOMO and FUD seasons etc.

Unore has definitely grown so much and adopted very well throughout these 2 years, namely reinsurance, direct insurance, metaverse/nft, stabecoin depeg coverage, RWA, insured audit and now DAO.

As we all know the tokenomics were setup in the beginning for the initial directions. However as we have now adapt and made amazing changes along the way, should we relook into the tokenomics to see what we could do better?

By looking at this pie chart, the largest portion of tokenomics was allocated to Reinusrance cell/liqudity 31%, followed by Marketing Expenses of 12%. Operation Expenses has also been allocated of 8% of the tokenomics. I believe these tokenomics was definitely a great one based on initial plans. However as time goes by, Jas and Sujith has truly outperformed my personal expectation by the recent insure audit deals they secured. They have secured 5 audit deals generating a $100k revenue and this is just a start! And there seems to be 12 or 18 pending ones waiting to be finalised? Imagine the amount of revenue the team is bring in.

That said, given that now Unore has became a profit generating project, could we use these profits to fund the marketing, operating expenses etc. Thus the need of emitting additional tokens from the supply is not neccessary. On top of that, this would also be more sustainable for Unore to run as a business and not relying on liquidating tokens in order order to generate funds.

As Jas has mentioned a number of times regarding Circulating Supply, there isn’t a need to increase it if it’s unnecessary. Instead it would be better to keep it deflationary, ie. buy back and burn. That said, from an investor point of view (especially the new one), when they look into tokenomics and see a CS 75 million out of 384m total supply, they would have a fear of more emission of tokens down the road as it’s only 20% being in circulation.

Now the question is, if there isn’t a need of that much tokens, would it be a good idea if we reduced the total supply to let’s say 200m or 300m (just some random numbers)? By burning that huge amount of tokens, Uno would become more scarse and the price would definitely increase in value. So take for example if there is a need for CEX listing/marketing etc, instead of providing them 1m Uno ($0.06), it would be 100k Uno ($0.6) instead.

Of course these numbers are just assumption in a positive manner, i believe the team would be able to come out with a better projection on what is feasible and workable. As there is no turning back after reducing the total supply, we ought to consider the pros and cons of such action.

In conclusion, a profit generating project like Unore is the key of sustainability. Unlike many other projects which focuses on diluting it tokens price for funding, it will not be sustainable.


I am in favor of the burn to get rid of that large total vs circulating fear.
Mods are bothered everyday about it and we need to keep having lengthy education sessions to quell those fears. I think it’s a losing battle to keep educating every single new investor. I believe the staff should spend more time developing and supporting technical aspects rather than acting as therapists and salesmen all day.

Granted… I am speaking in ideals and I do not know the inverse of this argument. I believe this would take a huge amount of capital to shift the tokenomics if I am speculating correctly. Basically the percentages will be the same but SOMEONE is going to have to pay to burn those tokens I am guessing.

I am not a tokenomics expert but IN AN IDEAL WORLD, I see major advantages to removing the large amount of supply.


I fullly agree with @Nic on the tokenomics. He’s making some really good points here. With the new bussiness model we will not need as much tokens as first calculated. With better ratio of circ.suppy/total supply we will be more attractive to new investors. I still lack of deep knowledge how exactly everything works and if it’s even possible to reduce total supply to those numbers, but if that would be feasible, it will benefit the project a lot imo.


Im for using those tokens for marketing . I know its a form of marketing when they are burned. I just saw a meme token raise 10.2 million within a few weeks. They achieved this by heavy marketing. When i type crypto insurance in my google bar . Unore should be one of the top projects to pop up. I dont see it at all. This is a problem that can be fixed with the correct marketing


I agree with with nic…
as an investor you do not want many coins to come into cs. this prevents people from investing.
we don’t need all these coins and/ or they don’t just come into cs…
this must be clearly indicated and must also be easy to find on the website, for example…
I hope the team can do something about this soon, this will increase the volume i think…thank you


Sorry, where is the vesting schelue?

Here is the vesting schedule based on the tokenomics. Based on the vesting schedule, the CS should be close to 140m by now. But due to the market condition, the team did an amazing decision by not emitting more tokens to CS. Thus, our CS now is roughly 75m.

1 Like

:ok_hand:This is why we need a new schedule…so we can share it on twitter…
And it needs to be find on the website.

1 Like

Thanks, Nic. For pushing this across. There are a lot of considerations to be made here. I feel once we have UIP 1 sorted + A transparent dune dashboard to show total emissions, staked tokens, and circulating supply a more informed decision can be made with a mathematically backed model.


i hope the team can sort this out for next run…because i think it will attract more investors…thanks!!


Good point you made, I totally agree with you on this

1 Like