The network that halves its rewards and lets the market say where they go

On 6 November 2025 the network’s token closed at $392.2 according to our price archive. As of the last update to this page the same token is worth $226.

The cut, and why it has no date

Here, though, the cut isn’t pinned to a number of blocks but to a threshold: it goes off when the tokens in circulation reach 10.5 million. Since the rate of emission isn’t constant, the date moves as it goes — at the moment the source was writing there were about 47 days left, but that count was updating itself.

The practical consequence for whoever keeps the network running is brutal and has to be said straight: anyone covering their costs today by selling the rewards will have to sell twice as many to bring home as much. And since the money coming into the internal markets halves too, selling costs more — there is less depth on the other side.

Who decides where the rewards go

Nobody sets the price of those internal tokens: it comes out of the ratio between the two reserves of the automatic market they are traded in. Which is to say: the more people buy a team’s token, the higher that price goes, the more rewards reach that team, the fatter its market gets, the more worthwhile it is to work there — and round it goes again.

It works exactly the same way in reverse, and that is the point that makes the event interesting. A team with no demand watches its own token fall, receives fewer rewards, sees its market thin out, and the people working on it leave. With the rewards halved that process speeds up: the marginal teams stop covering the costs of whoever puts in the computing power.

The two ways to be in, and why one of them shrinks

The second is the individual team: you buy that team’s internal token, deposit it there, and take only what that team produces. It pays more and it can go to zero, because if the team dies what you put into it dies too. The two choices aren’t the same thing at two levels of risk: they are two different trades.

The part almost nobody tells you is that the first position shrinks by itself, by construction. The share that goes to the center depends on how much capital sits at the center against the internal tokens in circulation, and those tokens keep increasing even after the cut, only more slowly. The denominator grows, the share falls: whoever stays still at the center earns less and less without having done anything wrong.

Depositing at the center of the network gives a share of what every team produces, with nothing to choose, but that share shrinks structurally because the internal tokens in circulation keep growing. Depositing on a single team pays more and concentrates the risk: if the team fails, what was put there is lost.

What separates a team that survives from one that disappears

The third is the depth of the internal market: below 100 thousand units of reserve a market is thin, it moves on very little, and whoever comes in or goes out pays a punishing spread. After the cut, with half the money coming in, a small market takes years to become a big one — so the depth that is already there is close to all the depth there will be.

The fourth is knowing who is behind it. That is not a moral consideration: it is that in the period when the marginal teams shut down, a team run by anonymous people with no public updates has nobody to answer to when it stops working, and disappears without notice. The names going around at the time were four or five, all with announced products and none with mature ones.

The criteria: a real product in testing or shipping; a mechanism that brings the revenue back inside by buying back the internal token; an internal market with at least 100 thousand units of reserve, below which the price spread turns punishing; and a public working team, with updates you can check.

The real risks, and what to watch to understand

The third is time: if the teams don’t deliver products within a year of the cut, the story deflates and the capital goes elsewhere, because this market is impatient in a structural way. The fourth is that the network is hard to use, and as long as it stays hard the real demand — the demand from somebody buying a product and not a token — doesn’t arrive.

From outside there are five things to watch and they are all accounting: where the large deposits move, whether the internal markets’ reserves grow or empty out, which teams climb the reward table, how many new teams register (every registration burns tokens, so it takes them out of circulation), and when the yield from individual teams steadily beats the yield from the center. Bitcoin, that day, closed at $101,346; this network’s token at $392.2, and today it is worth $226.

Put bluntly: halving the rewards isn’t the destination, it is the test — it forces every working team to prove it is good for something, and the ones that aren’t stop covering their costs.