What caught my attention was not the token split itself, but the incentive stack hiding underneath it. On paper, Fabric looks balanced. In practice, I think the harder question is simpler: when supply starts moving, who is naturally a seller, and who is forced to become a buyer?
My read is that ROBO’s token map creates a delayed pressure curve, not an immediate one. The first phase is relatively protected. The second phase is where the real test starts. Fabric’s own allocation gives 24.3% to investors and 20% to team/advisors, both with a 12-month cliff plus 36-month linear vesting. Foundation Reserve is 18%, and Ecosystem/Community is 29.7%, each with 30% unlocked at TGE and the rest vesting over 40 months. Liquidity, public sale, and airdrops were available at launch.A fraction of protocol revenue is used to buy Roboon the open market. Work bonds, governance locks, burns, and buybacks all reduce effective circulating supply. But ecosystem emissions still add supply, so demand has to outrun releases.Small scenario: circulation looks manageable today at about 2.23B out of 10B, then the first major insider unlock window arrives in 2027. If robot usage is still thin, unlocks may dominate. If protocol revenue is real, buy pressure and lockups may absorb part of it.

That is why I would watch Fabric less as a “good tokenomics” story and more as a timing problem between unlocks and actual robot-driven demand. The model makes sense on paper, but when insider supply opens, what will be strong enough to catch it?