Data: 90% of Crypto Protocols Generate Revenue, But Less Than 1% Disclose Market Maker Terms

marsbitPublicado em 2026-04-15Última atualização em 2026-04-15

Resumo

Survey of 150 major crypto protocols reveals that while 91% generate on-chain revenue, only 8% publish investor reports, and less than 1% disclose market maker agreements. The data indicates a significant communication gap rather than a lack of available information, as third-party platforms cover 72% of protocols. DeFi protocols, particularly DEXs and lending platforms, lead in transparency, while L1 and infrastructure projects lag despite larger market capitalizations. Only 13 protocols have adopted the Token Transparency Framework since its introduction in June 2025. Additionally, 38% of protocols feature active value accumulation mechanisms, which correlate with approximately 19% higher annual returns compared to governance-only tokens. The findings highlight a structural disconnect between institutional investor expectations and current disclosure practices in the crypto industry.

Author: Novora

Compiled by: Deep Tide TechFlow

Deep Tide Intro: Among 150 leading protocols, 91% generate on-chain revenue, but only 8% publish investor reports, and less than 1% disclose market maker terms. The data is all on-chain, and third-party platforms also cover it, but protocols simply aren't packaging it for institutional view. This is not a data availability issue, but more of a communication gap.

Disclosure Rate

We evaluated 13 disclosure metrics across 150+ protocols. The gap between what traditional markets require for disclosure and what crypto protocols voluntarily provide is structural, not accidental.

Less than 1% of protocols disclose market maker terms. In traditional stock markets, market maker agreements are standard disclosure items filed with exchanges. In crypto, Meteora was the only protocol in our entire 150+ dataset that publicly disclosed information about its market making arrangements, via its 2025 Annual Token Holder Report.

Third-Party Data Coverage

We evaluated 5 major data platforms. Coverage reflects whether each protocol has a dedicated profile containing meaningful data beyond basic price information.

72% of protocols are covered by 4 or more platforms. Third-party data infrastructure has matured significantly. The data exists. The issue is not data availability, but that protocols are not leveraging this data in structured investor communications.

The Transparency Paradox

Revenue exists on-chain. Reports exist nowhere. This chart shows the disconnect between data availability and investor communication.

91% of protocols generate trackable revenue. 8% publish token holder reports. The data is there. It's on-chain, indexed by third-party platforms, and publicly verifiable. But fewer than one in ten protocols package this data into a format usable by institutional investors. This is the investor relations gap defining the industry.

Industry Breakdown

Disclosure practices vary dramatically by industry. DeFi protocols, particularly DEXs and lending, lead in transparency. L1 and infrastructure protocols, despite larger market caps, lag behind.

Token Transparency Framework

Blockworks launched the Token Transparency Framework (TTF) in June 2025, filed jointly with Jito to the SEC. 13 protocols have filed. Here's who they are and what this means.

TTF adoption is at 9%, up from 0% in June 2025. The 13 filers are heavily skewed towards Solana (6/13) and revenue-generating DeFi protocols. Zero L1s, zero L2s, zero infrastructure protocols have filed. The framework was submitted to the SEC with bipartisan support from Pantera, Theia, and L1D. But adoption is still growing slowly.

Active Value Accrual

38% of protocols have some form of active value accrual: a mechanism to return economic value to token holders, beyond just governance rights. But "value accrual" is not one thing. We identified six different models in the dataset.

The alpha is not in the mechanism itself. It's in the revenue. Any active accrual model outperformed governance-only tokens by approximately 19 percentage points on a 1-year return basis. But within the active group, daily revenue size was the differentiating factor. Governance-only tokens averaged a -51% return, while active accrual tokens averaged -32% over the same period. The mechanism itself matters less than the fact that a mechanism exists.

Key Findings

Six patterns emerging from evaluating all 15 metrics across 150+ protocols.

Six Numbers on the State of Crypto Investor Relations

The gap between institutional investor expectations and what crypto protocols provide, quantified.

Protocol Index

Each protocol evaluated in this report. Sorted alphabetically. ✓ = Disclosed/Exists. ✗ = Not Disclosed/Missing. Hover on mobile to view full row.

