The digital asset market in 2024-2025 has witnessed a fundamental change in listing and pricing structures, leading to fierce debates about the sustainability of modern tokenomics economic models. At the center of this attention is the rise of projects with "low circulating supply and high dilution valuation" (low float, high FDV), a structure that has become the defining feature of large-scale token issuances (Token Generation Event - TGE).
According to observations from experts at Tan Phat Digital, understanding what FDV is is no longer just a theoretical exercise in arithmetic but has become a Essential survival skills for determining whether an investment is a long-term growth opportunity or just a liquidity trap cleverly designed for individual investors. This report will dissect the technical, economic and psychological aspects of fully diluted pricing in the context of the current market cycle.
Decoding what FDV is in tokenomics
To begin a serious analysis, it is necessary to define precisely what FDV is. Fully Diluted Valuation (FDV) is an index that measures the total potential market value of a cryptocurrency project, assuming that the entire maximum supply of the token has been put into circulation. While market capitalization (Market Cap - MC) only reflects the value of tokens that are actually on the market and tradable, FDV looks further into the future to include tokens that are still locked, in the process of vesting, or not yet minted.
The basic calculation formula is set up as follows:
$$FDV = \text{Current Price of Token} \times \text{Total Maximum Supply multi}$$Meanwhile, Market Cap is calculated by:$$\text{Market Cap} = \text{Current Price of Token} \times \text{Current Circulating Supply}$$
The difference between these two numbers represents the dilution risk that current investors face. If a project has an FDV ten times higher than the market capitalization, it means that 90% of the supply has not yet entered the market. As this supply is gradually released through unlocking schedules, the value of each individual token will come under significant downward pressure unless market demand and new capital flows grow at a rate equivalent to or faster than the rate of supply inflation.
Comparison of Valuation Parameters between Market Cap and FDV
Below is a detailed comparison of the aspects of difference between the two indices This:
Representative Supply: Market capitalization is based on Circulating Supply; while FDV is based on the maximum total supply (Total Supply).
Time state: Market capitalization reflects the current value (Spot); FDV reflects expected future value (Projected).
Practical meaning: Market capitalization is the purchasing power needed to move prices at the present time; FDV is the total economic scale of the project when the tokens have been completely released.
Influencers: Market capitalization directly affects short-term traders and instant liquidity; FDV impacts long-term investors and decisions related to the inflation structure.
Important ratio: The index to monitor is the MC/FDV ratio (reflecting dilution) compared to the absolute value of FDV compared to competitors in the same industry.
Analysis of data from projects launched in 2024 shows an ominous situation: the ratio The average MC/FDV of leading projects is only about 0.12. This means that the secondary market is suffering from a huge amount of potential supply, where the true value of the project is often obscured by circulating capitalization numbers that seem small but actually hide a huge supply debt structure.
The rise of the Low Float High FDV structure: Mechanisms and consequences
The phenomenon of "low supply, high valuation" is not a coincidence but is the result of close coordination between project founders, venture capital funds (VC) and centralized exchanges (CEX). During 2024, this structure becomes an unofficial standard to create artificial scarcity and rapidly increase token prices immediately after listing. By only putting 5-10% of the total supply into circulation at the TGE event, projects can easily control liquidity and create strong growth price charts, attracting the attention of individual investors based on fear of missing out (FOMO).
However, the consequence of this model is a serious long-term supply-demand imbalance. When the FDV of a newly listed project reaches billions of USD – for example the case of Worldcoin where FDV reached 90 billion USD at its price peak – it creates a psychological and economic barrier to sustainable growth. A project that already has a diluted valuation on par with the world's largest technology corporations even when the product is not yet complete will have little room to increase prices further for secondary market investors.
Impact of Low Float structure on liquidity and volatility
Low supply structure makes the market extremely fragile. Even a small amount of capital can cause the price to fluctuate by tens of percent, creating an illusion of project success. However, when early investors or VC funds begin to exercise put options or receive unlocked tokens, this thin amount of liquidity is not strong enough to absorb the selling force, leading to prolonged price declines with no signs of recovery, often referred to as "bleeding out".
This distortion is also amplified by the role of market makers (Market Makers - MM). In listing agreements, MMs are often borrowed a significant amount of tokens from the project to provide liquidity. Although their role is to reduce spreads and stabilize prices, in a High FDV structure, MMs can intentionally or unintentionally create an artificial price environment where prices are kept high so that insiders can distribute goods in an orderly manner to retail.
Empirical analysis of the impact of Token unlocks (Unlocks)
One of the most comprehensive studies on the impact of FDV and Token supply is reported from Keyrock, analyzing over 16,000 unlock events. The results show a consistent pattern: 90% of unlocks lead to downward price pressure, regardless of the size of the unlock. This refutes the hypothesis that unlocks are completely "priced-in" by the market.
