Meteora ships liquidity infrastructure. MET ships liquidity events.

MET’s design is built around one decisive market-structure choice: high day-one float. Meteora’s own docs put 480,000,000 MET (48%) circulating at the Token Generation Event on October 23, 2025.

That choice flips the usual “low float, high FDV” playbook. It also changes how you should model MET. In our tokenomics methodology, the first-order drivers are not abstract supply caps. They are (1) the initial distribution shock, (2) ongoing unlock cadence, and (3) where liquid supply concentrates across vaults, market makers, and claimable airdrop buckets.

Product-wise, Meteora positions itself as a Solana liquidity stack spanning DLMM, DAMM (v1 and v2), and DBC pools. MET is meant to plug into that stack as an access and coordination asset over time, including planned staking for non-transferable engagement points and integration into launch-related programs.

Supply reality: a big initial shock, then a predictable monthly drip

On paper, MET’s “headline” supply is simple: 1,000,000,000 total supply and SPL mint METvsvVRapdj9cFLzq4Tr43xK4tAjQfwX76z3n6mWQL.

In market data, the numbers you’ll actually trade against are slightly messier. Market supply data reports 997,735,624 total supply (after burns), 1,000,000,000 max supply, and a circulating supply around 506,624,513 on its page view.

The emissions story is not inflationary. The protocol’s own EU/EEA disclosure flags no supply adjustment protocols and no supply adjustment mechanisms. The practical dilution comes from vesting unlocks, not minting.

The long-run unlock profile is dominated by two buckets: Team and Meteora Reserve. In Meteora’s tokenomics table, both start after a 1-month cliff and vest linearly over 72 months, with first unlock on November 23, 2025 and final unlock on October 23, 2031.

That schedule implies a fairly smooth drip. Using Meteora’s stated allocations, 520,000,000 MET (Team + Reserve) unlock over 72 months, which is roughly 7.2M MET per month in aggregate once the cliff ends.

The key microstructure implication is straightforward. MET should behave like an asset with a large one-time distribution shock, then a long sequence of smaller, date-specific liquidity events. Those events are tradable because they are scheduled and because the marginal seller base is legible.

Allocations and who controls the float

Meteora publishes allocations and vesting directly in its documentation. The Genesis Summary adds context on how parts of the “circulating at TGE” supply were operationally staged, including tokens deposited into the launch pool and tokens reserved for later distribution.

Below is the allocation breakdown, expressed as target amounts off Meteora’s stated 1,000,000,000 supply figure.

Two additional “control plane” details matter for float concentration.

First, Meteora discloses specific operational wallets, including an Operations wallet intended to hold tokens used for “CEX & MM” purposes (stated as 3% of supply). Some market trackers also surface identified vault balances (for example, a Team Vault and a Reserve Vault) alongside their supply estimates, which gives you a practical way to watch concentration and transfers over time.

Second, Meteora describes its treasury and token reserve custody as a Squads-based multisig setup with 4-of-7 or 3-of-5 thresholds for critical vaults. That reduces key-person risk. It does not remove discretion risk. It mostly changes the failure mode from “one compromised key” to “policy and coordination choices.”

TGE pool mechanics: the LP NFT option softens sell pressure, but doesn’t erase it

Meteora framed the TGE as “token or liquidity.” Eligible users could default into receiving MET, or switch into a Liquidity Distributor NFT that represents a position in the MET launch pool and earns swap fees once trading starts.

The cap matters. Meteora states liquidity distribution via this mechanism is capped at 10% of total supply (100,000,000 MET). The FAQ reiterates that 3% is auto-opted for JUP stakers and the remaining 7% is first-come-first-served for other eligible users.

From a microstructure lens, this is a choice architecture tool. It tries to redirect a portion of “airdrop recipients as immediate sellers” into “airdrop recipients as LPs.” That can stabilize early depth. It can also concentrate flow into one venue, the DAMM v2 launch pool.

Meteora’s own TGE documentation points to the DAMM v2 pool as the initial liquidity venue. The Genesis Summary states that approximately 94M MET were deposited into the DAMM v2 pool as part of the LP Distributor staging.

Then there’s the launch fee curve. Meteora’s FAQ describes the Liquidity Distributor NFT as earning fees in a DAMM v2 pool that is “single sided MET,” where fees are earned when users swap USDC for MET. It also states the pool fees “start high” and “drastically decline” over time through a fee scheduler.

This matters because early launch mechanics are where price discovery gets written into the holder graph. A high-fee early window can tax short-horizon churn and botty flow. It can also widen effective spreads for real buyers. If your goal is sustained liquidity, the trade-off is clear: narrative stability can benefit from “fair launch optics,” while actual liquidity stability depends on whether the early fee regime produces durable holders or just delays distribution by a few days. If you’re planning a similar TGE, our guide on how to launch a token is a good checklist for pressure-testing the mechanics.