150+ protocols evaluated on 18 total metrics (13 disclosure + 5 platform coverage). This index represents the most comprehensive assessment of crypto investor relations practices to date. The full dataset is maintained in the Novora Investor Relations Benchmark Database, updated quarterly.

Click here for full content

Perguntas relacionadas

QWhat percentage of the top 150 crypto protocols generate on-chain revenue according to the article?

A91% of the top protocols generate on-chain revenue.

QHow many protocols in the dataset publicly disclosed their market maker arrangements?

AOnly one protocol, Meteora, publicly disclosed its market maker arrangements.

QWhat is the adoption rate of the Token Transparency Framework (TTF) mentioned in the report?

AThe adoption rate of the Token Transparency Framework is 9%.

QWhat percentage of protocols release token holder reports, as stated in the article?

AOnly 8% of protocols release token holder reports.

QWhat is the performance difference in 1-year returns between governance-only tokens and tokens with active value accumulation mechanisms?

ATokens with active value accumulation mechanisms outperformed governance-only tokens by approximately 19 percentage points on a 1-year return basis.

Leituras Relacionadas

Annual Salary of Millions Competing for Electricians, Meta Rushes to Open Its Own Technical School

The AI boom is facing an unexpected bottleneck: a severe shortage of skilled construction workers and electricians. As tech giants like Meta, OpenAI, and Alphabet race to build massive data centers—such as OpenAI's $16 billion "Stargate" project—they are hitting a critical labor wall. The U.S. needs an estimated 130,000 more electricians, 240,000 construction workers, and 150,000 supervisors by 2030 for AI infrastructure alone, but tens of thousands of electrician jobs go unfilled each year. While AI companies offer high premiums, with electricians earning up to $280,000 annually, worker scarcity still causes massive losses—delays on a single project can cost $14.2 million per month. The complexity of building AI data centers, which require immense power (equivalent to powering hundreds of thousands of homes), sophisticated electrical systems, and advanced liquid cooling solutions, demands highly skilled technicians who are in short supply. To combat this, companies are investing heavily in training. Meta has committed $115 million to a free training school offering tuition, housing, and stipends, targeting 5,000 new workers. OpenAI is partnering with unions to secure skilled labor. These efforts are paying off, with a significant rise in Gen Z interest in trade schools over college. However, the power demands are staggering. AI data centers are driving a rapid surge in electricity consumption, projected to account for up to 12% of U.S. power use by 2028 and raising costs for consumers. Furthermore, the construction boom is project-based, leading to a potential future glut of trained workers once building peaks, which could depress wages industry-wide. The race for AI supremacy now depends as much on skilled hands as on advanced chips.

marsbitHá 1h

Annual Salary of Millions Competing for Electricians, Meta Rushes to Open Its Own Technical School

marsbitHá 1h

OpenAI No Longer Sells Its Most Expensive Model for Profit

OpenAI is shifting its business strategy away from promoting its most expensive, flagship models for every task. Recent price cuts—80% for GPT-5.6 Luna and 20% for Terra—signal a deeper change: the company now actively advises users that many tasks don't require the most powerful model. Instead, OpenAI recommends a tiered approach: use the high-end GPT-5.6 Sol for complex planning and analysis, then delegate execution to cheaper models like Luna. This mirrors moves by Anthropic, which recently launched Claude Opus 5 at half the price of its top model, Fable 5. Both companies are de-emphasizing flagship models as primary revenue drivers, using them instead for brand prestige and technological showcases. The industry is entering a "mass-market" phase, similar to automotive, where high-volume, cost-effective models handle daily operations and drive scale. OpenAI's price reductions are partly enabled by AI models themselves optimizing underlying code and infrastructure, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of efficiency gains and cost reduction. Competition is shifting from "who is smartest" to "who offers the best value." The goal is no longer selling individual models but fostering widespread API adoption and ecosystem lock-in. By making AI calls cheap and ubiquitous, companies like OpenAI aim to become the indispensable, utility-like infrastructure powering automated workflows—the "water and electricity" of software, quietly embedded everywhere.

marsbitHá 1h

OpenAI No Longer Sells Its Most Expensive Model for Profit

marsbitHá 1h

Trading

Spot
活动图片