#termmax @TermMax Would you be comfortable with a token where 80% of the supply is still issuer-retained?
I've been thinking about this while going through the @TermMax MiCA whitepaper.
TMX has a fixed maximum supply of 1 billion tokens.
But the whitepaper says 80% is issuer-retained, covering team, advisors and ecosystem allocations under the stated vesting structure.
That number immediately caught my attention.
Because ownership concentration isn't automatically good or bad.
What matters is how those tokens are vested, when they become available, and how much governance influence they can eventually represent.
Think of it like giving most of the tickets to a small group, but locking those tickets away over time.
They may have significant ownership.
But they can't necessarily use everything at once.
TermMax also acknowledges the other side of this equation: as governance becomes increasingly on-chain, concentrated token ownership could allow a smaller group of holders to gain significant voting power.
That's the interesting trade-off to me.
Long vesting = potentially stronger long-term alignment.
High concentration = potentially higher governance risk.
So the important question isn't simply:
“Is 80% retained too much?”
It's whether the vesting and decentralization process can gradually turn that concentration into genuine long-term alignment.
If you were evaluating TMX, what would you focus on first?
1. Vesting schedule
2. Future governance distribution
3. Circulating supply growth
4. All three together

$BTW $HEMI $BR