It’s becoming clear that the projects that survived the Cambrian explosion of agent tokens share a few traits: the token CA is explicitly included in the project’s bio, and the project is continuously building (e.g. $CLAWD, $KellyClaude, $Clawnch, $Felix). This signals that the devs have a long-term vision, acknowledge the token’s existence, and are willing to tie it to the project’s long-term development. Otherwise, it’s simply a memecoin, and the market has already voted on that. For AI agent projects that meet these conditions, having a token can actually form a positive feedback loop: ▫️Token trading generates fee-based revenue that helps sustain long-term development. ▫️On-chain activity brings attention, driving visibility, traffic, and reputation for the project and its devs. ▫️The token can be given real utility, especially when it is natively integrated with agents. ▫️Continued delivery and real token usage strengthen adoption and participation, rewarding long-term holders and contributors. Taken together, this can form a positive model. That said, this is not about forcing every dev to adopt a token, which often leads to fatigue or even rejection of crypto altogether. Rather, I hope this positive model is better understood by those who are already building for the long term.