Classification and impact of unlock types
Unlocks do not have the same impact on price. The difference lies in the token recipients and their financial motivations:
Project Team (Team): Average discount rate is about -25%. This is the most negative type of impact, often due to uncoordinated selling or treating tokens as compensation.
Early investors (VCs): The impact is mitigated and often better controlled. Funds often use OTC, derivatives or hedging strategies to reduce market shock.
Ecosystem development: Average positive impact +1.18%. Tokens are used to attract users, stake or sponsor, thereby creating new real demand.
Community / Airdrop: Causes extreme volatility. Often leads to an immediate sell-off from those receiving free tokens.
Data shows that price pressure typically begins 30 days before the actual unlock event. This is the result of smart traders trying to stay ahead of the market (front-running). This reinforces the view that High FDV is an existential risk, as each unlock is like a test of the durability of market demand.
The Role of Venture Capital Funds and the Private Valuation Cycle
To understand why FDV is so high, we have to look at the process of raising capital from VC funds. During the 2024-2025 cycle, valuations of crypto startups have skyrocketed due to fierce competition among investment funds. Venture capital investment in crypto companies in the US has reached $7.9 billion by 2025, with the average valuation of Seed rounds reaching $34 million, up 70% compared to 2023.
When VCs invest at high Seed or Series A valuations, they put pressure on the project to list at an even higher FDV to ensure a rate of return (IRR) for equity investors (LPs). This leads to investment concentration in a small group of "sure-fire" projects, pushing their valuations to unrealistic levels relative to fundamentals.
Price Gap Between Seed Round and Listing: Starknet Case Study (STRK)
The Starknet Project provides a vivid illustration of how FDV is built across funding rounds:
Seed Round Round: Valuation of 250 million USD, raising capital of 6 million USD, estimated price per token is 0.025 USD. Peak profit (ATH $4.41) reached 176 times.
Series A round: Valuation 500 million USD, capital raising 30 million USD, estimated price 0.05 USD. Profit at ATH reached 88 times.
Series B round: Valuation of 1.5 billion USD, capital raising of 75 million USD, estimated price of 0.15 USD. Profit at ATH reached 29 times.
Series C round: Valuation of 2 billion USD, capital raising of 50 million USD, estimated price of 0.2 USD. Profit at ATH reached 22 times.
Series D round: Valuation of 8 billion USD, capital raising of 100 million USD, estimated price of 0.8 USD. Returns at ATH reached 5.5x.
When Starknet launched the STRK token with a multi-billion USD diluted valuation, early investors were in a position to make huge profits even as the token price plummeted. The fact that by early 2026, the STRK price had fallen to around $0.05 USD, close to the Series A round price, shows that individual investors are essentially providing liquidity for the profit-taking rounds of early participants.
See more: What is Token Unlock
"Slowrug" tactics and manipulation by market makers
While the term "Rug Pull" usually refers to a sudden withdrawal of liquidity, "Slowrug" is a more sophisticated form of manipulation. In a Slowrug scenario, the project team does not disappear immediately. Instead, they use a lengthy unlocking path and constant marketing campaigns to maintain interest while quietly selling large amounts of tokens through anonymous wallets or agreements with Market Makers.
Market makers may engage in activities such as wash trading to create fake volume, or spoofing to guide investor sentiment. With a low circulating supply structure, price manipulation becomes much easier as MMs can control the majority of the floating tokens.
Analysis of Market Maker's lending and options mechanism
Many High FDV projects enter into token lending agreements with MMs under the "Loan/Call Option" model. MM is allowed to borrow 1-3% of the total circulating supply to create a market and has the right to buy (call option) those tokens at a predetermined price (strike price). If MM can push the token price above the strike price, they will make huge profits. This creates a conflict of interest, where MM has an incentive to push prices far beyond the actual short-term value to maximize personal profits.
See more: Token Allocation is What
Exceptions: When High FDV is justified by real value
Although High FDV is often a risk, not every project with high FDV is a trap. The difference lies in the ability to generate actual revenue. Projects such as Solana, MakerDAO and Ethereum have proven that if the protocol can build a real "money printing machine", FDV will be accepted by the market.
Analysis of successful projects based on economic performance in 2025
Solana (SOL): Revenue reached 1.41 billion USD, FDV about 45 billion USD, ratio FDV/Revenue is 31.9x. Note: Revenue growth 126% YoY, surpassing Ethereum in transaction fees.
MakerDAO (MKR): Revenue reached 129.3 million USD, FDV about 2.5 billion USD, FDV/Revenue ratio is 19.3x. Note: Applying an effective model of buying back and burning MKR from DAI stabilization fees.
