Still Birbish? Is giving CT exactly what it wants actually good for the project?

Moonbirds holders are in revolt over 24-month vesting. But instant unlocks destroyed $ANIME just months ago. There's no winning move here.

That brings us to this question: Is giving CT exactly what it wants actually good for the project?

The $ANIME case answers brutally: No. Community demanded 50.5% instant unlocks with zero vesting, and they got it. CT celebrated. Then post-TGE, FDV crashed from $1.5B. The same voices who cheered the tokenomics blamed the team for not supporting price. The NFT floor collapsed as airdrop farmers claimed and dumped.

$BIRB reveals the same paradox from the opposite angle.

The Impossible Equation

People want contradictory things simultaneously:

• Instant unlocks (for liquidity) AND long-term alignment (to prevent dumps)

• High community share (to feel valued) AND price support (which requires locked supply)

• Rewards for loyalty AND no commitment required

It's impossible to satisfy everyone.

Every tokenomics structure creates winners and losers. Spencer chose sustainability over immediate gratification, valuing the company's longevity over holder satisfaction. This forces the question: Should he have treated long-term holders differently than short-term flippers?

The answer isn't clear. Long-term holders who survived the CC0 disaster, founder drama, and 37 ETH to sub-1 ETH crashes now face the longest wait for rewards. Meanwhile, SBT holders from partner projects get fully unlocked allocations at launch, though it only represents a small amount of total supply.

Spencer's bet: build for sustainability, accept short-term pain, hope execution justifies the structure. Unfortunately, the community's counter: we wanted rewards for loyalty, not more loyalty tests.

Both might be right. Both might be wrong. But tokenomics reveal preferences while prices reveal truth. Right now, truth is a floor below 1 ETH and a community in revolt.

Until the rewards genuinely compensate for the opportunity cost of locking valuable NFTs for extended periods, nesting will remain a source of community frustration rather than celebration.

What Triggered the 60% Collapse

Moonbirds NFT floor price is now back below 1 ETH after $BIRB tokenomics was announced.

The contrast is stark compared to when TGE was first announced—Moonbirds NFT jumped to 2.5 ETH. The drop, representing approximately 60% from recent highs around 2.5 ETH, stemmed from frustration with the 24-month vesting schedule that many saw as punitive rather than protective, disappointing holders who expected immediate rewards.

The Launch

$BIRB token will launch on January 28, 2026, with a total supply of 1 billion tokens on the Solana blockchain. Positioned as a utility-meme hybrid, it aims to power a "culture-backed asset" connecting viral attention to real-world revenue through Orange Cap Games' phygital collectibles.

Core NFT holders who had supported the project felt betrayed by what they perceived as a "slow rug" structure. The market reaction was swift: speculators who anticipated quick airdrop profits similar to other meme token launches began selling their Moonbirds, creating downward pressure on the floor.

What's Wrong with Nesting?

Nesting has been a recurring point of friction throughout Moonbirds' history. The original Nesting 1.0 launched in 2022, introduced innovative non-custodial "soft staking" with time-based tiers (Bronze/Silver/Gold). However, the rewards proved underwhelming. Cheap merchandise like socks and fanny packs failed to match the commitment and hype.

The word, "Nesting" itself, is already triggering PTSD of the Moonbirds holders.

The current Nesting 2.0 system requires holders to lock their NFTs in exchange for soulbound versions that earn $BIRB rewards, but the 24-month vesting schedule feels painfully slow.

The pro-rata monthly claim structure adds operational complexity while the early bird bonus, counting the first seven days as a full month, creates rushed decision-making and amplifies scam risks as bad actors exploit FOMO. Though marketed as prioritizing loyal holders over flippers, the mechanism risks backfiring if token price performance disappoints, potentially destabilizing the NFT floor as locked holders watch their rewards depreciate.

Historical context makes the skepticism understandable.

The BIRB SBT

If you read the announcement carefully, you will likely notice that the Soulbound tokens (SBTs) are fully unlocked at launched. SBT are qualifying for ~2% of the total $BIRB supply. The program minted between 419,579 SBTs across 256,959 unique wallets.

The SBT ecosystem encompasses a diverse range of Solana projects and activities. CoinGecko led the pack with 88,962 mints, followed closely by Jupiter at 83,552 mints.

The SBT ecosystem encompasses a diverse range of Solana projects and activities. CoinGecko led the pack with 88,962 mints, followed closely by Jupiter at 83,552 mints. SBT supply distribution across partners:

Community Response

The $BIRB announcement has split the Moonbirds community into passionate camps, creating intense debates across X about whether the tokenomics represent visionary alignment or a slow-motion disaster.

50-60% floor collapse has shattered what remained of community cohesion. Short-term holders who bought into pre-TGE hype feel completely burned, pointing to the inadequate 25% NFT allocation and vesting disparity as proof the structure fundamentally failed them. Many are exiting entirely or predicting further downsides.

Long-term holders face an agonizing calculus. They understand instant unlocks would destroy the floor even faster, but the 24-month vesting transforms their NFTs into yield vehicles rather than collectibles, a "slow death" where value bleeds out monthly.

Some still defend the vision as "alignment, not farming," betting that Orange Cap's execution on phygital products will generate enough real-world value to vindicate the pain. But even optimists acknowledge the core dilemma: both instant unlocks and extended vesting lead to destruction, just at different speeds. Sustained upside requires massive external $BIRB demand that may never materialize.

The fundamental question won't be answered for months: Can execution justify this tokenomics structure, or is this another cautionary tale about NFT-token tensions?

The $BIRB token generation event represents a critical test for whether Moonbirds can finally align tokenomics and incentive structures with community sentiment, or if history will repeat itself with another wave of disappointment and floor price erosion.

If you find this helpful, feel free to follow us for future updates. ❤

• X : @blockflow_news
• Telegram: t.me/blockflownews