‘Crypto Doesn’t Care About Fundamentals.’ Is That Sustainable?

BlockworksPublicado a 2022-07-28Actualizado a 2022-07-28

Resumen

A tiny fraction of cryptocurrencies from the last bull market reached all-time highs this cycle. So, what are they really worth? And why?

Cash flows and revenues may be bearish for digital assets, as they place caps on their potential valuations in line with traditional companies with far slower growth trajectories

“The nature of crypto is that it cares about growth potential,” one portfolio manager said

_

_

Most cryptocurrencies die.

It’s well known among those who’ve witnessed more than one cycle. Hundreds, if not thousands, of tokens surge, alongside bitcoin and ether, but rarely — or, often never — reclaim all-time highs.

Just 26 of the top 200 digital assets by market capitalization went on to set new highs after the peak of the last bull market in January 2018.

Half were layer-1 tokens, such as litecoin, ether and cardano. Five were governance tokens conferring voting rights powering decentralized finance protocols, such as Gnosis and district0x.

It’s not a rosy picture. But the outlook deteriorates further in denominating how much a cryptocurrency is worth in bitcoin terms, instead of the customary dollar.

Switch to bitcoin pricing, and only six of those cryptocurrencies exceeded their previous peak over the same time period: dogecoin, binance coin, chainlink, decentraland, vechain and enjin coin.

A small selection of winners, representing just 3% of the top 200 digital assets. There’s no clear trend linking them, either.

Dogecoin is literally a “to-the-moon” self-parody, while layer-1 token vechain is powered by the “blockchain for supply chains” meme.

Binance coin boasts some staying power buoyed by enticing burn mechanisms. Chainlink has, arguably, more utility than most, supporting a stretching ecosystem of data feeds and price oracles, which connect various blockchains and smart contracts to execute transactions without third-party validators.

Decentraland and enjin coin’s success, industry participants say, can be explained in part by the metaverse brouhaha and blockchain-powered gaming dapps (decentralized applications) expected to soon grow in popularity.

Such spurious connections suggest most digital assets inevitably crescendo in a bull market, but quickly go kaput once the hype fades — destined to never revisit their glittery glories to render top-buying bagholders whole.

So, how does one equitably price digital assets? What is crypto worth, really?

Considering the top 200 coins from the previous bull market are down more than 90%, in dollar terms, from all-time highs, how and why do markets decide how low they go?

Cash flows are bearish for digital assets

Token Terminal is one platform pitching ways to figure it all out. It offers a range of metrics that aim to compare various protocols, echoing traditional company valuation methods in price-to-earning ratios and total revenues.

“Looking backwards, especially comparing the 2018 bull market to what we witnessed in 2021, it’s very difficult to really build any sort of thesis for why certain tokens succeed,” Oskari Tempakka, Token Terminal’s growth lead, told Blockworks.

The platform gauges protocols that generate cash flow alongside blockchain startups that operate entirely on-chain. It wasn’t possible to value protocols based on those factors during the last bull market, Tempakka said, as it was only halfway through 2020 — during DeFi summer — when the first applications built on Ethereum actually started generating positive cash flows to the protocol.

The conclusion: Analyzing the highest-flying cryptocurrencies from the last bull, whether dollar valuation or bitcoin, on a fundamental basis is essentially impossible.

Still, half of the top 200 digital assets which recorded fresh all-time highs throughout the most recent cycle were layer-1 assets.

Layer-1s, the backbone of digital assets, outperformed this time around on the back of healthy name recognition and the efforts of legions of developers, as well as market makers and deep-pocketed traders favoring assets with more liquidity.

There has to be a sizable market capitalization for a $1 billion-plus hedge fund to bother trading an asset — or else move the price needle so much in building a long or short leg that profits become obsolete.

“I’d say the thesis behind layer-1s is that you’re essentially building an infinitely scalable settlement layer for any other applications being built on top,” Tempakka said. “It’s easier to build a more bullish thesis without a valuation cap than it is for a pure application — that’s how we’re looking at layer-1s right now, at least the ones that actually are able to generate cash flow and capture that value.”

Cash flows are actually bearish as they relate to trying to put a price tag on cryptoassets. They’re not bearish in and of themselves as a metric, but industry participants argue that crypto’s rapid growth trajectory demands a different framework.

