Do descriptions like those result in paradox or antinomy like "set of all sets" or (nLab seems to say at one point) "category of all categories" do? It seems that the type of types would be a token (or occurrence?) of itself. If it is a token, then it is also a token of the type of tokens. But this seems to make the type of types lesser than the type of tokens. (Maybe there's only a type of types or only a type of tokens; or there should be neither at all!)
Is this (or something like this) a counterpart distortion among types to set/category distortions? Note: I haven't even gotten into the full issue of occurrences vs. tokens, which I don't fully grasp.
I tried Google-searching "type of types" and "is a token of itself" and didn't find the analysis I was wondering about. I don't have an academic subscription to any journal set so I'm not sure where else to look.
EDIT: I did just find some of this analysis in the SEP article on type theory, for "type of types" but not "type of tokens" (or "type of occurrences").