Token Generation Event（TGE）標誌着數碼資產於區塊鏈正式「出生」的一刻，將原本僅存在於白皮書及開發文件內的概念，變成能運作及交易的代幣。
這個看似技術性的里程碑，實際上是任何區塊鏈項目生命週期中最關鍵的事件之一，往往決定一隻加密貨幣能否興盛，抑或最終被市場淘汰。
Token Generation Event本質上為區塊鏈項目提供一個募資方法，讓它們可在發行加密代幣同時，吸引早期用戶的支持，進行眾籌。
有別於傳統上市（IPO）或風投募資，TGE令項目能直接與其社群聯繫，通過數碼代幣分配持份者的擁有權，而這些代幣在整個生態下可以有多元功能。
TGE的意義遠超單純集資。這些活動為分散式網絡建立起經濟基礎，設計利益誘因，對齊持份者目標，更往往決定區塊鏈項目能否長遠發展。
如TGE執行得宜，能為項目創造熱情社群及可持續的代幣經濟；處理失當則會引發市場暴跌、監管審查，甚至導致原本具潛力技術的迅速消亡。
進化路徑：從ICO到現代TGE框架
說TGE的歷史，不能不提2017年的首次代幣發行（ICO）熱潮以及其後續發展。ICO於2017年山寨幣熱潮期間尤為常見，當時以太坊區塊鏈上誕生了數千種新代幣。這一年既見證了分散式集資的新機遇，也帶來風險，項目透過ICO募得數十億美元，而監管機構則急於理解此新現象。
2014年，以太坊項目首次使用ICO集資，為早期區塊鏈項目提供新模式。這次ICO共籌得約31,000枚比特幣（當時約值1,800萬美元），顯示項目能繞過傳統風投，靠自家發售代幣籌錢。這種模式後來被數千個項目仿效，然而只有極少數能複製以太坊的成功。
ICO與TGE的界線其後逐漸明顯。雖兩者目標類近，TGE較專注於功能型代幣的創建與發行，這些代幣主要應用於平台內，如存取服務、治理參與或支付。而ICO通常與證券型代幣相關，因此更易受監管壓力。
隨加密產業成熟，新的募資手段如初始去中心化交易所發行（IDO）應運而生，讓項目可在去中心化交易所（DEX）發售代幣，無需倚賴中央機構，令集資更開放與透明。
另一個進化為「首次交易所發行」（IEO），由中心化交易所先審批項目，再協助發售代幣。IEO模式減低詐騙風險，交易所會於代幣上架前完成審查，因此普遍被視為更可信。
近年最新趨勢是以空投（Airdrop）分發作為TGE，項目會將代幣免費派發予參與測試或早期支持的用戶。此舉在避免公開集資引發監管同時，亦能達至廣泛分發，逐漸受歡迎。
TGE的運作結構
要掌握TGE如何實際運作，需了解將一枚代幣從構思推向市場的多個流程環節。TGE常見步驟包括：代幣創建、智能審計、代幣經濟（Tokenomics）設計、生成與分發，以及上架交易所。
首先是代幣的技術生成，開發團隊需決定總供應量、所屬區塊鏈、採用的代幣標準及初步分發方式。以以太坊為例，通常會用ERC-20或類似標準部署智能合約；Solana項目則用SPL標準，不同鏈各自有規格。
安全審計是負責任項目的重要一環，由第三方安全公司檢查智能合約，找出潛在漏洞，如駭客攻擊或意外行為。雖未能消除一切風險，但能給予投資者和用戶一定信心。
代幣經濟設計則定義各持份者的分配比例及解鎖時間表，包括團隊、早期投資者、社群、發展基金及未來激勵，並為分配設有鎖倉，減低砸盤風險。
真正的生成事件發生於代幣首次於區塊鏈發行 —— 編寫智能合約及代幣鑄造，代表項目正式啟動。這一刻可在鏈上查證，公開透明，確保TGE的真實性。
分發方式按項目策略有別，有些公開發售，任何人可按定價購買；有些以空投形式，按特定條件派發；亦有同時結合多種方法分配給不同群體。
交易所上市則關乎流通和價格發現，項目可選擇在如Binance、Coinbase等中心化平台或Uniswap、Raydium等去中心化交易所入市。選擇何地上市影響易用度、深度流動性及監管要求。
TGE前市場：代幣「出生」前的交易
近年另一有趣現象，是TGE前即開始的預售市場，允許投資者於代幣正式誕生前交易。這種「pre-TGE」模式2024年愈來愈受歡迎。
過往，pre-TGE配售主要在社群、私訊及若干中心化平台進行，缺乏安全保障，騙局時有發生。Whales Market就是針對此類缺陷而生的平台，它用智能合約確保尚未發行之代幣（即仍未在公開區塊鏈存在）也可安全交易。
Whales Market為目前領先的pre-TGE加密去中心化交易所，其交易規模逾3億美元，無中介，純鏈上運作。用戶可將預定由空投或私募獲得的「未來代幣」出售，讓買家博取將來上市後的升值潛力。
技術上，這全由託管智能合約實現：訂單與場外交易（OTC）經由合約處理，無須信任第三方，由合約持有買家資金，賣家於TGE後兌現代幣即收款，提升資金及代幣雙向安全。
此市場持續成熟：設有TGE前分配預售場、市場大宗OTC交易，以及可買賣多種協議積分（多與未來可獲空投相關）的積分市場。
但pre-TGE市場風險重大。歷來不少舊有drops的預售價格遠超TGE實際上線時的市價。投資者極易因炒作過熱於預售溢價買入，TGE後現貨價卻大幅下跌。
中心化交易所亦已涉足這一領域。2025年4月底，Binance推出全新TGE參與機制及Alpha Points空投方案，活動期間每日計分，參與TGE或空投則扣除15分。2025年5月15日，CoinMarketCap亦宣布推出主攻尚未發幣項目的pre-TGE活動平台，用戶可完成任務換取獎勵。
