In a Losing Bear Market, Who Is Quietly Making a Fortune?

marsbitОпубликовано 2026-04-10Обновлено 2026-04-10

Введение

In a bear market where most crypto participants are losing money, a few projects continue to generate significant revenue. A look at Defillama’s revenue rankings reveals that profitable projects share simple and clear revenue models, which fall into two main categories: spread and transaction fees. Spread-based revenue models, used by entities like Tether, Circle, Aave, and Lido, act as capital intermediaries. They profit from the difference between lower funding costs and higher returns from deployed capital, relying on the scale and duration of capital deposits. Transaction fee models, employed by platforms such as Hyperliquid, Polymarket, pump.fun, Aerodrome, and Jupiter, generate income by charging fees on trading activities. Their earnings depend on the size and frequency of transactions. Notable cases include Grayscale (traditional asset management fees), Chainlink (data service fees), and Titan Builder (which profited unusually from a major arbitrage incident). The analysis concludes that sustainable profitability in a bear market comes from straightforward revenue models combined with sophisticated product execution and operational excellence.

Author|Azuma(@azuma_eth)

The market continues to slump, with funds underperforming, protocols shutting down, whales staying silent, and retail investors bleeding... It seems like everyone from top to bottom in the industry is losing money. However, even in such a cold market environment, a very few projects are still running their money-printing machines at full throttle.

The latest example is Polymarket, which has fully opened its fee gates. Since recently expanding its fee scope and modifying its fee formula (Recommended reading: "Hardcore Analysis of Polymarket's Fee Formula: How Did the Extreme Rate of 90+% Pop Out?"), Polymarket's revenue generation capability has significantly surged; as of publication, Polymarket's total fee income has exceeded $24 million, with a single-day record of $1.5 million in revenue on April 2.

Taking this opportunity, the author checked the revenue rankings on Defillama to see which businesses are still making steady profits in the bear market, and the results were quite surprising: The core businesses and revenue sources of the listed projects are quite clear, even "simple."

As shown above, I believe most players deeply involved in the crypto market could guess most of these names even without looking at the answers, and probably know exactly what they do. But when these names are neatly listed together, I suddenly realized that the main revenue sources of these profitable businesses are highly convergent, and can basically be summarized into two major categories: one is interest spread, and the other is transaction tax (fees).

First is interest spread, which is essentially acting as a "capital intermediary." The core logic is to absorb funds at a relatively low cost while deploying funds at a relatively high yield, using time to gradually accumulate the difference between the yield and the cost — the profit of such businesses depends on the scale and duration of the capital沉淀 (sedimentation), the larger the scale and the longer the time, the higher the profit.

Stablecoin issuers like Tether and Circle fall into this category. Their main income comes from the interest generated by deploying reserve funds into assets like U.S. Treasury bonds, while the costs mainly involve subsidies paid to partners and users. The difference between the two is the profit. Lending protocols like Aave also belong here; the spread is the difference between the relatively higher borrowing rate and the relatively lower deposit rate. Liquid staking services (LST) like Lido are no exception; they withhold a certain percentage from the native staking rewards as a service fee, which is also a form of interest spread.

Next is transaction tax. This type of business is easier to understand. As long as transaction-related activities (including token creation) occur, the business entity can "levy a tax" in the form of fees on each activity — the profit of such businesses depends on the transaction size per activity and the frequency of activities. The larger the size and the higher the frequency, the higher the profit.

Whether it's Hyperliquid and EdgeX focusing on perpetual contract trading, Polymarket focusing on event trading, pump.fun, GMGN, Axiom, and four.meme focusing on Meme trading, Aerodrome, Jupiter, and Phantom (whose main revenue comes from Swap fees on the wallet frontend) focusing on spot trading, or Courtyard and Fragment focusing on NFT trading (it's quite a surprise this category made the list), their primary revenue source is transaction tax.

The only few special cases in the rankings are Grayscale, Chanilink, and Titan Builder. Grayscale seems a bit out of place here; its core revenue comes from ETF and fund management fees, essentially a traditional asset management business focused on the cryptocurrency market. Chanilink is definitely worth mentioning; its main revenue comes from data service fees paid by projects calling its oracle (which can be categorized as a transaction tax to some extent). This is more like a To B on-chain SaaS business, but as you can see, the Matthew Effect in this path is more significant than in other tracks. Titan Builder is purely a sporadic phenomenon. It is a block builder service provider, not normally a particularly lucrative business. The reason it made the list is that Titan Builder got the biggest piece of the pie in last month's massive AAVE transaction sandwiching incident (see "50M USDT for 35K AAVE: How Did the Disaster Happen?").

Odaily Note: See what it means to not open for business for three years, but eat for three years when you do.

So the conclusion is clear. The projects that continue to make money in the bear market are not those pursuing complex mechanisms and high-risk opportunities, but those that can operate continuously凭借 (relying on) simple and clear revenue models. In the still volatile cryptocurrency market, simpler revenue models have shown greater resilience and better withstand the test of market fluctuations.

