PART A QUALITATIVE REPORT: BLAST – “The Casino Chain”
This qualitative report will analyze the lifetime of post-launch price action of BLAST – an Ethereum Layer 2 protocol that gained massive mindshare for its pre-launch ‘Gold’ farming but fell apart once the incentives slowed down.
Highlighted Timeframe
Time frame of this BLAST price analysis: 6/26/2024 - 4/7/2025 Data aggregators and sources used: https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/blast/, https://defillama.com/chain/blast, https://cryptorank.io/price/blast-l-2, https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/wolf-game-wool/, https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/usdb/, https://www.tradingview.com/x/aGznLDNo/
Since the aim of this qualitative report is to analyze the drivers of BLAST’s lifetime of bearish price action that followed its launch day, we will be focusing on the time between its launch (6/26/2024) and its subsequent descent to all-time low (4/7/2025). Throughout this time, BLAST decreased -91.02% from $0.0257 to $0.0036 (sourced from https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/blast/). Below is a screenshot of the highlighted timeframe of BLAST price action on the 1D chart that we will be analyzing in this qualitative report (6/26/2024 - 4/7/2025):
Link to BLAST 1D Price chart image: https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1334336042030993480/1371768590381879469/image.png?ex=6824568e&is=6823050e&hm=f3778be0d8ebe1206e971b1dea81368284b115c60da84173315eb47cfb72c233&=&format=webp&quality=lossless&width=1032&height=599
Tokenomics
Data sourced from: https://cryptorank.io/price/blast-l-2/vesting
Link to spreadsheet of BLAST’s launch tokenomics: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1V33NT7rNt4CY9O_lRdTidDkS28_4yBUeEKnbLBZ7JGM/edit?usp=sharing
Pie chart image of BLAST’s launch tokenomics: Link to BLAST Tokenomics pie chart image: https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1334336042030993480/1371769365095256074/BLAST_Tokenomics.png?ex=68245746&is=682305c6&hm=6876f92e9c901098133ba50247fa752302bcc31edad496577ecd4753ec84ff65&=&format=webp&quality=lossless
Table of BLAST Tokenomics:
| Name | Total | Unlocked | Locked |
|---|---|---|---|
| Community | 33% | - | - |
| Core Contributors | 25.50% | - | 25.50% |
| Investors | 16.50% | - | 16.50% |
| Blast Foundation | 8.00% | 1.75% | 6.20% |
| Airdrop (Blast Points) | 7.00% | 7.00% | - |
| Airdrop (Blast Gold) | 7.00% | 7.00% | - |
| Airdrop (Blur Foundation) | 3.00% | 3.00% | - |
Tokenomics Commentary: BLAST launched with a highly gamified tokenomics structure, engineered around short-term incentive design and layered airdrop systems. Despite some initial excitement, the tokenomics were hyper-optimized for mercenary activity and provided no ongoing utility or reason to hold the token post-launch. The 17% total allocation toward immediate airdrops (Blast Points, Gold, Blur Foundation) created instant and massive sell pressure, while no lockups or incentive sinks were implemented to offset this. Post-airdrop, the token had no utility and no narrative pathway forward—leading to its sharp and sustained decline.
Funding and Backers
Data sourced from: https://cryptorank.io/ico/blast-l-2
Link to funding and backers spreadsheet breakdown: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aBq4Ud9trqhligx1CXhJhQK1PN-VwSXz0yfwScXpWsQ/edit?usp=sharing
Funding and Backers Breakdown Table:
| Coin | Participant | Tier | Type | Stage | Total Raise (Millions USD) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BLAST | Paradigm | 1 | Venture | Undisclosed | |
| Santiago R. Santos | 1 | Angel Investor | Undisclosed | ||
| Standard Crypto | 2 | Venture | Undisclosed | ||
| eGirl Capital | 2 | Venture | Undisclosed | ||
| Andrew Kang | - | Angel Investor | Undisclosed | ||
| Hasu | - | Angel Investor | Undisclosed | ||
| Larry Cermak | - | Angel Investor | Undisclosed | ||
| CL207 | - | Angel Investor | Undisclosed | 20 |
Grand Total Funding: $20.00 Million
Funding and Backers Commentary: While this investor cohort provided reputational heft, none of the funding firms helped shape a durable post-launch presence or utility direction. BLAST ended up being VC-funded but retail-abandoned, with no long-tail roadmap or strategic alignment to preserve market confidence.
