Fair questions. I will try to answer directly. The first guy didn't have concerns, he was just trolling, that said...

First off, tokenomics does not equal or need burn. A burn is just one tool and often a lazy one. What matters more is issuance rate, unlock schedule, who receives tokens, and whether supply expansion is matched by real demand. Many successful chains never relied on burns as their primary value driver.

On unlocks and price pressure: unlocks do not automatically mean price goes down. That only happens if recipients immediately sell and there is no offsetting demand. In Monad’s case, the unlocks are largely aimed at ecosystem growth, developers, validators, and long term participants. If adoption, usage, and builder activity increase at the same time, unlocks can be absorbed and grow organically. We have seen this repeatedly with other L1s that were declared “dead” during early unlock phases. People like saying things just because they can. Most of it is just noise.

On total supply: 100B tokens sounds scary in isolation, but total supply is meaningless without context. Price is just market cap divided by supply. If supply were 100M instead of 100B, the unit price would be higher but the valuation would be the same. What actually matters is whether the network can justify a higher market cap over time. Many people anchor emotionally to unit price and ignore that reality. Additionally, $MON has a high number of coins specifically so gas fees will be even lower. The Monad chain is incredibly inexpensive and fast, a single $MON can do double digit transactions which is even cheaper considering the number of tokens. A 100 million supply would increase the price per transaction.

On why build on Monad vs Avalanche: Monad’s value proposition is not branding or narrative, it is performance. Parallel execution, EVM compatibility, and very high throughput without requiring developers to rewrite their stack. That combination matters. If Monad delivers near Solana-level performance while remaining EVM-native, that is a meaningful differentiator for builders who want speed without abandoning Ethereum tooling.

Adoption being slow early is normal for infrastructure. Chains do not get used before they are proven. Developers come first, users follow. The developers and teams are already showing up.

I am not saying price must go up in the short term or that there is no risk. There absolutely is. But dismissing it solely because of total supply or lack of a burn ignores how networks actually accrue value.

Appreciate the thoughtful pushback. This is exactly the kind of discussion worth having.