Fees and fiscal flows: protocol revenue exists, but MET is not a revenue claim

Meteora’s protocol revenues come from taking a share of swap fees routed through its pools. The take rate depends on pool type, with the published protocol revenue splits broken out by pool design.

The published splits are explicit: DAMM v1 and DAMM v2 show 80% to LPs and 20% to protocol revenues, while DLMM shows 95% to LPs and 5% to protocol revenues. DBC pools show 20% to protocol revenues and the remaining share to launch partners and token creators.

Meteora also states revenues are collected in the tokens being swapped, meaning the protocol accumulates a basket of base and quote tokens rather than auto-converting to USDC at collection time.

Here’s the tension. MET is frequently discussed socially as a coordination token. The EU/EEA disclosure, however, is unambiguous that MET does not grant ownership, governance, or profit-sharing rights and cannot be redeemed by the issuer. It also states the Meteora Foundation does not pursue profit or distribute revenues.

So the clean model is this: protocol revenues can grow, and MET can still fail to capture them directly. That does not make MET “bad tokenomics.” It makes it a token whose value hinges on future utility activation (access tiers, launch participation, staking-for-points) and on how treasury policy interacts with unlock flows.

One more hard, under-discussed variable is burns. Meteora’s tokenomics page documents a team-conducted burn of 2,261,990 MET on October 25, 2025. Many supply dashboards subtract burned tokens from “total supply,” which is one reason total supply may read below 1B.

Risk register

Dominant risk: MET’s future price path is most exposed to unlock-driven liquidity shocks from the 52% vested supply, especially the 34% Meteora Reserve.

The mechanism is not mysterious. Monthly unlocks create a recurring “known seller” overhang. Even if the team never sells, the market has to price the option value of selling. Market makers respond by widening spreads into unlock dates, shortening inventory duration, or leaning more on perps where available. Spot holders end up bearing this as churn, not as a single visible cliff.

What makes MET’s case sharper is that the reserve bucket is not an abstract number. Meteora describes it as a pool to be used for liquidity mining rewards after TGE and “strategically leveraged” to attract liquidity providers, with the exact plan marked as to-be-announced. Incentives are useful. Incentives also route tokens into the hands of actors with the shortest holding period in DeFi.

Unlock calendars make the cadence concrete: the market will keep trading through scheduled monthly unlocks through 2031 unless a decision changes it.

The trade-off is real. A slow, linear vest reduces single-day cliffs. It also creates a multi-year reflexivity loop where every month has a scheduled liquidity event. If utility activation lags, unlock flow becomes the narrative. If utility activation lands, unlock flow becomes background noise.

  1. Unlock reflexivity (dominant), Trigger: monthly unlock dates and any visible transfers out of Team/Reserve vaults. Mechanism: predictable increases in liquid supply invite anticipatory selling and market-maker de-risking into the event; reserve spending can turn “scheduled unlock” into “real spot supply.” Who bears it: spot holders first, then LPs via higher volatility and worse adverse selection. Measurable indicators: upcoming unlock schedules, plus CEX/DEX net flow widgets and on-chain transfers from disclosed wallets. For a comparable case study in how overhang narratives compound, compare with our Reserve Rights tokenomics.

  2. Value capture gap, Trigger: protocol revenues rise without any binding MET-linked sink (staking-for-access, fee discounts, buybacks, or similar). Mechanism: if MET remains mainly a transferable badge with optional utilities, marginal demand becomes sentiment-driven while supply is schedule-driven. Who bears it: long-only holders and anyone underwriting liquidity on the assumption of “fee flywheel.” Measurable indicators: delivery of the phased functionality plan (launch access, staking-for-engagement points) versus remaining “planned,” and whether MET continues to be described as carrying no profit or governance rights in official disclosures. For a contrasting DeFi reference point, see our 0x Protocol tokenomics.

  3. Parameter uncertainty from inconsistent public docs, Trigger: conflicting dates and schedules across official pages and legal docs. Mechanism: uncertainty raises the risk premium, reduces willingness to warehouse inventory, and makes liquidity thinner around announcements. Who bears it: traders (slippage), projects launching on Meteora (launch quality), and holders (valuation discount). Measurable indicators: discrepancies between claim windows, vesting tables, and legal disclosure language.

One point on that last risk, because it feeds back into the dominant one. The MiCAR white paper describes issuer-retained tokens at TGE as subject to a 12-month cliff and 60-month linear vesting, which does not match the tokenomics table’s 1-month cliff and 72-month vesting. In practice, markets will anchor to what is enforced on-chain and what major trackers display, but this kind of mismatch still matters. It is a tax on confidence.

If you’re designing a token with similar launch and unlock constraints, this is where tokenomics consulting pays for itself. Small choices in cliffs, claimability, and liquidity distribution mechanics often dominate the secondary-market outcome more than the supply headline.



This article is part of our Tokenomics Deep Dive series.