Hyperliquid創下紀錄的TGE
若想了解一次「成功」TGE的實際案例，去中心化交易所HyperLiquid於2024年11月的TGE值得參考。HyperLiquid宣佈推出原生代幣HYPE並空投給早期用戶， one billion tokens issued and 31% going to users who earned points in a campaign that ended in May.
發行了十億枚代幣，當中有31%分配給於五月結束嘅活動中賺取積分嘅用戶。
On 29 November 2024, Hyperliquid airdropped its token HYPE to over 90 thousand users, with the airdrop shocking many with how generous the token allocation was to their community and setting the tone for future crypto airdrops to come. What made this TGE remarkable was both its scale and its approach to token distribution.
2024年11月29日，Hyperliquid 向超過九萬名用戶進行 HYPE 代幣空投。空投嘅慷慨分配令好多社群成員都覺得震驚，為未來嘅加密貨幣空投定下新標準。今次 TGE 之所以咁矚目，係因為規模同分配方式都好特別。
The economics were staggering. The revolutionary DeFi project distributed 310 million HYPE tokens to its community, equal to 31% of the supply, with the overall value given away amounting to over 4.3 billion dollars, placing Hyperliquid in the first position among the most epic airdrops ever. Recipients reported six-figure windfalls, with some users receiving allocations worth over $100,000 despite having incurred losses while trading on the platform.
數字令人咋舌。呢個革命性嘅 DeFi 項目向其社群派發3.1億枚 HYPE 代幣，相當於總供應量31%，合共價值超過43億美元，令到 Hyperliquid 成為歷來最大型嘅空投之一。有收件者報告獲得六位數美元嘅收益，有啲用戶即使之前喺平台交易有損失，今次都獲分配超過十萬美元嘅代幣。
Several factors contributed to Hyperliquid's success. The main difference between the Hyperliquid airdrop and most other airdrops is the lack of an allocation to private investors, because Hyperliquid has no private investors and therefore were able to allocate significantly more tokens to the community. This decision proved crucial, as venture capital allocations with short vesting periods have become a major complaint about many token launches.
Hyperliquid 能夠成功有幾個原因。佢同大部分其他空投最大分別，就係冇分配俾私人投資者——因為本身冇 VC 或天使投資人，所以可以分多好多代幣俾社群。呢個決定好關鍵，因為通常 VC 份額解鎖得太快，已經成為好多項目被社群批評嘅對象。
In total, 76.2% of the token supply is earmarked for the community with team members being vested for at least 1 year after token genesis. This contrasted sharply with projects that allocate only 5-10% to the community while reserving large portions for insiders with shorter vesting schedules.
