In crypto, especially in DeFi and Web3, there is a fairly common mindset: tokens must be closely linked to adoption to have value.
The faster the adoption, the bigger the story, and the easier it is to value the token highly. But as the market goes through enough cycles, this assumption begins to be questioned.
With Lorenzo, the question "should the token be completely separated from the adoption story?" is not just a matter of communication, but also a matter of long-term value design.
To answer, it is necessary to clarify beforehand: 'separating from adoption' does not mean that tokens do not need users, but rather that tokens should not depend directly, immediately, and linearly on the number of users.
These two concepts are often confused.
In many early Web3 models, tokens were directly linked to adoption in the following way:
many users → many transactions → token price increases.
This model works well during hot growth phases, but it also creates fragility. When adoption slows down or reverses, the token immediately loses its support.
Many tokens that have 'died' are not because the product is useless, but because the tokens were forced to reflect adoption too early.
Lorenzo faces a different challenge.
It is not a mass consumer application where adoption explodes exponentially. Lorenzo stands at the intermediary layer between infrastructure (restaking, EigenLayer) and DeFi apps.
Adoption at this layer is naturally slow, selective, and has a delay. If the Lorenzo token is forced to run in parallel with surface adoption, it will always be placed in a 'not good enough' state, even if the underlying system may be developing in the right direction.
Therefore, a more reasonable question is not 'should it completely separate from adoption or not', but rather: at what level should the Lorenzo token be linked to adoption.
If the Lorenzo token is directly linked to end-user adoption — the number of wallets, the number of transactions, short-term TVL — then that is a risky choice.
Adoption at the end-user level is heavily influenced by cycles, narratives, and market psychology. A system like Lorenzo, which prioritizes reliability and structure, will always 'run slower' than speculative apps.
Linking tokens to this kind of adoption will cause the tokens to be continuously undervalued during periods when the project is actually doing the right thing.
Conversely, if the Lorenzo token separates from surface adoption but is tied to structural adoption — that is, the level at which the system is trusted, integrated, and used as an intermediary layer — then the token not only does not lose value, but also better reflects long-term health.
Here appears a crucial point: adoption is not a single concept.
There is end-user adoption, infrastructure adoption, partner adoption, adoption within the ecosystem architecture. Lorenzo may not have millions of direct users, but if it becomes the layer that other protocols rely on to safely access restaking, then that adoption is much more strategic.
In this case, the Lorenzo token should not react strongly to surface adoption, but should reflect structural adoption.
This means that tokens need to be separated from the narrative of 'how many users today', but should not be separated from the narrative of 'how important the system is becoming'.
Another reason why the Lorenzo token should not be tightly linked to short-term adoption is the asymmetry between risks and benefits.
When tokens are designed to benefit immediately as adoption increases, they will also face significant pressure when adoption slows down. In bear or sideways market phases, slow adoption is normal, even healthy.
If the token is forced to 'run after adoption', the team will face pressure to accelerate growth, sometimes at the cost of reliability — which goes against Lorenzo's core philosophy.
From a tokenomics design perspective, separating tokens from surface adoption also helps protect tokens from being abused as marketing tools.
Many projects use tokens to 'buy adoption': high incentives, large airdrops, short-term rewards. This kind of adoption is often not sustainable, but it creates high expectations for the token. When incentives run out, adoption fades, and tokens suffer severe consequences.
Lorenzo avoids this loop by not centering the token in the adoption narrative.
However, saying that the Lorenzo token should 'completely separate' from adoption is also another extreme.
A token completely unrelated to adoption will eventually become abstract and difficult to justify its value. The issue is not whether to separate or not, but to separate from short-term adoption while being linked to long-term and delayed adoption.
In an ideal model, Lorenzo's adoption occurs first at the system level:
many trusted protocols,
many structures have been implemented,
many values are coordinated through the platform.
The Lorenzo token only begins to reflect this when adoption has gone deep enough to create real demand for participation rights, coordination rights, and economic commitment.
This is the type of adoption 'leading – token following', rather than 'token leading adoption'.
This approach also fits Lorenzo's intermediary role.
Intermediaries are only valuable when both sides need them. Adoption of the intermediary role cannot be forced quickly, and the token representing that role should not be forced to react quickly.
If the Lorenzo token separates from short-term adoption pressure, it has the space to become a token of trust, not a token of growth.
From an investor and holder perspective, this also helps reposition expectations.
The Lorenzo token is not a tool to bet on 'the number of users increasing in the next quarter', but to bet on whether Lorenzo will become an indispensable layer in the new DeFi architecture.
This is a form of long-term expectation, difficult to measure quickly, but has much more sustainable potential.
In summary, the Lorenzo token should not be tightly linked to the adoption narrative in the mainstream sense, but it should also not be completely detached from adoption.
It needs to be separated from surface, short-term, marketing-driven adoption; while being linked to structural, long-term, and systemic adoption.
If this can be achieved, the Lorenzo token will not only avoid the pressure of cycles but also accurately reflect the role that the project is pursuing.
In a mature Web3, long-term tokens are often not the tokens that 'race with adoption', but rather tokens that lag behind adoption but accompany trust.
Lorenzo, if it maintains that discipline, will not need to choose between token and adoption — because when adoption truly occurs at the structural level, the token will have its own reason to exist.
@Lorenzo Protocol #lorenzoprotocol $BANK
