[InterLink by Design #2] The 100 Billion Question: Why InterLink Built a Filter, Not a Pump

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.

🔗LINK[InterLink by Design #1]

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

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.

⚙️ 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.

⚓ 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 🔀

1. Abundant Participation vs. Restricted Settlement.
2. Open Entry vs. Controlled Output.
3. Human Activity vs. Monetary Consequence.

🏁 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.

🔜 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.