總共有76.2%嘅代幣供應劃撥俾社群，團隊成員要等最少一年才可領取所分配嘅代幣。呢個比例遠高於好多只分5至10%俾社群、將大量份額留俾內部人員（而且解鎖期較短）嘅項目。
The token's performance post-TGE defied typical patterns. Airdropped tokens usually decline in value after the initial airdrop as airdrop farmers sell their allocation to realize their profits, but this was not the case with Hyperliquid. Instead, HYPE surged from its initial price, with the token appreciating over 500% in the months following the TGE.
TGE後，代幣表現亦打破慣例——通常空投過後好多「空投農夫」會即時沽貨，價值下跌。但 Hyperliquid 並無出現呢個情況，HYPE 反而由初始價格大幅升值，TGE 後幾個月升幅超過500%。
Choi, an analyst at Greythorn Asset Management, noted that one of the main things Hyperliquid got right was creating short-term artificial demand by not having VCs, which forces them to buy the moment the token comes to market along with everyone else. This created immediate buying pressure rather than selling pressure from early investors looking to exit.
Greythorn Asset Management 分析師 Choi 認為，Hyperliquid 最成功之處之一，就係冇 VC，等佢哋同散戶一齊上場買貨，從而喺短期產生人為買盤，而唔係早期投資者拋售的賣壓。
The success wasn't purely about distribution mechanics. Hyperliquid had built genuine product-market fit before its TGE. The platform processed over 50,000 trades in one day and saw user adoption grow by 150% in just six months, with over 10,000 active daily trades. This meant token recipients weren't just speculators but actual users invested in the platform's success.
成功唔止因為分配機制。Hyperliquid 喺 TGE 之前已經建立到真正的產品市場契合度，平台單日成交超過五萬宗，半年內用戶增長150%，每日有超過一萬宗活躍交易。呢啲數據證明咗，攞到代幣嘅唔只係投機者，仲有真正投入平台、認真參與嘅用戶。
Grass Network's Mass Distribution
While Hyperliquid focused on rewarding quality users, Grass Network demonstrated a different approach focused on mass distribution. The first airdrop of Grass Tokens occurred on October 28, 2024, during which 100,000,000 tokens were airdropped to more than 2,000,000 Grass users.
Hyperliquid 主打獎勵「質素高」用戶，Grass Network 就用大規模派發策略。2024年10月28日，Grass 首次空投發放一億枚代幣，受益人數超過二百萬。
Grass operates as a decentralized physical infrastructure network that allows users to monetize unused internet bandwidth. Having secured $4.5 million in seed funding led by Polychain Capital and Tribe Capital in December 2023, Grass positioned itself as a key player in democratizing AI development. Users install a browser extension or desktop application that shares their bandwidth with vetted partners, earning points that convert to tokens.
Grass 作為去中心化物理基建網絡，容許用戶將閒置網絡頻寬變現。2023年12月獲 Polychain Capital 及 Tribe Capital 領投450萬美元種子輪融資，Grass 致力推動 AI 發展民主化。用戶只需安裝瀏覽器插件或桌面應用程式，把自己嘅頻寬分享俾有審核過嘅合作伙伴，就可以賺取積分，之後再兌換成代幣。
The Grass TGE became notable for its scale. The initial stage of the Grass airdrop concluded with remarkable success, becoming the most widely distributed airdrop on Solana with 2.8 million users across 190 countries. This massive distribution created immediate awareness but also posed challenges around token concentration and market liquidity.
Grass TGE 以規模見稱。第一階段空投完成後，Grass 成為 Solana 上分布最廣泛嘅空投，覆蓋190個國家、280萬用戶。咁龐大嘅分佈提升咗知名度，但同時亦帶來代幣集中度及市場流動性嘅挑戰。
The Grass tokenomics structure allocated 30% to the community, 25.2% to investors who supported development and liquidity, 22% to developers and partners collectively called contributors, 22.8% to foundation and ecosystem growth, and 17% to future incentives. This relatively balanced distribution avoided the extreme VC concentration that plagued many projects.
