Monad debut crashes! MON token falls below issue price, trading volume dismal at only 50 million

Monad blockchain’s MON token began trading for the first time on November 24, but early market activity was lackluster. MON traded at around $0.02417 after its debut, below the $0.025 token sale price, with a trading volume of about $50 million, which is moderate to low. Unlike Plasma’s recent rapid sellout, Monad’s public auction took longer to complete, indicating weaker investor interest.

Monad’s First Day Debut Falls Below Issue Price, Trading Volume Only $50 Million

(Source: Largest US-compliant crypto exchange)

According to data from the largest US-compliant crypto exchange, MON traded at $0.02417 within its first few hours. At launch, MON had a circulating supply of 10.83 billion tokens and a market capitalization of about $262 million. This price is below the public token sale price of $0.025 on the exchange’s token platform, meaning Monad fell below its offering price on day one, and those who bought in the sale immediately faced losses.

Trading activity was subdued. In the first 100 minutes, MON’s trading volume was only $50 million—lower than the typical level for Layer1 (L1) token debuts—suggesting demand may be weaker than expected. For a project hailed as “one of the most anticipated Layer1 blockchains of the year,” this start is disappointing. Usually, hot projects see first-day trading volumes of hundreds of millions of dollars or more; a $50 million volume shows interest in Monad is far below expectations.

This muted start followed a disappointing public token sale on the largest US-compliant crypto exchange. Of the circulating supply, 7.5% was allocated to this sale at $0.025 per token, above MON’s current trading price. This inversion is a heavy blow to early supporters, who hoped for a premium from early participation but instead found themselves immediately locked in.

Worse, Monad’s public auction took a longer time to complete. Many recent token launches sold out almost instantly—the most notable being Plasma, which triggered FOMO (fear of missing out) as the first batch sold out. By contrast, MON’s sale took much longer to finish. This could signal insufficient demand, a theme that persisted through its trading debut.

From a market psychology perspective, the speed of a token sale is often the most intuitive indicator of market heat. When a project sells out in minutes, it creates scarcity and urgency, driving secondary market prices higher. Conversely, a slow sale sends a negative “not in demand” signal, suppressing secondary market buying interest. Monad’s slow sale sowed seeds of doubt for its secondary market performance.

Monad vs. Plasma Debut Comparison

Monad: Token sale completed slowly, first-day price below offering, $50 million trading volume

Plasma: First batch sold out instantly, secondary market surged, strong FOMO sentiment

Monad Team’s 27% Allocation Sparks Community Doubts

MON’s tokenomics have sparked heated discussion in the community. The Monad team controls 27% of the total supply, 19.7% goes to investors, 4% to Labs Treasury, and 38.5% for ecosystem development. Some observers think the team’s allocation is unusually large for a new Layer-1 network and could impact market sentiment.

A 27% team allocation is indeed high among crypto projects. By comparison, most successful Layer-1 projects have team allocations of 15%-20%. The main concern is whether the team will dump large amounts of tokens after unlock. This potential selling pressure discourages investors from buying in, as no one wants to be left holding the bag if the team is preparing to sell.

A closer look shows the team and investors together hold 46.7% of supply, while the community and ecosystem get just 38.5%. This allocation structure has been criticized as “insider-dominated,” which runs counter to decentralization ideals. In the crypto community, fairness of token distribution is often a key indicator of a project’s trustworthiness. Excessive concentration of tokens among the team and early investors is easily seen as a tool to “extract value from retail investors.”

The Labs Treasury’s 4% allocation also raises questions. How will these tokens be used and governed? Could they be used for market manipulation? These issues aren’t fully addressed in Monad’s official documents, adding to investor insecurity. In today’s market, transparency and fairness are more important than ever, and Monad’s performance in these areas clearly falls short of community expectations.

Community concerns go beyond allocation ratios to include the transparency of the vesting schedule. Has Monad published a detailed token unlock schedule? When do the team and investor tokens start unlocking? Is it a one-time or linear release? The lack or vagueness of this crucial information further erodes market trust. Against the backdrop of frequent events like xUSD depegging, investors’ demands for project transparency are at an all-time high.

Stark Contrast with Plasma Highlights Market Apathy

Monad’s lackluster debut stands in sharp contrast to Plasma’s explosive launch. Plasma’s token sale was snatched up almost instantly, with the first batch selling out and triggering intense FOMO. That heat carried into the secondary market, where Plasma’s price surged after listing, providing handsome returns for early participants.

In contrast, Monad’s sale took much longer to complete, possibly signaling insufficient demand. The reasons behind this difference deserve analysis. First, the market environment may be a factor. If Plasma launched during a more bullish period and Monad during a correction, this external difference would affect investor participation.

Second, narrative and positioning are important. Plasma may have had a clearer or more compelling value proposition or done better in marketing and community building. As a Layer-1 blockchain, Monad faces a very crowded field. Established projects like Ethereum, Solana, Avalanche, and Polygon already command major market share. New Layer-1s need to offer significant technical advantages or unique use cases to stand out.

Third, tokenomics design may be a key factor. If Plasma’s token distribution is more community-friendly, with a lower team and investor share and a longer lock-up period, these factors would boost investor confidence. In contrast, Monad’s 27% team allocation stands out even more in this comparison.

This contrast has been widely discussed on social media, further damaging Monad’s market image. When investors see two projects launching around the same time have such different market responses, they naturally question the underperformer. This negative sentiment can become self-reinforcing, causing more potential buyers to hold back or walk away.

Crowded L1 Track and New Project Dilemmas

Monad’s lukewarm debut also reflects the increasingly crowded Layer-1 track. As one of the year’s most anticipated L1 blockchains, Monad received a lot of attention and hype before launch. However, higher expectations can lead to greater disappointment. When the market sees Monad’s actual performance fall short, disappointment quickly turns into selling pressure.

The challenge in the Layer-1 space is that the bar for technical innovation is ever higher, while market patience for new projects is ever shorter. Ethereum, with its first-mover advantage and massive ecosystem, has a lock on the smart contract platform space. Solana has attracted many users and developers with its high performance and low costs. Later entrants must offer significant differentiation to win market share from these established projects.

The core question Monad needs to answer is: Why should developers and users choose Monad over mature Layer-1s? Faster transactions? Lower fees? Better developer tools? Stronger security? If these questions aren’t convincingly answered, it will be hard for Monad to stand out in fierce competition.

Judging by MON’s debut performance, the market remains unconvinced on Monad’s core issues. The $50 million trading volume and price falling below issue both indicate investors are cautious about Monad’s long-term prospects. This caution may be rational or overly pessimistic, but either way, the Monad team needs to take concrete action to rebuild market confidence.