Who Controls the Revenue Lifeblood of the Crypto Industry?

marsbitPublicado a 2026-01-14Actualizado a 2026-01-14

Resumen

The article analyzes the revenue dynamics of the crypto industry, which generated over $16 billion in revenue in 2025—double that of 2024. The largest revenue drivers are stablecoin issuers like Tether and Circle, which account for 60% of total industry revenue. However, decentralized perpetual exchanges (perp DEXs) such as Hyperliquid, EdgeX, Lighter, and Axiom emerged as a significant new sector, collectively contributing 7-8% of total revenue—more than established DeFi sectors like lending and staking combined. Three key factors drive crypto revenue: spread income (e.g., interest from stablecoin reserves), transaction execution (e.g., perp DEXs enabling high-frequency trading), and distribution channels (e.g., token launch platforms like pump.fun). The article notes that perp DEXs, with their frictionless trading and liquidity advantages, are the only sector potentially challenging stablecoin issuers' dominance. Additionally, the industry is shifting toward value transfer to token holders via mechanisms like buybacks, burns, and fee sharing. In 2025, $33.6 billion (58% of total fees) was returned to token holders, reinforcing tokens as economic ownership claims rather than mere governance tools. This trend is expected to accelerate in 2026, especially as falling interest rates reduce the appeal of spread-based revenue.

Written by: Prathik Desai

Compiled by: Chopper, Foresight News

I love the seasonal traditions in the crypto industry, like Uptober and Recktober. People in the community always bring out a ton of data around these events, and humans are naturally drawn to such anecdotes, right?

The trend analysis and reports around these events are even more interesting: "This time, ETF flows are different," "Crypto financing has finally matured this year," "Bitcoin is poised for a rally this year," and so on. Recently, while browsing the "2025 DeFi Industry Report," a few charts about how crypto protocols generate "substantial revenue" caught my attention.

These charts listed the top crypto protocols with the highest annual revenue, confirming a fact many in the industry have discussed over the past year: the crypto industry is finally making revenue attractive. But what exactly is driving this revenue growth?

Behind these charts lies another lesser-known question worth exploring: Where do these fee revenue ultimately flow?

Last week, I delved into DefiLlama's fee and revenue data (Note: Revenue refers to fees retained after paying liquidity providers and suppliers) to find answers. In today's analysis, I will add more detail to this data, dissecting how and where funds flow within the crypto industry.

Crypto protocols generated over $16 billion in revenue last year, more than double the approximately $8 billion in 2024.

The value capture ability of the crypto industry has improved comprehensively. Over the past 12 months, many new tracks have emerged in the decentralized finance (DeFi) space, such as decentralized exchanges (DEX), token issuance platforms, and decentralized perpetual contract exchanges (perp DEX).

However, the profit centers generating the highest revenue are still concentrated in traditional sectors, with stablecoin issuers being the most prominent.

The top two stablecoin issuers, Tether and Circle, contributed over 60% of the crypto industry's total revenue. In 2025, their market share slightly decreased from about 65% in 2024 to 60%.

But the performance of decentralized perpetual contract exchanges in 2025 cannot be underestimated; this sector was almost insignificant in 2024. Four platforms—Hyperliquid, EdgeX, Lighter, and Axiom—collectively accounted for 7% to 8% of the industry's total revenue, far exceeding the combined revenue of protocols in mature DeFi sectors like lending, staking, cross-chain bridges, and decentralized exchange aggregators.

So, what will drive revenue in 2026? I found the answer in the three major factors that influenced the crypto industry's revenue landscape last year: spread income, trade execution, and distribution channels.

Spread trading means that whoever holds and transfers funds can profit from the process.

The revenue model of stablecoin issuers is both structural and fragile. Its structural nature is reflected in the fact that revenue scales simultaneously with the supply and circulation of stablecoins; every digital dollar issued by the issuer is backed by U.S. Treasury bonds and generates interest. The fragility lies in the fact that this model relies on macroeconomic variables that the issuer has almost no control over: the Federal Reserve's interest rates. Now, the monetary easing cycle has just begun. As interest rates are further reduced this year, the dominant revenue position of stablecoin issuers will also weaken accordingly.

Next is the trade execution layer, which is also the birthplace of the most successful DeFi sector in 2025: decentralized perpetual contract exchanges.

The simplest way to understand why decentralized perpetual contract exchanges quickly captured a significant market share is to see how they help users complete trading operations. These platforms have created low-friction trading venues, allowing users to enter and exit risk positions on demand. Even if market volatility is flat, users can still hedge, add leverage, arbitrage, adjust positions, or build positions early for future layouts.