Grass 代幣經濟結構係：社群30%、發展及流動性投資者25.2%、開發者及合作伙伴22%（合稱貢獻者）、基金會及生態增長22.8%、未來激勵17%。咁嘅分法比較平衡，避免咗過份集中俾 VC 嘅弊病。
Token performance showed volatility typical of broad airdrops. According to CoinGecko, the trading volume of Grass as of 08th November 2024 was $680,730,293, with the highest price for Grass at that time being $3.31 recorded on 08th November 2024, which was 406.86% higher than the all-time low of $0.655 on 28th October 2024. This price action reflected both the excitement around the TGE and the selling pressure from millions of airdrop recipients.
代幣表現非常波動，正如普遍大型空投。根據 CoinGecko，2024年11月8日當日，Grass 交易量達6.8億美元，代幣高見$3.31，較10月28日嘅歷史低位$0.655升咗406.86%。呢啲價格波動正正反映出 TGE 嘅熱度同大量空投用戶沽貨所帶嚟壓力。
Tokenomics and Vesting: The Economic Architecture
The design of token economics and vesting schedules represents one of the most critical aspects of any TGE, often determining whether a token maintains value or crashes shortly after launch. Many projects have been burned in the past, with core team members and early backers prematurely selling their tokens or dumping on the community.
代幣經濟同歸屬（Vesting）計劃設計，絕對係任何 TGE 最關鍵部份之一，往往決定代幣是穩定或上市即暴跌。以往好多項目都撞過板，早期核心團隊或投資者一得代幣就拋貨，甚至沽俾社群。
Premature selling usually happens because projects either involve stakeholders who only want to make a quick buck or don't implement token vesting schedules and lockups to prevent early sell-offs. This realization has led to increasingly sophisticated vesting mechanisms designed to align long-term incentives.
之所以會有過早沽售，多數因為項目涉及「快進快出」利益相關者，或者冇設計好歸屬計劃同鎖倉機制，防止提早拋售大額代幣。於是，大家學精，設計愈來愈完善的歸屬架構，目標係令成員長期保持動力。
Token allocation determines what percentage of the total supply goes to different stakeholder groups. Common stakeholder groups include the founding team, investors, community, reserves, and the ecosystem, with each allocation following a distribution model and strategy that supports token stability, project growth, and equitable ownership.
代幣分配即係決定總供應量有幾多分俾唔同持份者。常見有創辦團隊、投資者、社群、儲備同生態等。每份比例都有相應理念，支持代幣市值穩定、項目增長同持有公平。
Vesting schedules control when allocated tokens become accessible. Token vesting refers to the process by which cryptocurrency tokens are released over a predetermined schedule rather than being made available all at once, commonly used in blockchain projects to align the interests of team members, investors, and other stakeholders with the project's long-term goals.
歸屬時間表就係定咗幾時先可以攞返分到的代幣。歸屬機制即係將代幣派發時間攤長，而唔係一開始一次過發放，目標係鎖定團隊、投資者等持份者，等佢哋同項目嘅長遠利益保持一致。
The most common approach involves cliff periods and linear vesting. The most frequently implemented approach is the 4-year vesting schedule with a one-year cliff, where if an employee receives 1,200 tokens, they would receive nothing during the first year, then after completing one full year they would immediately receive 300 tokens (25% of the total allocation), with the remaining 900 tokens vesting gradually at a rate of 25 tokens per month over the following three years.
最主流係 cliff period（斷崖期）同 linear vesting（線性歸屬）。最多人用係四年歸屬、首年 cliff：例如受僱者攞到1,200枚代幣，第一年一粒唔收到，滿一年即時攞300（即25%），餘下900就分三年線性派發，每月攞25枚。
Lockup periods serve a similar but distinct function. Token lockup defines a period where the tokens cannot be sold or transferred, preventing selling but without employment conditions where tokens would be returned. Both mechanisms aim to reduce immediate selling pressure and demonstrate long-term commitment.
鎖倉（lockup）類似但又唔同，係硬性規定案例幾耐唔可以賣（或轉讓），但唔似歸屬咁追溯撇除未服務期。兩者都係減少即時拋售，展現長遠承諾。
The importance of well-designed vesting cannot be overstated. The primary goal behind implementing these mechanisms is to prevent early dumping, when individuals with large token allocations sell them quickly, potentially harming the project's market stability and investor confidence. Projects that fail to implement adequate vesting often see dramatic price collapses as insiders rush to liquidate their holdings.
