Forgd Slashes Crypto’s Token Launch Red Tape—Protocols Rejoice
Token launches just got a turbocharger. Forgd’s infrastructure cuts through the usual multi-week deployment chaos—smart contracts deployed in hours, liquidity pools spun up like clockwork.
No more begging devs for custom code. Their modular system bypasses the patchwork of oracles, bridges, and governance tools that turn most launches into a Rube Goldberg machine.
Here’s the kicker: It works with existing DAO treasuries. Because what’s the point of decentralized finance if you’re still waiting on a Solidity dev’s coffee break?
One cynical observation: At least now when tokens dump 80% post-launch, teams can’t blame ’technical delays.’ The market’s brutal honesty remains intact.
Unsustainable launch process
Forgd’s recommendations are completely data-driven, according to Molidor. For tokenomics, for example, the firm will look at all the projects that launched recently, identify those that performed well, and analyze things such as token distribution, token emissions, their valuation on launch day, price performance, market capitalization, trading volume, and so on.
The analysis also covers market makers — which ones were used, what was their percentage of the total order book, what was the contribution in terms of making or filling orders, the tightness of spreads, et cetera. That way, when a project wants to launch with Forgd, it’s able to see a given market maker’s historical performance before inking a deal with them.
Obviously, markets change all of the time, and what may have worked for a specific project in the fall of 2024 may not work anymore in summer of 2025. But Forgd takes great care in updating its database with every new major launch that goes live.
Forgd mostly works with crypto native firms, though Molidor said the firm has had conversations with major, sophisticated institutions interested in learning about the process of launching a token.
In Molidor’s saying, the current process for launching tokens — with assets trading at multi-billion dollar fully diluted valuations shortly after launch, and with hyperinflationary token emissions over a period of three or four years — is completely unsustainable and needs to change. With such projects, demand is usually limited to the opening days or weeks; afterwards, the investing public’s attention moves on to other projects.
“The reality is that, behind the scenes, on big time launches, the opening price and the magnitude of the… pop are hyper manufactured, either by the exchange or market makers, so the project might have very minimal influence as to how high they’re trading in the first one minute. Predatory or self-interested actors might influence that,” Molidor said.
“What I think is actually more common is that the project doesn’t know how to structure a balanced relationship with strategic partners like market makers, and they unknowingly put themselves in a position where the market Maker is incentivized to let the price rip,” he added.
The problem could be fixed if mechanisms were put in place to ensure sustained demand in the secondary market, Molidor said. In traditional markets, when a company goes public, it has certain assurances in the book building process from the underwriter that there will be institutional demand, he claimed. Tokens, however, usually can only count on retail speculative demand once they go to market.
To remedy that, deal structures could be conducted in such a way that, if an institution wants to invest in the primary market, they are only allowed to invest a small portion of the capital they want to allocate — with the rest earmarked for the secondary market.
“Just as DeFi summer revolutionized the way that we think about liquidity provision, I wouldn’t be surprised if we see on-chain mechanisms that incentivize buy-side demand being injected on-chain after a token is launched, that could be with basically yield that’s generated in tokens, or maybe stablecoins that effectively lower the cost basis of institutions,” Molidor said.
