Supply is not designed for price. It is designed for roles.
In [Part I], we dismantled a common assumption: that Web3 payments require a native stablecoin.
We established that InterLink doesn’t “mint” stability through a dollar peg. Instead, it enforces stability through settlement rules, identity verification, and controlled distribution.
Once you accept that premise, a deeper question emerges:
If InterLink isn’t optimizing for price stability through a stablecoin, what exactly are its token numbers optimizing for?
This is where most analyses break down — and where design, not speculation, becomes decisive.
AI-generated image for illustrative purposes. Not a real photograph.
🎰 The “Price-First” Trap: A Legacy of Gambling
The crypto industry has spent a decade perfecting the art of gambling.
Now, it’s time to start perfecting the art of survival.
Most token supplies are designed backwards — starting from price expectations rather than system behavior.
They collapse into “Price Anxiety,” obsessing over whether a supply is scarce enough to pump or when the next unlock will hit. This is the manufacture of early hype through artificial scarcity.
InterLink does not play the price-first game.
Its numbers are built to withstand time — not to excite markets today.
🔋 Supply as Capacity, Not Scarcity
Here is the inversion most people miss:
Token supply does not set price. It sets access.
InterLink’s dual-token structure is built on this very principle.
ITLG: A participation container. 🥣ITL: A settlement and utility asset. ☕🍞
These quantities aren’t signals to traders; they are load-bearing limits for human behavior.
Asking if 100 billion ITLG is “too much” misses the point. The real question is:
How many humans, actions, and years must this system absorb without breaking?
🌊 Why ITLG Must Be Large: The Participation Container
ITLG’s supply is intentionally expansive because its role is expansive. ITLG is not “money” in the traditional sense;
it is Proof of Participation.
To achieve global scale, the system must support:
Massive global onboarding. 🌍Decade-long time horizons. 🕰️Uneven human contributions. 📊Activity-weighted (not capital-weighted) distribution. 🏃
A small supply would create scarcity at the participation layer, immediately giving an advantage to those with capital (gatekeeping).
Instead, InterLink allows ITLG to be abundant before it becomes valuable.
That value is earned later — through verification.
⚙️ The Filter: Raw ITLG vs. Verified ITLG
Raw ITLG is easy to earn. Verified ITLG is not.
Between the two sits a sophisticated qualification layer:
Human Credit Score (HCS) ⏳
A filter for genuine human behavior.Consistency ⏱️
Reward for the “time-spent” variable.Security Groups 🛡️
Network-level trust participation.
Activity ≠ Ownership. Only verified behavior converts participation into on-chain assets.
Supply is abundant.
Value is conditional.
⚓ Why ITL Must Be Limited: The Trust Anchor
If ITLG is about inclusion, ITL is about trust.
Settlement assets cannot be infinite. A currency that anyone can mint freely isn’t a currency — it’s noise.
Therefore, ITL is: 🚫
Not mined directly.Not freely issued.Not accessible without verified participation.
Every unit of ITL originates from qualified ITLG activity. It is allocated, not exchanged.
💡 Done.T’s Note
This distinction is vital.
ITL is a defensive outcome — released slowly. Deliberately. Defensively.
🔢 What These Numbers Are Actually Doing
InterLink’s token quantities don’t perform “Scarcity Theater.”
They enforce Role Separation 🔀
Abundant Participation vs. Restricted Settlement.Open Entry vs. Controlled Output.Human Activity vs. Monetary Consequence.Price prediction is the wrong lens.
The real question isn’t how high it goes, but how long it holds.
🏁 Conclusion: Defensive Design
InterLink’s numbers are defensive by design.
They don’t manufacture scarcity for the sake of a chart; they reserve scarcity for the precise layer where it is required for trust.
Participation is open.
Ownership is earned.
Settlement is protected.
InterLink’s token numbers do not predict price.
They enforce who is allowed to matter — over time.
🔜 Continue to Part III:
🔗 Retail vs. Institutions: Who Actually Holds the Power in InterLink?
About the Author
Done.T is a Web3 analyst specializing in the InterLink ecosystem.
He unpacks the underlying logic of the Human Node economy, translating complex system design into actionable, data-driven insights for a global audience.
Reference
🔗 [Chapter 2. The Deep Dive — Mechanics & Insights]
Disclaimer: This article provides a strategic analysis of InterLink’s publicly available infrastructure and documentation.
It is not financial advice. Readers should conduct their own due diligence.
[InterLink by Design #2] The 100 Billion Question: Why InterLink Built a Filter, Not a Pump was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.