完善歸屬設計極為重要，因為核心要點係防止早期大戶拋售，影響項目穩定性同投資者信心。冇做好歸屬規劃的項目，經常一上市就被內部人員沽清持倉，價格暴瀉。
Float size represents another crucial consideration. Tokens with a low float are highly susceptible to large price swings, as with fewer tokens available for trading, even minor buy or sell orders can cause significant price changes. Projects launching with only 5-10% of supply in circulation face extreme volatility, while those releasing larger percentages may face more immediate selling pressure but potentially more stable price discovery.
流通量（float size）都要留意。低流通量（即市面貨源少）會令股價波動超大，細單都會影響大市價；如果只放5-10%上流通，波幅極大，放得多則賣壓強但較快搵到合理價。
Fully diluted valuation provides a reality check on token prices. A project's FDV is calculated by multiplying the token price by the total supply, giving an estimate of the potential market cap when all tokens are in circulation, and if a project's FDV seems too good to be true, it probably is. Many recent TGEs have launched at FDVs that would require them to surpass established cryptocurrencies in market cap, suggesting overvaluation.
完全稀釋市值（FDV）提醒大家唔好被假象呃到。FDV＝代幣市價乘以總供應量，反映晒所有代幣釋放後的潛在市值。好多 TGE 初上市定價 FDV 超誇張，比好多頂級加密幣都高，明顯過度估值。
Legal and Regulatory Considerations
The regulatory landscape surrounding TGEs remains one of the most complex and uncertain aspects of cryptocurrency. Many countries are still developing regulations around TGEs, so projects and investors face potential legal risks, with one major concern being that tokens created during a public fundraising TGE may construe the launched token as a security in many jurisdictions, notably the US.
TGE 涉及法規範疇，係加密貨幣裡面最複雜、最唔穩定一環。好多國家仲未完善法規，項目方同投資者都面臨潛在法律風險，最令人擔心係一旦 TGE 期間發售代幣，喺好多司法管轄區（尤其美國）都隨時被歸類做證券。
The securities question looms largest. In the United States, the Securities and Exchange Commission has taken an aggressive stance toward token offerings, applying the Howey Test to determine whether tokens constitute investment contracts and thus securities. This test finds that an investment contract exists when there is the investment of money in a common enterprise with a reasonable expectation of profits to be derived from the efforts of others.
證券界定問題成為最大風險。美國證監會對發幣活動相當強硬，用「Howey 測試」判斷代幣是否投資合約（即證券）。簡單講：只要見到集資、同一事業、並合理預期由他人努力中分利就屬於投資合約。