Hyperliquid (HYPE): Revenue reached 800 million USD, FDV about 14.7 billion USD, FDV/Revenue ratio is 18.4x. Note: Leading the decentralized derivatives market with high transaction fees.
Uniswap (UNI): Revenue reached 700 million USD, FDV was about 7.5 billion USD, FDV/Revenue ratio was 10.7x. Note: DEX protocol has the deepest applicability and integration on the market.
Solana is a prime example of overcoming the FDV stereotype thanks to strong growth in the number of active wallets and trading volume. When a project generates billions of dollars in revenue, the FDV figure of tens of billions of dollars becomes much more valid for valuation.
Risk appraisal strategy for professional investors
To avoid High FDV traps, experts at Tan Phat Digital recommend investors change their approach to quantitative data:
Check the MC/FDV ratio and Open Calendar key: Avoid projects with MC/FDV ratio below 0.2. Know the exact unlock date and avoid buying around 30 days before the event.
Evaluate the revenue model (Revenue vs FDV): Use tools like DeFiLlama to see if the project is generating actual transaction fees.
Monitor wallet concentration: Use on-chain tools to check whether a small group of insiders whether holding too many tokens (over 50% of floating supply).
Investor and team analysis: Prioritize projects with the participation of tier-1 VC funds as they usually manage unlocking professionally and with more reputation.
Contract transparency: Only invest in projects that have been audited by reputable companies and have known liquidity. long-term lock.
Detailed Case Study on FDV: From Dilution "Black Hole" to Revenue "Machine"
To better illustrate the above analysis, Tan Phat Digital team has compiled 10 typical cases in the 2024-2026 cycle:
1. Arbitrum (ARB) – "Nightmare" large-scale unlock
In March 2024, Arbitrum carried out one of the largest unlocks of the year with a value of up to 2.22 billion USD. This is the first unlock for the founding team and private investors. As a result, the ARB price continuously dropped before the event and continued to drop another 33.8% in just 30 days after the token was released. This is a typical example of the market's inability to absorb the huge supply from High FDV projects when there is a lack of corresponding demand.
2. Sui (SUI) – Psychological pressure from the unlocking schedule
In May 2024, Sui carried out an unlocking session worth 1.21 billion USD. 20 days earlier, SUI's funding rate fell to a deeply negative level (-34.1%), reflecting the extremely pessimistic sentiment of the market. Although the price recovered afterward, the unlock caused the SUI price to drop 20.3% in the short term, showing that dilution risk is always the "sword of Damocles" hanging over investors' heads.
3. Worldcoin (WLD) – "Illusion" valued at 90 billion USD
At the time of peak price of 11 USD, Worldcoin had a market capitalization of only 1.75 billion USD but FDV was up to 90 billion USD – surpassing OpenAI's valuation. With more than 83% of supply still locked up as of mid-2025, WLD becomes the most prominent example of the FDV trap, where futures pricing is completely disconnected from the reality of use.
4. Starknet (STRK) – The collapse of Seed round valuation
STRK once peaked at 4.41 USD when listed but has experienced a steep decline in price, falling to the region of 0.042 USD in early 2026. This is a price close to Series A funding rounds (0.05 USD). This case study shows that when FDV is too high compared to its real value, the token price will tend to "find the bottom" until it reaches the price level of early investors to find support.
5. Story Protocol (IP) – Delay strategy to protect price
Launched in early 2025 with an initial FDV of about 1.2 billion USD, Story took a different step by announcing a delay in the unlocking schedule for investors and the team until August 2026. This decision helps reduce immediate selling pressure and allows the project more time to build the AI x IP ecosystem, helping IP prices maintain relative stability compared to L1 projects launched at the same time.
6. Falcon Finance (FF) – Low Float
liquidity "black hole".Project listed on Binance with FDV of 800 million USD but only 23% of circulating supply. After a slight increase at listing, FF price has continuously decreased due to monthly unlocking pressure that trading volume is not enough to absorb. This is a lesson about not holding long-term projects with low MC/FDV ratios without strong growth catalysts.
7. Pendle Finance (PENDLE) – Success through capital efficiency
Unlike FDV traps, Pendle has proven its value through real revenue reaching $40 million in 2025. With a forward P/E ratio below 20, Pendle shows that high FDV can be accepted if revenue and transaction fee growth rates outpace token inflation.
8. Hyperliquid (HYPE) – Decentralized "Money Printing Machine"
With revenues of 800 million USD in 2025, Hyperliquid successfully justified its FDV of about 14.7 billion USD. This is an example of a High FDV project but with a sustainable business model, where actual transaction fees create intrinsic value for the token.