However, a simpler revenue model absolutely does not mean these businesses are "easier to do." On the contrary, behind the simple revenue model often lie more complex product services and精细 (meticulous) operational management. This is where the leading players on the list have truly "competed" their way to differentiation. From interaction design, to liquidity accumulation, to risk management, to user communication and feedback... To stand out in the fierce competition of the存量 (stock) market, one must invest more effort into the product and service.

The crypto winter is not over yet. The projects that can truly survive and even profit are often those that flexibly combine simple revenue models with complex product services. Perhaps, this is the long-term code to穿越 (traverse) bull and bear markets.

Связанные с этим вопросы

QWhat are the two main categories of revenue sources for profitable projects in the crypto bear market, as mentioned in the article?

AThe two main categories are spread (acting as a capital intermediary) and transaction tax (fees).

QWhich project set a single-day revenue record of $1.5 million on April 2nd, according to the article?

APolymarket set a single-day revenue record of $1.5 million on April 2nd.

QWhat is the core revenue source for stablecoin issuers like Tether and Circle, as explained in the article?

ATheir core revenue comes from the interest earned by deploying reserve funds into assets like U.S. Treasury bonds, minus the costs of subsidies to partners and users.

QName one project whose revenue primarily comes from data service fees for oracle calls, as highlighted in the article.

AChanilink primarily earns revenue from data service fees charged for project oracle calls.

QWhat does the article suggest is the key to surviving and profiting in the crypto bear market?

AThe key is combining simple revenue models with complex product services and refined operational management.

Похожее

From MSTR to STRC+: Where Is the Limit of the Strategy Universe?

From MSTR to STRC+: The Evolution and Limits of the Strategy Universe This article examines the transformation of Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy) from a simple "Bitcoin treasury" company into a complex financial engineering firm building a BTC-backed credit system. **Core Thesis:** Strategy's true significance lies not just in its massive BTC holdings (~844k BTC), but in its attempt to transform this static reserve into a multi-layered credit curve within traditional capital markets and, subsequently, into on-chain yield infrastructure. **The MSTR Flywheel:** The initial model was a reflexive loop: BTC price rises → MSTR stock rises → company raises capital (debt/equity) at a premium → buys more BTC → increases per-share BTC exposure → MSTR premium grows. This "amplified Bitcoin" equity (MSTR) thrives on bullish momentum but is vulnerable to tightening premiums and rising funding costs. **Building the Credit Curve:** Strategy's innovation is slicing its single BTC balance sheet into different risk/return profiles via specialized securities: * **MSTR:** High-volatility equity layer absorbing full BTC upside/downside. * **STRC:** Key product. A perpetual preferred stock designed as "short duration high yield credit," offering ~11.5% floating monthly dividends. It attracts fixed-income investors seeking yield without direct BTC exposure, funding Strategy's operations. * **STRD/STRK/STRF:** Other preferred/share classes with varying durations, conversion rights, and fixed dividends. **Risks of the STRC Model:** STRC's high yield is not risk-free. Its stability depends on: 1) Sufficient BTC asset coverage, 2) Strategy's continued ability to pay dividends, and 3) Market faith in the MSTR/STRC funding flywheel. Stress points include deep BTC price declines eroding the asset buffer, rising dividend costs if STRC trades below par, and a broken flywheel if MSTR's premium (mNAV) falls persistently. **On-Chain Expansion: STRC+:** Projects like **Saturn** and **Apyx** aim to package STRC's (and other DAT preferred stock) cash flows into on-chain stablecoin yield (e.g., sUSDat, apyUSD). They offer DeFi a new yield source distinct from trading fees or incentives—cash dividends from traditional securities. However, this introduces compounded risks: off-chain custody, issuer credit risk, BTC volatility, and protocol execution risk. **Conclusion: The Ultimate Boundary** Strategy's endgame is not infinite BTC accumulation. It is the market's long-term acceptance of a new credit system where BTC serves as collateral for tradable securities whose cash flows can power on-chain financial applications. Its "universe" expands if this BTC-native credit curve gains legitimacy, but contracts if these instruments are repriced purely as high-risk, yield-bearing credit assets without stablecoin mythology.

marsbit11 мин. назад

From MSTR to STRC+: Where Is the Limit of the Strategy Universe?

marsbit11 мин. назад

Founder of Baixing.com: My Fourteen Claude Code Usage Experiences

Founder of Baixing.com Shares 14 Personal Tips for Using Claude Code The author outlines his personal, non-universal strategies for maximizing Claude Code. Key points include: focusing deeply on one primary tool (Claude Code) rather than constant comparison; mastering essential shortcuts for the editor and command line; utilizing voice input like HoldSpeak; starting projects with a structured PROJECT.md file; defaulting to Claude agents for most tasks; and leveraging integrations with GitHub and Cloudflare for build, deployment, and infrastructure. He emphasizes a clear separation between human and machine work: manually maintain a core CLAUDE.md file, and understand AI-generated content by asking the AI, not reading its raw code. Efficient communication involves dragging files (screenshots, audio, documents) directly into the interface. For knowledge management, he recommends a centralized, Git-synced memory system based on ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md to ensure permanence and avoid scattered project memories. Other practices include writing and continuously refining "Skills," using the expensive but reliable ultracode for complex dynamic workflows, and employing Git documentation as handoff points between agents. The overarching philosophy is to treat Claude Code like a horse (or a person) with its own pathfinding abilities—setting goals and boundaries rather than micromanaging every turn.