Simple Agreements for Future Tokens emerged as an attempt to navigate these regulatory challenges. A Simple Agreement for Future Tokens allows blockchain startups to raise funds from accredited investors before token launch, navigating regulatory challenges and helping avoid token classification as securities if they have utility. The theory holds that while the SAFT itself is a security, tokens delivered after a network becomes functional might qualify as utility tokens exempt from securities regulation.
SAFT（未來代幣簡單協議）就係嚟應對法規難題。區塊鏈初創可先向合資格投資者融資，正式發幣前完成合約，有助避開證券分類，如果代幣本身有實用性。理論上，SAFT 本身算證券，網絡啟動後派發的代幣只係功能型，有機會唔受證券監管。
However, courts have been skeptical of this distinction. In a much-anticipated decision with important implications for the cryptocurrency industry, a New York federal judge ruled that an offeror's use of a two-stage SAFT structure for issuing cryptocurrency tokens will not suffice to exempt the offering from the reach of US securities law. The Telegram and Kik cases demonstrated that courts look at the economic reality
但法院對此分野一直有保留。紐約聯邦法官最近一單備受關注判決，認為即使用 SAFT 分兩階段發幣，都唔會自動豁免美國證券法管轄。Telegram 同 Kik 案都證明法院實際睇整個經濟現實。Here is your translation in zh-Hant-HK as per your instructions:
整個交易嘅實質，而唔係其形式結構。
隨住美國證監會（SEC）繼續喺美國法庭追究唔同加密公司，而世界其他國家亦考慮加密代幣係咪證券，初創企業就搵其他融資方式嚟避免有關問題。呢種監管不確定性，已經促使好多企劃轉向「空投」型 TGE（Token Generation Event，代幣發行事件），避開直接賣代幣畀美國人。
全球嘅監管情況差異好大。美國採取咗比較嚴格嘅做法，而其他國家就發展咗比較細緻嘅框架，好似歐盟嘅《加密資產市場法案》（MiCA），就為行業建立咗一個比較全面嘅規範框架，未來可能影響美國政策。各項目要喺唔同國家嘅監管碎片化下前行，每個地方都有自己嘅要求同限制。
合規要求唔止於證券法。搞 TGE 嘅項目要考慮反洗黑錢法規、KYC（認識你的客戶）要求、制裁名單篩查、稅務責任，以及數據私隱法。SAFT 融資回合嘅金融合規事項，包括要核實投資者身份，核查投資資金來源，以及進行「認識你嘅交易」同反洗錢檢查。
TGEs 對項目成敗嘅影響
TGE 對區塊鏈項目嘅走向有決定性影響，往往主導住項目的可持續發展，定係變成一個教訓。TGE 不只是創造代幣的時刻，亦是項目經濟同社群建立之開端。
成功嘅 TGE 會喺各持份者之間建立一致利益。當代幣分發真係畀到用戶同貢獻者，而唔係純粹投機者，項目就更容易建立有參與度嘅社群。透過真心參與獲得代幣嘅用戶，更投入去支持項目成功，提供反饋、推廣平台，並為網絡創造正面效應。
流動性提供係 TGE 重要好處。發行嘅代幣可以用嚟激勵用戶、獎勵開發者、組織治理投票，同時令項目可以喺公開市場吸引資金同新投資。冇代幣同流動性，區塊鏈網絡好難做到規模化。
代幣帶嚟治理機制，令社群可以參與項目走向。好多協議都會派發治理代幣，畀持有人對協議參數、資金分配、策略決定進行投票。呢種去中心化治理，可以令項目更有韌性，更容易回應社群需要，而唔係淨係聽創辦團隊話。
但係，如果 TGE 執行唔好，就會出大事。內部人分配過多而鎖倉期太短，會出現大量套現拋售，拖垮代幣價格，摧毀社群信任。當內部人同風險投資者爭住沽貨，代幣價狂跌，散戶就被套。以內部人利益為先，而唔係建立可持續生態系統嘅項目，最終都會失去社群支持，好難翻身。
喺未達產品-市場契合前就發代幣嘅項目，面對特別大挑戰。好多代幣實際無乜真係對產品有作用。雖然代幣可以幫助拉新客戶，但如果個產品根本無 PMF（Product-Market Fit），當尋求代幣獎勵嘅推廣活動完咗之後，用戶數量勢必大幅下跌。
2024 年搞 TGE 嘅二層網項目就正好體現咗呢啲現象。例如 Scroll、Blast 同 Manta 喺 TGE 空投完之後即時出現大量資金流走，項目社群輿論極差，每條 Scroll 團隊出嘅 X（Twitter）post 底都有留言鬧 Scroll 係騙局。呢啲項目喺 TGE 前根本未建立到足夠真實用戶活動，結果代幣獎勵一完就一大堆人退場。
