Initial Coin Offering (ICO) has emerged as a novel mechanism for start-ups to raise funds. Through ICO, companies offer unique cryptographic tokens for sale, and commit that these tokens will be the sole medium of exchange for future products of the company. The sale of tokens provides funding for initial development, although there is no commitment to the price of future products in terms of tokens or any other form.Despite the rapid development of ICO, existing research has largely focused on self-contained companies. This study attempts to integrate ICO with the supply chain to explore the impact of token issuance on the supply chain and analyze the differences between a tokenized supply chain and a traditional supply chain. In contrast to the widely studied traditional wholesale contract model (i.e., retailers purchase products from manufacturers and then sell for cash to consumers), in our setting, tokens are used throughout the entire product flow process, such that retailers can acquire products by issuing and providing tokens without paying cash. Hence, we refer to this supply chain as tokenized. The main objective of this research is to explore the differences in decision-making and profits among supply chain members and the overall supply chain profitability under different supply chain models, and investigate whether and under what circumstances tokenization is better than a traditional supply chain.Due to the differences between tokenized wholesale price contracts and traditional wholesale price contracts, this study primarily examines the impact of these differences. Under the tokenized supply chain model, several issues may arise, including: 1) how do retailers and manufacturers make ordering decisions and wholesale price decisions respectively? 2) Compared to traditional wholesale price contracts, what is the impact of tokenized contracts on the profits of retailers, manufacturers, and the entire supply chain?To address the above issues, this paper establishes a two-tier supply chain model consisting of manufacturers and retailers. For comparison purposes, this paper first analyzes the case of traditional wholesale price contracts using cash transactions, and subsequently analyzes the case of tokenized wholesale price contracts. The following series of events occur in the game: the retailer announces the total number of tokens to be issued; the manufacturer provides the retailer with a contract containing the wholesale price; the retailer accepts or rejects the contract; assuming the retailer accepts the contract, the retailer submits an order to the manufacturer and pays the corresponding tokens; the manufacturer produces and delivers to the retailer before demand realization; demand realization occurs; customers purchase tokens to exchange for products. Additionally, it should be noted that the manufacturer's wholesale price is tokens, not cash; the retailer only pays tokens, not cash; demand is uncertain; the only way for customers to obtain the product is to purchase tokens and then use them to exchange for the product.The main findings of this study are as follows. First, the tokenized supply chain is only effective when consumers' willingness to pay exceeds a threshold, that is, when customer willingness to pay is at least twice the production cost. This is because, in the tokenized supply chain, the manufacturer's revenue depends on the value of the token, which is determined by market demand. Therefore, the manufacturer's unit profit is uncertain, and in this situation, the manufacturer bears the risk of demand uncertainty faced by the retailer. In other words, in the process of transitioning from a traditional supply chain to a tokenized supply chain, the impact of demand uncertainty on the manufacturer's unit product profit increases from zero to positive. Therefore, tokenization of the supply chain is only effective when the ratio of willingness to pay to production cost exceeds a certain threshold. Second, in most cases, tokenization benefits the retailer, but there are exceptions when marginal costs and market expectations of demand are in the medium range; tokenization always reduces the manufacturer's profit. In other words, the retailer can earn higher profits, while the manufacturer may earn lower profits when tokenized. This result can be explained as follows: on the one hand, the retailer is the issuer of the token and dominates the tokenized transaction; on the other hand, in the traditional supply chain, the retailer bears the risk of market uncertainty, which is not within the scope of the manufacturer's consideration. Third, the impact of tokenization on the entire supply chain varies with different market demands and costs. If the expected demand is low and the cost is not high, tokenization can increase the total profit. However, if the demand is expected to be high and the cost is high, tokenization may reduce the total profit. The reason behind this is that tokenization allows the retailer and the manufacturer to share the risk of market uncertainty and focus on factors that they would not consider in a traditional supply chain. In a traditional supply chain, only the manufacturer would focus on cost, and only the retailer would focus on market demand. However, after tokenization, the retailer also considers cost, and the manufacturer also considers market demand.