Applying convention fundamental stock-picking techniques would never work with venture capital-backed startups, they say — so why should it work when it comes to digital assets?

If it’s possible to value a cryptoasset based on conventional fundamentals, then a relatively apples-to-apples comparison to a real-world company ought to be possible, too.

“Crypto doesn’t care about fundamentals, traditional sense of cash flows,” Hassan Bassiri, vice president of portfolio management at digital asset manager Arca, told Blockworks. “The nature of crypto is that it cares about growth potential.”

Added Bassiri: “Say something like Aave or Yearn is trading at a 1,000 price-to-sales ratio but its fintech competitor neobank is trading at 200 — is the cryptocurrency worth a 5x multiple on that?”

Tapping cash flows to value digital assets — just like an Amazon or a Tesla stock — implies they can’t go up forever, a notion akin to kryptonite for crypto die-hards.

Indeed, cash flows provide one method of valuing digital assets, which automatically means they can’t go up forever, a notion akin to kryptonite for cryptocurrency investors.

The result: a volatile, topsy-turvy market that prioritizes social sentiment and glamor over Econ 101.

Markets driven by fundamentals are on the horizon

If looking to the past doesn’t illuminate how traders appraise digital assets, who’s to say which projects out of a sea of many hopefuls have a realistic shot at outlasting the bear market?

One cause for optimism, according to Bassiri: More and more protocols are working to tie real-world use cases to on-chain yield. Case in point: MakerDAO’s recent move to float a $100 million loan denominated in the token DAI to 151-year old Huntingdon Valley Bank, with the potential to increase the credit revolver to a staggering $1 billion over 12 months.

Token Terminal’s Tempakka is vying for the prospects of a future in which the majority of top tokens are driven by measurable fundamentals — and they must generate sustainable cash flows to power that model.

“If you’re a traditional private equity investor, you’re getting to a stage where you can look at the revenue data of crypto protocol and actually build a strong investment thesis around it,” Tempakka said.

In other words, it’s slowly — then, perhaps, all at once — becoming possible to rationalize crypto plays on something more tangible than hype or belief.

Many an institutional digital assets-focused trader would argue that world is already here. Crypto hedge fund firms build complicated quant models around social sentiment and ebbs and flows in trading volumes.

But those players are often the first to admit those convictions that construct strategies change rapidly in cryptoland. Fundamental metrics are, finally, becoming a powerful standby for sophisticated investors — consider the rise of discretionary strategies — but, for now, they’re just one piece of the overall puzzle.

The remainder is filled in by deep research probing the ins-and-outs of developer teams and their abilities, or lack thereof, to meet the lofty, winding road that lies before them.

Lecturas Relacionadas

Gate Research Institute: ETF Outflows Suppress Risk Appetite, Two-Way System Navigates Weak Market

Gate Institute Research Report: May 2026 Crypto Market Review & Strategy Analysis In May 2026, the crypto market shifted from an early-month rally to a mid-month correction, concluding with low-volatility consolidation. BTC, ETH, and SOL peaked in early May before declining. The primary market dynamic was a divergence between weakening spot ETF inflows and persistently high leverage-driven perpetual trading volume. A dual-direction moving average cluster breakout strategy outperformed, returning +2.11% for an equally-weighted BTC/ETH/SOL portfolio. This contrasted with a -6.09% return for buy-and-hold and -3.65% for a long-only version of the strategy. Profits were primarily generated from short positions on ETH and SOL during the mid-to-late May downtrend, demonstrating the month's suitability for two-way trend trading. Market structure evolved in three phases: an initial surge (May 1-6), a failure and reversal (starting May 7), and low-volatility compression (May 22 onward). While stablecoin supply remained stable, significant outflows from mainstream BTC and ETH ETFs created selling pressure. Concurrently, high correlation with the S&P 500 (~0.6) and stronger performance from AI equities like Nvidia highlighted crypto's position as a high-beta risk asset within a broader risk-budget framework, lacking independent momentum. The successful strategy employed a 4-hour chart system using a cluster of six moving averages (EMA6,12,24 & SMA6,12,24). A breakout signal was triggered after the cluster width compressed below 2.2%. Trades were managed with a 2.5% fixed stop-loss, a 3:1 Risk/Reward (7.5%) take-profit, and an EMA12-based exit rule to control losses from false breakouts. The strategy's low win rate but high payoff from a few large trend moves was effective in May's conditions. The report concludes that for June, a disciplined, bidirectional approach remains superior to subjective directional bets. The framework should adapt signal weighting based on BTC's position relative to key EMAs, ETF flow trends, and the relative strength of the Nasdaq, prioritizing risk management and trend preservation.