市場時機對 TGE 成效好有影響。牛市期間發行有高估值同強烈買盤。熊市期間就算基本面唔錯都無人問津，流動性單薄。加密市場周期性好強，TGE 時機往往比其他因素更能決定項目起步時嘅表現。
風險、批評同市場扭曲
就算 TGE 咁受歡迎，都有好多批評聲音。代幣持有集中依然係老問題，好多項目發代幣時，內部人就控制住成 50-70%。咁樣會有價格操縱、集體清倉、以及治理被壟斷等風險。
監管不明確係一個根本性風險。好多項目原本以為合法 TGE，之後監管機構改變立場，幾年後先被追究法律責任。一旦代幣被認定為證券，交易所就會下架，創辦人隨時要負法律責任，項目一夜之間就玩完。
估值同實際脫節越來越嚴重。最近好多 TGE 一出就全稀釋市值過十億美金，但無乜收入、無用戶、產品都未有市場契合。呢啲天價估值反映炒作癲狂，而唔係基金面，結果遲早要大調整。
「空投農民」現象令激勵機制同數據扭曲。專業空投農民會開多個戶口、用機械人、協調操作去最大化空投，但對項目冇真興趣。結果用戶同交易數據飆升，但 TGE 一完，所謂用戶即走，搞到社群空心化。
內部人操控 TGE 前流通巿場（pre-market）都成為問題。團隊同投資人有動機搞高上市前代幣價，而且上市後跌一至三成都可以理解，但一上市跌五成以上就很可疑。協調式咁喺上市前買入，可以製造假高潮，導致散戶接火棒。
對於工作量證明（PoW）代幣，環保關注依然存在，雖然現時多數 TGE 用更高效嘅共識機制。更大嘅環境問題，其實係 TGE 帶嚟的炒作熱潮，激起咗好多人為咗爭空投而「做假」交易，令鏈上活動無謂增加。
退出流動性問題亦成為近年 TGE 批評重點。用戶應該要喺團隊同早期投資人之前拎到代幣，否則一開始內部人先拎貨，可以預計你係畀人當水魚。如果 TGE 主要係為早期投資人提供退出渠道，而唔係建立生態，呢啲項目就注定無法持續發展。
TGE 未來：可持續 vs. 投機
隨住加密行業成熟，TGE 嘅核心問題值得正視。我哋係咪真係需要幾千個有獨立代幣嘅新區塊鏈？TGE 會唔會已經變成早期退出機制？嚟緊嘅幾年，係咩趨勢會影響新代幣上市？
Layer 1 同 Layer 2 區塊鏈爆發，引發咗行業分散化問題。每個新區塊鏈都搞 TGE，只會加大生態系統複雜度，可能又稀釋咗流動性同開發者注意力。批評者認為，行業集中去已驗證平台反而更好，唔需要無止境搞新代幣。
但支持者就話 TGE 推動創新同專門化。唔同區塊鏈架構適合唔同應用，有啲重速度，有啲強安全，有啲係遊戲、社交網絡等專項。只要新代幣真係促進技術創新，都有助行業發展。
企業主導區塊鏈漸成趨勢，傳統公司都會出自己嘅代幣同網絡。呢類項目資源充足、用戶基礎大，或可以支持更可持續 TGE。但同時亦有人質疑，企業控制，可能與區塊鏈去中心化精神相違背。
垂直化有望係新方向，即代幣主攻特定行業或應用場景，而唔係做萬用貨幣。專為去中心化實體基礎設施、遊戲生態、社交平台、金融服務等設計嘅代幣，可能比一般用途代幣更容易做到產品市場契合。
監管明朗化會深刻影響 TGE 走向。如果監管單位出台清晰規則，唔會一刀切將所有代幣歸為證券，項目就有機會合法做 TGE，而唔使靠空投或者離岸註冊。相反，如果監管繼續模糊，TGE 只會繼續向灰色地帶或離岸國家發展。
隨住行業意識到持倉集中破壞去中心化，社群擁有權同治理代幣會越來越重要。真心將治理權分畀用戶，而唔係靠代幣分配保持控制權嘅項目，可以證明區塊鏈對新型組織架構嘅潛力。
可持續代幣經濟會更受重視，因為投資者越來越精明。設計出有實際用途、公平價值、合理分配、同持份者利益一致嘅代幣項目，會比單純為內部人造富嘅 TGE 更得長遠發展。
傳統金融參與 TGE 嘅角色依然未明....
---institutional investors enter cryptocurrency, will they demand more traditional structures and protections? Or will they adapt to blockchain-native mechanisms? The intersection between DeFi and TradFi will significantly influence how TGEs develop.
機構投資者進入加密貨幣市場時，佢哋會唔會要求更傳統嘅架構同保障？定係會適應區塊鏈原生嘅機制？去中心化金融（DeFi）同傳統金融（TradFi）之間嘅交匯，將會深遠咁影響TGE（Token Generation Events）的發展。
FInal thoughts
Token Generation Events represent both the promise and challenge of cryptocurrency. At their best, TGEs enable genuinely decentralized projects to build communities, raise capital without intermediaries, and distribute ownership broadly. Projects like Hyperliquid demonstrate that well-executed TGEs can create sustainable ecosystems with aligned incentives.
