A common mistake is to directly link the technical utility of blockchain with the dynamics of its token price. The logic seems obvious: if the network is used, then the asset should grow. But the market operates more complexly than a linear relationship between usage and value.
The utility of blockchain reflects the demand for infrastructure: transactions, applications, interaction among participants. However, the token is a separate economic layer, and its price is determined not by the fact of usage, but by the role it plays in redistributing value within the system.
If the token is not a mandatory element for access, calculations, or resource restrictions, the growth of network activity may pass it by. In such a case, value is created at the service level, not at the asset level. The token remains an auxiliary element, not receiving direct demand from the growth of usage.
Moreover, even with the mandatory participation of the token, it is important to where the flows are directed. If they are compensated by emissions, subsidies, or unlockings, the growth of activity does not turn into a deficit. The price in such a construction reflects the balance of flows, not the success of the technology.$SOL
The key idea here is simple: the utility of blockchain can be high, but the token price only rises when it is embedded in a mechanism of accumulation and limitation, rather than just accompanying the network's operation.$OP