9. Ethena (ENA) – The Power of Real Products (USDe)
Ethena maintains a huge TVL of 8.73 billion USD and generates revenue of 389 million USD in 2025. Despite having billions of USD FDV, ENA still attracts large capital inflows thanks to the practical application of stablecoin USDe in the DeFi ecosystem, helping to minimize risks from source dilution palace.
10. Celestia (TIA) – Volatility and post-unlock recovery
TIA experienced a nearly $1 billion unlock in October 2024 that caused the price to drop by 25%. However, thanks to its leading position in the "Modular Blockchain" narrative, TIA price recovered strongly and surpassed Bitcoin's performance by 19.2% in just 30 days. This shows that high valuations can overcome unlocking pressure if the project holds a critical infrastructure role.
FDV and Tokenomics Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. What is FDV and why is it an important metric? FDV (Fully Diluted Capitalization) estimates the total market value of a project if the entire maximum supply were in circulation. It helps investors see the "future picture" to evaluate whether the current price will be too expensive when the entire token is released.
2. What is the core difference between Market Cap and FDV? Market Cap only counts tokens that are actually in circulation and available for immediate trading. FDV includes tokens that are locked, unissued or in the vesting process of the team and investors.
3. What MC/FDV ratio is considered safe? There is no absolute number, but the closer the ratio is to 1 (100%), the lower the dilution risk. A ratio below 0.5 or especially 0.1-0.2 (like many 2024 projects) warns of the risk of huge supply inflation in the future.
4. Why are "Low Float, High FDV" projects often considered traps? Because low initial supply creates artificial scarcity to push prices up. When major unlocks take place, the surge in supply often exceeds actual demand, leading to a situation of "dumping stock" that causes prices to plummet.
5. How is "Slowrug" different from traditional Rug Pull? Rug Pull is the act of suddenly withdrawing liquidity, causing the price to go to 0 immediately. Slowrug is more sophisticated, the project still operates but releases tokens gradually through a long unlocking roadmap, causing the value of investors' assets to "evaporate" slowly over time.
6. How to track a project's token unlock schedule?Investors should use platforms such as TokenUnlocks, CryptoRank or CoinGecko. These websites provide detailed charts of unlock date, number of tokens, and recipient (Team, VCs, or Community).
7. Who receives the tokens when unlocking often causes the strongest selling pressure? According to research, unlocks for Project Team (Team) often lead to the sharpest price drops (average -25%) because members often sell sporadically for personal profit.
8. Does unlocking investors (VCs) always lower prices? Not always. Institutional investors often have more professional strategies, they can use OTC (off-exchange) transactions or derivatives to reduce liquidity shock to the market.
9. Should I buy tokens right before the big unlock? Usually not. Bearish pressure usually begins 30 days before the actual unlock as professional traders implement a strategy of "front-running" the event.
10. What does Market Maker (MM) do in High FDV projects? MM helps maintain liquidity and price stability. However, in High FDV projects, they may have token borrowing agreements and buy options, creating an incentive for them to keep prices artificially high until insiders can deliver the goods.
11. Are there any projects that have high FDV but are still successful? Yes, for example Solana (SOL) or MakerDAO (MKR). The common point is that these projects generate real revenue and large usage value, enough to compensate for diluted supply.
12. Why do VCs value projects so high from the initial round? Fierce competition between funds and abundant venture capital flows have pushed Seed/Series A valuations to high levels. This forces the project to be listed with a billion-dollar FDV to ensure investors soon have the expected profit.
13. How to detect early signs of price manipulation? Monitor the volume of wash trading and the concentration of large wallets. If a small group of wallets control the majority of the circulating supply, they can easily manipulate prices to trap individual investors.
14. Which investment strategy is best for High FDV projects? Prioritize participating in periods with strong catalysts (listing, major updates) and proactively take profits before major unlocking milestones. Avoid an indefinite "buy and hold" mindset unless the project demonstrates real cash flow.
15. What's different about crypto pricing trends in 2026? The market will shift to "performance-based pricing". Projects will be evaluated by revenue, number of real users and level of integration into the traditional financial system instead of relying solely on expectations and narrative.
Entering 2026, the crypto market is moving towards differentiation. Projects with high FDV but no viable products will continue to experience serious price declines. In contrast, sectors such as stablecoins and payment infrastructure will establish new valuation standards based on total asset value (AUM) and actual transaction volume, similar to traditional financial systems.
To sum up, the answer to “Is high FDV really a trap?” depends on the difference between valuation and use value. Successful investors in the next cycle will be those who know how to see through the fog of billion-dollar valuations to find real values in the decentralized economy. Maintaining vigilance against Low Float structures and prioritizing projects with real revenue will be key to protecting assets in this volatile market.
Share
