A05 Token Design Workshop - Grading Rubric

TOTAL: 50 POINTS

1. Token Utility Design (15 points)

Evaluates: Does the token have clear, practical utility beyond speculation? Is it essential to the platform?

Performance Level	Description	Points
Excellent	• Token has multiple clear use cases (payment, staking, governance, etc.) • Utility is essential to platform function (not just "nice to have") • Explains WHY users would want to hold/use the token • Connects utility to platform incentives (e.g., discounts, exclusive access) • Addresses how token utility solves a specific problem	13-15
Good	• Token has 1-2 clear use cases • Utility is explained but may be generic (e.g., "used for payments") • Some justification but lacks depth • May rely too heavily on governance as sole utility	9-12
Needs Work	• Vague utility (e.g., "used on the platform") • No clear reason users would want the token • Utility is an afterthought or speculative only • Governance is the ONLY use case • Token seems unnecessary to platform function	0-8

Common Deductions:

2. Distribution Fairness (10 points)

Evaluates: Is the token allocation balanced across stakeholders? Does it avoid excessive concentration?

Performance Level	Description	Points
Excellent	• Distribution adds to exactly 100% • Balanced allocation (no single group >40% unless justified) • Community receives substantial allocation (typically 30-50%) • Every category is justified with clear rationale • Compares to industry norms and explains deviations	9-10
Good	• Distribution adds to 100% (or within 1-2% error) • Mostly balanced but may favor one group slightly • Most categories have justification • Community gets reasonable share (20%+)	6-8
Needs Work	• Distribution doesn't add to 100% (math error) • Heavily skewed toward insiders (e.g., 50%+ to team/investors) • Little or no rationale for allocations • Community gets <15% (red flag) • Missing key categories (liquidity, treasury, etc.)	0-5

Common Deductions:

3. Vesting Schedule Quality (10 points)

Evaluates: Are vesting schedules specific, realistic, and designed to prevent early dumps?

Performance Level	Description	Points
Excellent	• Specific timelines for all stakeholder groups (months/years, not "gradual") • Includes cliff periods for team/investors (typically 6-12 months) • Vesting durations are realistic (team: 2-4 years, investors: 1-3 years) • Explains anti-dump mechanisms (staking bonuses, gradual unlocks, etc.) • Staggered unlocks to avoid massive sell pressure at any one time	9-10
Good	• Most groups have specific vesting schedules • Some cliff periods included • Durations are reasonable • Some consideration of dump prevention	6-8
Needs Work	• Vague schedules (e.g., "vest over time") • No cliff periods for team/investors (immediate dump risk) • Unrealistically short vesting (e.g., 6 months total) • No discussion of anti-dump mechanisms • Inconsistent or missing information	0-5

Common Deductions:

4. Incentive Alignment & Value Capture (10 points)

Evaluates: Does the design align stakeholder incentives? Is there a clear mechanism for token value to accrue?

Performance Level	Description	Points
Excellent	• Clear value capture mechanism (burns, buybacks, staking rewards, fee sharing) • Explains how token value increases as platform succeeds • Incentives are aligned (users, builders, holders all benefit) • Addresses key risks (gaming, Sybil attacks, lack of demand) • Connects tokenomics to course concepts (agency problems, incentives, etc.)	9-10
Good	• Some value capture mechanism present • Partial explanation of how value accrues • Most incentives align • Some risk consideration	6-8
Needs Work	• No clear value capture mechanism • Relies on speculation ("token price goes up as platform grows") • Incentives misaligned (e.g., users hurt by inflation, team dumps early) • No discussion of risks • No connection to economic principles	0-5

Common Deductions:

5. Presentation Quality (5 points)

Evaluates: Can the group communicate their design clearly and defend it under criticism?

Performance Level	Description	Points
Excellent	• Clear, confident delivery within time limit (5 min) • All members participate • Visuals (pie chart, vesting timeline) are neat and readable • Handles critique well with evidence-based responses • Demonstrates deep understanding of design choices	5
Good	• Mostly clear delivery, may exceed time slightly • Most members participate • Visuals are adequate • Handles critique reasonably	3-4
Needs Work	• Unclear or disorganized delivery • Significantly over/under time • One person does all the talking • Visuals are messy or incomplete • Can't defend design choices	0-2

Presentation Tips:

Automatic Deductions (Applied to Final Score)

-10 points: Plagiarism (copying another project's tokenomics without adaptation)
-5 points: Incomplete deliverables (missing canvas, chart, or timeline)
-5 points: No presentation or absent from workshop
-2 points: Distribution doesn't add to 100%
-2 points: Late submission (if turned in after class ends)

Points	Grade	Interpretation
45-50	A	Excellent work, professional-quality design
40-44	B	Good design with minor gaps
35-39	C	Acceptable but needs improvement
30-34	D	Weak design, major issues
0-29	F	Incomplete or fundamentally flawed

Calibration: Use the sample design as your B+ reference point (~45/50)
Flexibility: There are no "right" answers—reward thoughtful trade-offs and defensible choices
Common pitfalls: Over-allocation to team, vague vesting, no value capture mechanism
Bonus consideration: +1-2 points for exceptional creativity or depth (optional)
Peer feedback: Encourage students to critique each other during presentations (builds critical thinking)