The promise of cryptocurrency has always been tantalizing: a decentralized, democratized financial system accessible to all. Again and again, we see Token Generation Events (TGEs) that benefit insiders to an extreme degree. Venture capitalists appear to come out even further ahead than the typical American in these cases. Initia is the latest project to step into the arena, and the question on everyone’s mind is: will it break the mold, or simply reinforce the status quo?

Accessibility: Was the Door Really Open?

Think about it. Just take a moment to recall the last time you couldn’t wait to jump into a new “ground floor” opportunity. Was it ever actually accessible? Or were there hidden velvet ropes, high minimum investments, and KYC jump-throughs that weeded out the ‘undesirables’?

Initia, like most of its forebears, claims to be extremely accessible. Let's be real. How difficult was it for the average lay person to navigate the complexities of the TGE? Now, they were all trying to balance a 9-to-5 job with a full-time mortgage. Were gas fees cripplingly high? Was the process so complicated you needed a PhD in blockchain tech to understand it? Or, as another example, a minimum investment that immediately ruled out a large percentage of the population?

These seemingly small hurdles add up. Then, they created a system that further empowers those who have the wealth and knowledge to snatch tokens at deeply discounted rates. In the meantime, the rest are stuck doing a mad dash for the crumbs on the secondary market. It’s as though we allowed a small passport holding elite to start the marathon race 26 miles ahead of everyone else.

Consider Acme Corp. They just announced record profits, right? Yet at the same time, in the same breath, they’re laying off 10% of their workforce while citing “restructuring” and “cost-cutting.” (I hate that euphemism!). Meanwhile, the executives are likely congratulating themselves, perhaps even waiting on larger bonuses. Meanwhile, hundreds of families are facing uncertainty. This problem is not closely related to Initia. It does point to the same trend of wealth consolidation that we all need to be worried about. Unfortunately, it’s the same song and dance being played over in crypto.

Token Distribution: Who Gets the Pie?

This is where stuff gets super interesting and honestly, super infuriating. Look at the initial token distribution. And of that, how much went to the team, advisors, and private investors at the expense of the public. Was it a little sliver for the community and a whopping great big piece of pie for the inside players.

For instance, a hugely skewed distribution is a giant red flag. It indicates that the point of the project is to line the pockets of a few insiders, instead of creating a real decentralized ecosystem. That extreme environment even makes room for some good old price manipulation. It allows early investors to dump on unsuspecting retail investors who will be left holding the bag on all their losses.

Think about this: if the team and early investors hold a vast majority of the tokens, what incentive do they have to prioritize the long-term health of the project? As a result of this fatal flaw, their overriding objective turns to be maximizing their own profits, regardless of the impact inflicted upon the affected community.

Consider the ruthless landlord who seeks to extract as much grift from tenants as possible. They conveniently ignore how much investment is required to maintain the building. Long term, it’s unsustainable, and in the end, it’s damaging to everyone on all sides.

Community Governance: Real Power or Just Show?

Here's the million-dollar question: does Initia have a real, robust community governance mechanism? What even are tokens, anyway, and can holders of them really vote to determine a project’s development priorities and resource allocations? Or is it merely an ornamental pillar meant to placate the rubes?

Because true decentralization isn’t really about technology—it’s about power. It’s about empowering the community to meaningfully participate in the decisions that impact their lives. It’s not about avoiding a project…it’s about making sure the project works to benefit the many and not just the stakeholder few.

If Initia's governance mechanism is weak or non-existent, then it's just another centralized project masquerading as a decentralized one. Picture a corporation that claims to care deeply about employee feedback. Then, it flips around and disregards their recommendations, making all the final decisions behind closed doors.

Here's a simple checklist for evaluating Initia's (or any crypto project's) potential for empowering the 99%:

  • Accessibility: Were there low barriers to entry for the TGE?
  • Token Distribution: Is the token distribution fair and equitable?
  • Governance: Does the community have real power to influence the project's direction?
  • Financial Inclusion: Does the project have the potential to empower marginalized communities?

If the answer to any of these questions is “no,” though, then it’s time to get skeptical.

Initia could be a force for good. It would greatly increase access to financial capital for historically marginalized communities and help build a more equitable, inclusive financial system. It can only do that if it commits to doing so fairly, transparently, and with governance rooted in the local community. Together, we, the 99%, must insist that it accomplishes all that and more. It’s time to demand more from these projects. To that end, let’s reject any agreements that would further the bad precedent of wealth and opportunity consolidation.

Let's not be fooled by the hype. Together, let’s call for a future where crypto really does benefit all of us and not just the elite. Because, let's face it, we deserve better.