Narrative
Between June 26, 2024, and April 7, 2025, BLAST’s token plummeted -91.02%, from $0.0257 to $0.0036 (source: https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/blast/). That crash wasn’t just a failure of tokenomics or emissions—it was the implosion of one of the most creatively risky narratives we’ve seen in recent Layer 2 launches: the farm-first chain. Pre-Launch: Gold, Yield, and Mindshare BLAST’s ascent to relevance was fast and loud. Developed by the creators of BLUR and backed by Paradigm, it carried institutional legitimacy paired with crypto-native name recognition. But what truly made BLAST stand out was its unapologetically gamified airdrop economy. Its core proposition was simple: “Earn Gold by locking assets or using ecosystem apps. The more Gold you farm, the bigger your share of the upcoming BLAST airdrop.” This narrative dominated pre-launch sentiment. Strategies for gold farming were developed and shared daily on Twitter and Discord. Users deposited and locked funds to passively farm, while others competed in games and DeFi apps to maximize rewards. The result? A staggering TVL increase from $105.85M (Feb 29, 2024) to $2.298B (June 6, 2024) (source: https://defillama.com/chain/blast). Popular protocols like Wolf Game and NFTperp migrated to the Blast ecosystem to tap into the mindshare and inflow. The protocol’s native stablecoin, USDB, even surged to a $424M market cap by June 24 (https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/usdb/). But the narrative had an expiration date. And that date was the token launch.
Post-Launch: The Exit Begins BLAST’s launch on June 26, 2024 marked the start of an unambiguous downtrend. As the airdrop was distributed, users exited en masse—just as the structure of the protocol’s narrative had incentivized them to do. Between launch and the April 2025 low: TVL fell -93.67%, from $1.658B → $104.93M (https://defillama.com/chain/blast)
USDB market cap declined from $405M → $81M (https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/usdb/)
Wolf Game’s token, WOOL, dropped -99.83% all-time (https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/wolf-game-wool/)
NFTperp announced its full shutdown (https://x.com/nftperp/status/1921153073210069447)
The entire ecosystem—built around incentives rather than belief—collapsed into irrelevance within months.
The Narrative That Worked Too Well BLAST’s fate wasn’t sealed by incompetence. It was sealed by the success of a short-term farming narrative that wasn’t meant to last. Whereas other Layer 2s like Arbitrum cultivated technical trust and long-term builder loyalty, BLAST optimized exclusively for extractive behavior. Its very success at attracting users became the reason they fled once the rewards stopped. The entire userbase had been trained to act like mercenaries, and they did. Despite technical competence and sizable pre-launch traction, BLAST failed to build any forward expectations narrative. There was no real cultural identity beyond “farm now, leave later.” Once the farming was over, so was the protocol’s social contract. In the eyes of the market, BLAST is now a “casino chain”—a punchline, not a player.
Key Insight: BLAST proves that even the most creative incentive architecture cannot replace belief. The best chains don’t just give people something to do—they give them something to believe in. Farming hype is finite. Forward expectations are not. Final Qualitative Conclusion
BLAST presents a cautionary tale in crypto narrative design: how to engineer attention, volume, and TVL—without cultivating belief or endurance. From its launch on June 26, 2024, to its all-time low on April 7, 2025, the token declined -91.02% (https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/blast/). The “Gold Farming” narrative before launch was one of the most viral stories in crypto during that stretch, with weekly rewards, speculative strategy loops, and prominent app migrations like Wolf Game and NFTperp. This drove TVL from $105.85M → $2.298B in four months (https://defillama.com/chain/blast). But Blast’s entire economy was extractive, not community-driven. After the airdrop, TVL collapsed -93.67%, down to $104.93M. Its native stablecoin, USDB, fell from a $405M market cap to $81M. The apps that once flocked to it—like NFTperp—abandoned ship. And the token fell deeper into irrelevance each month. BLAST wasn’t a failure of tech or traction. It was a failure of belief. The short-termism of its strategy turned every user into a seller. Qualitative Scoring Mechanism – BLAST Scoring Methodology Each project is scored out of 100 points based on: Tokenomics (30%)
Funding & Backers (30%)
Narrative Quality & Reflexivity (40%)
This model is designed to quantify how well a project balances material fundamentals with the speculative storytelling needed to sustain price performance.
| Category | Weight | Sub-Criteria | Score (/10) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tokenomics | 30% | Launch structure & lockups | 2/10 | Large airdrop % instantly released |
| Utility & emissions design | 1/10 | No sinks, no utility beyond launch | ||
| Inflationary dynamics | 2/10 | Designed to emit, then decay | ||
| Funding & Backers | 30% | Prestige & strategic value | 7/10 | Paradigm & crypto-native whales |
| Post-launch involvement | 2/10 | No sustained public or strategic alignment | ||
| Market impact of raise | 3/10 | High pre-launch credibility | ||
| Narrative | 40% | Clarity of mission | 4/10 | Farming narrative was compelling but short-term |
| Reflexivity / buzz loops | 7/10 | High activity pre-launch | ||
| Forward expectations | 0/10 | Narrative ended on launch day | ||
| Cultural stickiness / presence | 2/10 | No lasting presence; now known as a "casino chain" |
Final Score: 38 / 100 Summary: BLAST engineered a moment—but not a movement. It maximized speculative activity but left no foundation behind. This score reflects its brilliance as a short-term play, and its complete collapse as a long-term protocol narrative.