TGE（代幣發行事件）同時代表住加密貨幣嘅承諾同挑戰。喺最好嘅情況下，TGE可以令真正去中心化嘅項目建立社群，喺冇中介人嘅情況下籌集資金，同時廣泛分配擁有權。好似Hyperliquid呢類項目就證明到，一個執行得好嘅TGE，可以締造一個有共同利益、可持續發展嘅生態圈。
At their worst, TGEs become mechanisms for insiders to extract value from retail investors through inflated valuations, manipulated markets, and poor tokenomics. The regulatory uncertainties, concentration risks, and speculative dynamics that plague many TGEs threaten to undermine confidence in blockchain technology.
但喺最差嘅情況下，TGE就只係俾內部人士利用高估價、操控市場同唔健康嘅代幣經濟模型，從散戶身上抽水嘅工具。好多TGE都受困於監管不明朗、權力集中風險同投機行為，呢啲問題都可能動搖大家對區塊鏈科技嘅信心。
For cryptocurrency adoption, TGEs serve as a crucial test. If the industry can develop standards for fair, transparent, and sustainable token launches, TGEs could help distribute ownership of digital infrastructure more broadly than traditional finance allows. If speculation and insider enrichment continue to dominate, TGEs will remain objects of criticism and regulatory intervention.
對加密貨幣普及嚟講，TGE係一個關鍵考驗。如果業界能夠制定公平、透明同可持續嘅代幣發行標準，TGE就可以比傳統金融更廣泛咁分配數碼基建嘅擁有權。如果炒賣同內部人謀利持續主導TGE，佢哋只會繼續成為受批評同監管打壓嘅對象。
Investors and users evaluating TGEs should focus on fundamentals rather than hype. Does the project have genuine product-market fit or just token incentives? Are tokens distributed fairly or concentrated among insiders? Do vesting schedules align long-term incentives? Does the token serve a real purpose in the ecosystem? These questions separate sustainable projects from speculative bubbles.
投資者同用戶評估TGE時，應該專注於基本面，而唔係炒作。項目係咪真係有市場需求，定只係靠代幣獎勵？代幣分配是否公平，定只係內部人集中持有？解鎖時間表有冇反映長遠利益？代幣喺生態圈真係有用途，定只係用嚟炒？呢啲問題係分辨可持續項目同投機泡沫嘅關鍵。
The future likely involves continued experimentation with TGE mechanisms as projects seek optimal structures for token launches. Some will succeed in building valuable networks with engaged communities. Many will fail, providing expensive lessons about what doesn't work. Through this process of trial and error, the industry may eventually develop TGE frameworks that balance innovation with investor protection.
未來好大機會會有更多關於TGE機制嘅實驗，因為項目方會不斷搵最佳嘅發行架構。有啲會成功建立有價值、活躍嘅社群網絡，好多都會失敗，代價高昂咁換取唔適用嘅教訓。經過呢個不斷試錯過程，業界最終有可能發展到一套同時兼顧創新同投資者保障嘅TGE框架。
Ultimately, TGEs reflect blockchain's attempt to reimagine how value is created and distributed in digital networks. Whether this experiment succeeds or fails will depend on whether projects prioritize building sustainable ecosystems over maximizing short-term token prices. The answer will shape not just cryptocurrency but the broader question of how ownership and governance function in digital age.
歸根究底，TGE體現咗區塊鏈重塑數碼網絡價值創造同分配方式嘅嘗試。呢個實驗最終成功定失敗，好大程度上取決於項目方係咪優先發展可持續生態系統，而唔係只追求短期代幣價格。呢個答案唔單止會影響加密貨幣，更會影響整個數碼時代擁有權同管治模式點樣運作。
The path forward requires honesty about TGEs' limitations alongside appreciation for their potential. Neither dismissing all token launches as scams nor embracing them uncritically serves the industry well. Instead, critical analysis of what makes TGEs succeed or fail can help the ecosystem evolve toward more sustainable models. As blockchain technology matures, so too must the mechanisms for launching tokens, ensuring that TGEs strengthen rather than weaken the networks they're meant to support.
未來嘅路，需要我哋誠實面對TGE嘅限制，同時都要認同其潛力。完全否定所有代幣發行等於騙局，或毫無保留接受都唔係業界之福。我哋要批判性分析TGE成功或失敗嘅原因，咁先可以令生態圈發展得更可持續。隨住區塊鏈技術成熟，發幣機制都必須一齊進步，確保TGE可以加強而唔係削弱佢所支撐嘅網絡。