I keep thinking the real story in @SignOfficial tokenomics is not the first 40%… it is who will truly shape the remaining 60%.
The early allocation to team, investors, and backers is not unusual. Projects take years to build, so early ownership makes sense. The deeper issue is whether those holdings unlock in a way that keeps decentralization real, not just something claimed in theory.
What makes Sign stand out to me is the larger bet behind the other 60%.
It is not positioned as supply already handed out, but as ownership to be earned over time by future users, contributors, and ecosystem participants. That is a strong idea, because it suggests value should flow to those who actually help the network grow.
But this is also where the tension begins.
Who decides what counts as contribution? Which actions deserve rewards, and which do not? If that logic stays narrow, then decentralization can still look open while being quietly controlled.
That is why I find @SignOfficial interesting. They are not just splitting tokens. They are trying to design future behavior.