🔍 EGT vs Traditional Models
🔍 EGT vs Traditional Models
To fully appreciate what EGT offers, it’s important to compare it with existing models in the stablecoin and asset tokenization space.
EGT is not just “another governance token” — it redefines how value is created, governed, and shared within a decentralized real-world asset (RWA) protocol.
🧭 Comparative Landscape
Feature
EGT (EURG Protocol)
USDT / USDC
PAXG / XAUt
Governance Participation
✅ On-chain DAO, token-based voting
❌ None
❌ None
Revenue Sharing
✅ Real revenue (USDT/EURG) distributed quarterly
❌ No user dividends
❌ No user dividends
Composability
✅ ERC-20, DeFi-native, DAO integrations
✅ Limited
⚠️ Limited (no LP use)
Transparency
✅ Audits + IPFS + PoR + DAO treasury on-chain
⚠️ Partial disclosures
⚠️ Limited transparency
Ownership Logic
✅ Community-owned, governed by token holders
❌ Corporate-controlled
❌ Custodial & centralized
Asset Stability Layer
🟡 Indirect (drives value to EURG ecosystem)
N/A
✅ Physical gold peg
Equity Representation
✅ Tokenized protocol equity with upside exposure
❌ Not applicable
❌ Not applicable
🧠 Philosophy Difference
Who captures value?
Central issuers
Community via EGT
Who makes decisions?
Executives or opaque committees
Token holders and stakeholders
Is revenue shared?
No
Yes — in stablecoins, with transparency
Is it programmable?
Limited
Fully on-chain, DAO-first, composable
Is there upside participation?
No
Yes — via governance and ecosystem growth
🌐 Real Yield, Real Voice, Real Ownership
EGT is part of a broader movement: To replace opaque institutions with transparent, verifiable, user-owned protocols.
With EURG offering a trust-backed stablecoin, EGT ensures that those who use and build the system benefit from its success.
It’s time for value to flow to those who create it. Not to the center, but to the network.
Last updated