marsbitHace 20 min(s)

Gate Research Institute: ETF Outflows Suppress Risk Appetite, Two-Way System Navigates Weak Market

marsbitHace 20 min(s)

Anthropic CEO's Latest Interview: On Technological Explosion, Safety Red Lines, and the Civilization Contract

Interview with Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei covers the intense pressures and ethical dilemmas of leading AI development. He describes the experience as "exponential growth," feeling constant acceleration akin to relativistic time dilation. The discussion delves into his departure from OpenAI, rooted in a fundamental loss of trust and divergent values rather than mere technical disagreements. Amodei emphasizes Anthropic's enterprise-focused business model, arguing it aligns better with safety and responsible deployment than consumer-facing, ad-driven models. He addresses critical issues like AI's impact on employment, advocating for proactive macroeconomic policies and a shift towards "doing more with the same resources" to avoid widespread job displacement. On safety and governance, he details Anthropic's cautious approach, including delaying the release of the powerful "Mythos" model due to its advanced cyber capabilities. He stresses the need for "human-in-the-loop" principles in military applications, setting red lines against autonomous weapons and mass surveillance. Amodei calls for industry collaboration among trustworthy actors to establish standards and advocates for a balanced regulatory framework with checks and balances, such as Anthropic's Long-term Benefit Trust, rather than corporate or government monopoly over the technology. He expresses geopolitical concerns, particularly regarding China, and a belief that AI should bolster liberal democracies. While acknowledging a non-zero risk of civilizational catastrophe from advanced AI, he asserts Anthropic's actions are aimed at significantly reducing that probability. The interview concludes with Amodei arguing that trust must be earned through concrete actions, like sacrificing commercial gain for safety, to distinguish Anthropic in a Silicon Valley landscape he criticizes for eroded public trust.

marsbitHace 24 min(s)

Anthropic CEO's Latest Interview: On Technological Explosion, Safety Red Lines, and the Civilization Contract

marsbitHace 24 min(s)

The Brutal Truth Behind CARDS' $535M FDV: Only $43M in Net Revenue and Halved Profit Margins

The article titled "The Brutal Truth Behind CARDS' $535 Million FDV: Only $43 Million Net Revenue, Profit Margins Halved" provides a critical analysis of Collector Crypt (CC), a platform combining physical collectible cards with NFTs in a gacha-style system. Key findings include: * CC has generated $635 million in total user deposits. However, 90.6% ($576 million) is instantly returned to users via automatic card buybacks, resulting in only $43 million in net platform revenue (6.7% retention). * Activity is highly concentrated among dozens of high-frequency wallets, with an average of only ~420 daily active players. * There is minimal secondary market activity for the cards (under $5 million total), indicating the platform functions more as a gambling casino than a collector's marketplace. eBay sales as a percentage of gacha volume have declined for six consecutive quarters. * Despite a tripling in transaction volume, net profit margins have been halved from 11.2% to 5.8% as activity shifts to higher-priced card packs with lower margins. * Value captured by the CARDS token is minimal: only $140,000 (from burns and recent buybacks), representing just 3.4% of CC's cumulative net revenue. In contrast, wallets linked to operational infrastructure have off-ramped $45.7 million in USDC. * The token's ~$535 million Fully Diluted Valuation (FDV) represents a 7.3x multiple of annualized net revenue. Only 20.5% of the token supply is floating, with 72% allocated to insiders and locked until November 2027. The conclusion is that CC has found product-market fit as a high-speed gambling platform for a niche user base, not as a growing collector economy. The token currently captures a negligible share of the platform's revenue.

Foresight NewsHace 49 min(s)

The Brutal Truth Behind CARDS' $535M FDV: Only $43M in Net Revenue and Halved Profit Margins

Foresight NewsHace 49 min(s)

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片