链捕手18 мин. назад

Founder of Baixing.com: My Fourteen Claude Code Usage Experiences

链捕手18 мин. назад

Gary Yang: Agent Economy and AI Submicroeconomics

**Title:** Agent Economy and AI Sub-Microeconomics - Gary Yang **Summary:** Following the AI singularity, the pace of evolution has accelerated rapidly, creating new generational disparities in technological advancement globally. While many regions are still grappling with single-agent bottlenecks, Silicon Valley has moved ahead into the next dimension: the Agent Economy and A2A ecosystems. The article outlines six key areas of this emerging paradigm: 1. **AI Payment Competition & H2A Bottlenecks:** A fierce battle for AI Agent payment protocol standards is underway (e.g., MPP, x402). However, most current efforts remain Human-to-Agent (H2A), essentially grafting AI onto traditional human-centric commerce, which creates a non-AI-native bottleneck. The true potential lies in Agent-to-Agent (A2A) autonomous economies. 2. **Agent Economy & the Inevitable A2A Trend:** The Agent Economy is defined by autonomous AI Agents creating, exchanging, and capitalizing value as independent economic actors. The A2A ecosystem describes their interactions. This represents the next major investment frontier, akin to the early days of e-commerce or DeFi, but with faster iteration and an AI-native, efficiency-first perspective that often diverges from human needs. 3. **AI Protocol vs. Crypto Protocol:** AI Protocols are the foundational rules for Agent interaction in an open network (communication, discovery, collaboration), akin to the governance and economic laws of the AI world. Currently, they focus on communication and weak boundaries, unlike Crypto Protocols which emphasize asset rights and clear ownership. While they appear different due to political-economic factors and legacy system constraints, their eventual convergence into a unified Digital Protocol system is seen as inevitable, driven by first principles. 4. **AI Agent Sub-Microeconomics & Biological Analogy:** AI Agent economics differ fundamentally from human economics: higher frequency/lower value transactions, energy/value direct correlation, efficiency-driven (not emotional) decisions, task-oriented (not consumption-oriented) behavior, and near-zero organizational/communication costs. A powerful analogy frames the Agent economy as a biological system: the LLM is the nucleus, the Agent harness is the cytoplasm, the Agent itself is a cell, its communication protocol is the cell membrane, and external tools (Skills, Prompts) are the extracellular environment. 5. **The Inevitability of AIFi & FinChip:** AIFi (AI Finance) represents the financial system where AI-native value within the Agent economy is tokenized and exchanged. Unlike TradFi/DeFi where value resides *in* finance, in AIFi, value originates *in* AI, and finance becomes its form. This shift is enabled by Agents taking over value discovery. FinChip (Financial Chip) is introduced as a key infrastructure—a fusion of AI autonomy and crypto smart contracts—forming intelligent financial assets to power the future A2A economy. 6. **AI-Native as a Paradigm Shift:** Adopting AI is not akin to "Internet+". It requires AI-Native thinking—designing systems based on first principles, the shortest energy-value path, and maximum efficiency. This abstract, counter-intuitive logic poses a significant, ongoing challenge for all practitioners, as effective, generalized upgrade methodologies will be slow to emerge in this rapidly evolving landscape.

链捕手59 мин. назад

Gary Yang: Agent Economy and AI Submicroeconomics

链捕手59 мин. назад

From 'The Big Short' to San Francisco: The Revelry and Dizziness Within the AI Bubble

From "The Big Short" to San Francisco: The Frenzy and Dizziness in the AI Bubble The article captures the intense, frenetic atmosphere in San Francisco, the epicenter of the current AI boom. Drawing a parallel to the "smell of money" from *The Big Short*, the author observes a city gripped by a singular status game centered entirely on AI and technology. This manifests in a palpable, caffeine-fueled anxiety ("people are shaking"), rampant comparison using vanity metrics like funding rounds, and pervasive "Big Bubble Behavior." The piece explores the city's stark contrasts: its dystopian streets versus beautiful vistas, and the disconnect between the doomsday concerns of some AI researchers and the optimistic, growth-focused "GTM" teams. It critiques the obsession with "math genius" founders as the new ticket to outsized returns, akin to scouting sports prodigies. Referencing economic historian Carlota Perez's "frenzy phase" and Karl Polanyi's "double movement," the author frames the boom as a period where financial speculation detaches from fundamentals, with society potentially becoming subordinate to a new economic force driven by "geniuses in data centers." Ultimately, while acknowledging the unprecedented wealth creation and party-like energy, the article concludes with cautionary advice: when the music is playing, you should dance, but don't get drunk. The core reminder is to stay grounded, avoid distorted judgment, and maintain perspective amidst the euphoria.

marsbit1 ч. назад

From 'The Big Short' to San Francisco: The Revelry and Dizziness Within the AI Bubble

marsbit1 ч. назад

Торговля

Спот
Фьючерсы
活动图片