Unlike spot decentralized exchanges, decentralized perpetual contract exchanges allow users to conduct continuous, high-frequency trading without the hassle of transferring underlying assets.

Although the logic of trade execution sounds simple and the operation speed is extremely fast, the technical support behind it is far more complex than it appears. These platforms must build stable trading interfaces that do not crash under high load; create reliable order matching and liquidation systems that remain stable during market chaos; and also provide sufficient liquidity depth to meet traders' needs. In decentralized perpetual contract exchanges, liquidity is the key to victory: whoever can continuously provide ample liquidity will attract the most trading activity.

In 2025, Hyperliquid dominated the perpetual contract decentralized trading sector by having the largest number of market makers providing ample liquidity within the platform. This also made the platform the decentralized perpetual contract exchange with the highest fee income for 10 of the 12 months last year.

Ironically, the success of these DeFi sector perpetual contract exchanges is precisely because they did not require traders to understand blockchain and smart contracts, but instead used the familiar operational model of traditional exchanges.

Once all the above issues are resolved, the exchange can achieve automated revenue growth by charging small fees for traders' high-frequency, large-volume trades. Even if the spot price moves sideways, revenue can continue because the platform provides traders with a wealth of operational choices.

This is also why I believe that although decentralized perpetual contract exchanges only accounted for a single-digit percentage of revenue last year, they are the only sector that could potentially challenge the dominance of stablecoin issuers.

The third factor is distribution channels, which bring incremental revenue to crypto projects like token issuance infrastructure, such as pump.fun and LetsBonk platforms. This is not much different from the model we see in Web2 companies: Airbnb and Amazon do not own any inventory, but with their massive distribution channels, they have long surpassed the definition of aggregation platforms and also reduced the marginal cost of new supply.

Crypto token issuance infrastructure similarly does not own the crypto assets—Meme coins, various tokens, and micro-communities—created through its platform. But by creating a frictionless user experience, automating the listing process, providing ample liquidity, and simplifying trading operations, these platforms have become the preferred choice for people to issue crypto assets.

In 2026, two questions may determine the development trajectory of these revenue drivers: Will the industry revenue share of stablecoin issuers fall below 60% as interest rate cuts impact spread trading? Can perpetual contract trading platforms break through the 8% market share as the landscape of the trade execution layer becomes more concentrated?

Spread income, trade execution, and distribution channels—these three factors reveal the source of revenue in the crypto industry, but this is only half the story. Equally important is to understand what proportion of the total fees is distributed to token holders before the protocol retains net revenue.

Value transfer achieved through token buybacks, burns, and fee sharing means that tokens are no longer just governance credentials, but represent economic ownership of the protocol.

In 2025, the total fees paid by users of decentralized finance and other protocols amounted to approximately $30.3 billion. Of this, the revenue retained by the protocols after paying liquidity providers and suppliers was about $17.6 billion. From the total revenue, approximately $3.36 billion was returned to token holders through staking rewards, fee sharing, token buybacks, and burns. This means that 58% of the fees were converted into protocol revenue.

This is a significant shift compared to the previous industry cycle. More and more protocols are beginning to experiment with making tokens represent ownership claims on operational performance, providing real incentives for investors to continue holding and going long on the projects they believe in.

The crypto industry is far from perfect, and most protocols still do not distribute any earnings to token holders. But from a macro perspective, the industry has undergone considerable changes, and this signal indicates that everything is moving in a positive direction.

Over the past year, the proportion of token holder earnings to total protocol revenue has continued to rise, breaking the historical high of 9.09% early last year and even exceeding 18% at its peak in August 2025.

This change is also reflected in token trading: if the token I hold never brings any return, my trading decisions will only be influenced by media narratives; but if the token I hold can bring me returns through buybacks or fee sharing, I will regard it as an interest-bearing asset. Although it may not be safe and reliable, this shift will still affect how the market prices tokens, bringing their valuation closer to fundamentals rather than being swayed by media narratives.

When investors look back at 2025 and try to predict where revenue in the crypto industry will flow in 2026, incentive mechanisms will be an important consideration. Last year, project teams that prioritized value transfer did stand out.

Hyperliquid built a unique community ecosystem, returning about 90% of its revenue to users through the Hyperliquid Aid Fund.

Among token issuance platforms, pump.fun reinforced the concept of "rewarding active platform users" and has already burned 18.6% of the circulating supply of its native token PUMP through daily buybacks.

