> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://oodlz.gitbook.io/oodlz-gitbook/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://oodlz.gitbook.io/oodlz-gitbook/company-overview/blockchain/tokenomics-dao-audit/proposed-allocation.md).
# Proposed Allocation
The **total allocation** pie is split according to the following chart:
The total **supply number** is not critical when evaluating a project's tokenomics. The most crucial aspect is distributing total allocation in a way that does not generate high annual inflation and general token-selling pressure.
Considering the number of tokens unlocked at Genesis during the **Token Generation Event (TGE)** and its relation to expected token demand over time is helpful. As per the initial design, a 23.25% token unlocking at Genesis may be low. Indeed, to mitigate token selling pressure over the following months/years, a relevant constant token demand must emerge to absorb the remaining supply (76.75%). There is a risk that all this remaining supply (expressed in the token inflation) would dilute existing holders and push the token price downward.
The actual **token allocation** could be more optimal according to [web3 literature](https://pulse.moonfire.com/understanding-token-distribution-models-in-early-stage-businesses/) and similar projects (StormX). It's worth exploring how to change it to achieve the best allocation output.
Furthermore, since there are different sale stages, it's essential to ensure that other investors stay with one another regarding the price. **Locked** and **vesting periods** can be optimised for reaching the proper token emission toward stakeholders.
The only token **demand driver** is a staking reward that grants users generate yield by staking $OODLZ. As shown in the suggestions section, Oodlz could explore additional token utilities to increase token attractiveness.
The protocol offers 80% of the cashback in FIAT currency and just 10% in $OODLZ, thus lowering token selling pressure by people seeking a quicker profit.
Additionally, the ease of platform interaction will be crucial to web2 user adoption.
As briefly anticipated, the **emission schedule** shows a moderately steep slope from the initial launch to the mid/end of 24’, resulting in a quasi-exponential curve. This means the supply is constantly growing (inflation), diluting more and more token holders’ value for the first year (putting aside the token demand for now). The emission curve slows down from that date, exhibiting a logarithmic trend expressing more controlled inflation.
According to initial design data, the expected annual **inflation rate** is:
* 1st year: 182% (from 232.5M to 656.5M)
* 2nd year: 52% (from 656.5M to 1b)
* 3rd year: fully emitted.
The above data could resemble an aggressive issuance policy that culminates in a total emission in just two years from the inception. This creates inflation at a speed that the demand may not absorb, possibly causing a sharp token price decline. In addition, significant issuance is emitted during the first year, which can be suitable for overcoming the cold start problem but needs to be more balanced in the 2nd year, during which the token is distributed far more slowly.