In 2026, "value transfer" is expected to no longer be a niche choice but a necessary strategy for all protocols that want their tokens to trade based on fundamentals. Last year's market changes taught investors to distinguish between protocol revenue and token holder value. Once token holders realize that the tokens in their hands can represent ownership claims, returning to the previous model seems irrational.

I believe that the "2025 DeFi Industry Report" did not reveal a completely new nature of the crypto industry's exploration of revenue models; this trend has been hotly discussed in the past few months. The value of this report lies in using data to reveal the truth, and after digging deeper into this data, we can find the secret to the crypto industry's most likely path to revenue.

By analyzing the revenue dominance trends of various protocols, the report clearly points out: Whoever controls the core channels—spread income, trade execution, and distribution channels—will earn the most profits.

In 2026, I expect more projects to convert fees into long-term returns for token holders, especially as the appeal of spread trading declines amid the interest rate cut cycle, making this trend even more pronounced.

Preguntas relacionadas

QWhich two stablecoin issuers dominate the crypto industry's revenue, and what is their combined market share?

ATether and Circle are the crypto industry's dominant stablecoin issuers, contributing over 60% of the total revenue.

QWhat are the three key factors driving revenue growth in the crypto industry as identified in the article?

AThe three key factors driving revenue from spread earnings, trade execution, and distribution channels.

QWhich type of decentralized platform emerged as a significant revenue generator in 2025, surpassing the combined revenue of several established DeFi sectors?

ADecentralized perpetual exchanges (perp DEXs), such as Hyperliquid, EdgeX, Lighter, and Axiom, collectively accounted for 7-8% of industry revenue, surpassing the combined total of lending, staking, bridges, and DEX aggregators.

QWhat percentage of the total fees collected by protocols in 2025 was returned to token holders, and through what mechanisms?

AApproximately $3.36 billion, or a portion of the total fees, was returned to token holders through mechanisms like staking rewards, fee sharing, token buybacks, and burns.

QAccording to the article, what is the expected trend for value transfer to token holders in 2026, and why?

AValue transfer to token holders is expected to become a standard strategy in 2026, not a niche choice, especially as lower interest rates reduce the appeal of spread trades, making revenue-sharing mechanisms more critical for token valuation.

Lecturas Relacionadas

Del oro al Bitcoin: ¿Oferta fija + frenesí institucional = repetición de la 'explosión' de precios?

"De los lingotes de oro a los bits: ¿La oferta limitada y el fervor institucional repetirán una explosión de precios? Los analistas señalan que los ETF de Bitcoin, aprobados en 2024 y de rápido crecimiento, podrían seguir el camino de los ETF de oro, que en 22 años impulsaron el precio del metal y su capitalización de mercado a casi 28 billones de dólares. Ambos activos, como reservas de valor sin rendimiento, dependen de la oferta casi fija y del sentimiento de los inversores, lo que lleva a ciclos de subidas espectaculares, correcciones dolorosas y largas recuperaciones que elevan máximos históricos. A pesar de una caída de más del 50% desde octubre de 2025, la confianza a largo plazo se mantiene. La comparación con el oro es relevante: la demanda institucional a través de ETF, como el iShares de BlackRock (IBIT), actúa como un pilar clave, atenuando la presión vendedora. La adopción por parte de empresas y la facilidad de acceso a través de ETF amplifican la elasticidad de la demanda. Sin embargo, las salidas masivas de fondos podrían interrumpir las tendencias alcistas. El futuro de Bitcoin estará marcado por la volatilidad inherente al mercado, influenciada por el entorno macroeconómico, la regulación y el comportamiento institucional. Si Bitcoin logra capturar incluso una fracción de la capitalización de mercado del oro como reserva de valor digital, el potencial de apreciación es enorme. Para los inversores, la clave radica en la racionalidad, la diversificación y el enfoque en las tendencias a largo plazo, ya que la historia de transformación de activo marginal a activo principal podría estar solo comenzando."

Foresight NewsHace 14 min(s)

Del oro al Bitcoin: ¿Oferta fija + frenesí institucional = repetición de la 'explosión' de precios?

Foresight NewsHace 14 min(s)

¿Por qué es difícil popularizar las compras con agentes de IA?

**¿Por qué los agentes de IA para compras no se han popularizado?** La idea de dar a un agente de IA una billetera para que compre de forma autónoma suena futurista, pero confunde los desafíos reales de las compras. El acto de comprar combina dos acciones: **recuperación de información** (que se puede automatizar) y **juicios de valor** subjetivos (ligados a las emociones humanas). La narrativa del "monedero de IA" asume erróneamente que la IA puede hacerse cargo de ambas. El juicio de valor se divide en: **definir la necesidad** (establecer criterios) y **evaluar** opciones. La IA solo puede automatizar la evaluación. Las preferencias humanas no son fijas; se construyen durante el proceso de elección, por lo que la delegación total es imposible. La línea divisoria clave no es si un producto es estándar o personalizado, sino si **el acto de elegir en sí tiene valor experiencial**. Para productos mundanos (por ejemplo, papel), la automatización total es adecuada. Para compras placenteras (vino, muebles), la elección es parte del disfrute; aquí, la IA debe actuar como un asistente que filtra opciones, dejando la decisión final al humano. Existe un trilema: si la IA pregunta demasiado, es molesto y distorsiona la elección; si se basa solo en el historial, sofoca la exploración; si el humano decide todo, es ineficiente. Una solución es la **interacción por reconocimiento**: la IA presenta unas pocas opciones preseleccionadas para que el humano elija. El **pago es el eslabón menos importante**. No es necesario dar fondos a la IA; basta con tokens de pago de autorización limitada y única, como ya implementan Stripe, Mastercard y Google. La custodia autónoma de billeteras por parte de la IA es relevante principalmente para **compras empresariales estandarizadas** (B2B) o transacciones entre máquinas (M2M), no para el consumo personal. Los verdaderos cuellos de botella para las compras con IA son: 1. **Falta de fuentes de datos confiables**: reseñas falsas y productos falsificados socavan la capacidad de la IA para evaluar con precisión. 2. **La imposibilidad de automatizar la definición de la necesidad humana**: el derecho a definir qué es importante y a disfrutar de la elección final debe permanecer en manos humanas. En conclusión, el futuro no está en que la IA compre por nosotros de forma autónoma, sino en que **automatice de forma segura la investigación y el filtrado, devolviendo al humano el control sobre los criterios y el placer de la elección final**. Para las plataformas, la ventaja competitiva radicará en ofrecer una experiencia de elección excepcional con datos estructurados y verificables.

Foresight NewsHace 1 hora(s)

¿Por qué es difícil popularizar las compras con agentes de IA?

Foresight NewsHace 1 hora(s)

Operador veterano relata: ¿Cómo operar con las expectativas erróneas del mercado?

**Resumen en español europeo:** Un trader experimentado explica cómo operar basándose en las "expectativas erróneas" del mercado, tomando como ejemplo una operación reciente de venta en corto del índice Nasdaq (NQ). El caso se desencadenó tras la publicación de datos débiles de inflación (IPC) en EE.UU. Inicialmente, el mercado reaccionó con optimismo, haciendo subir el Nasdaq, asumiendo que un IPC bajo conduciría a un relajamiento general de las tasas de interés, incluidos los tipos a largo plazo ("relajamiento del denominador"). Sin embargo, el trader identificó una falla clave en esta cadena de expectativas del mercado: mientras que las tasas de interés a corto plazo bajaron, las tasas reales a largo plazo (como la del bono a 30 años) alcanzaron máximos de 20 años. Este escenario de "relajamiento a corto plazo pero negativa a largo plazo" no apoya la valoración de acciones tecnológicas, que dependen de financiación a largo plazo barata para su crecimiento. La metodología central presentada consiste en no limitarse a los datos mismos, sino analizar tres capas: 1. **Expectativa del dato:** ¿Cuál era el consenso? 2. **Expectativa de transmisión:** ¿Cómo se supone que el dato afecta a otras variables del mercado (política monetaria, tasas, crédito)? 3. **Expectativa de valoración de activos:** Dado lo anterior, ¿cómo debería repreciarse un activo? El autor argumenta que el "error" más común y explotable ocurre en la segunda capa: el mercado asume que un mecanismo de transmisión anterior sigue siendo válido cuando ya no lo es. En este caso, asumió que un IPC débil relajaría todas las tasas, pero la nueva realidad macroeconómica impide que las tasas a largo plazo bajen. El trader actuó vendiendo en corto el NQ (más sensible a las tasas largas) en lugar del S&P 500 (ES), y estructuró la operación en varias entradas. Define que la mejor oportunidad surge cuando las "variables rápidas" (como el precio del activo) se han recuperado, pero las "variables lentas" (como las condiciones de financiación subyacentes) se niegan a hacerlo, creando una discrepancia entre el precio y su lógica causal implícita. La ventaja (alpha) no proviene necesariamente de tener información mejor, sino de tener un "modelo de reacción" más actualizado que el del consenso del mercado.

marsbitHace 2 hora(s)

Operador veterano relata: ¿Cómo operar con las expectativas erróneas del mercado?

marsbitHace 2 hora(s)

Trading

Spot
活动图片