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

Is AI Creating a New Class of 'Information Poor'?

AI is generating a new kind of "information poverty." The core issue isn't that AI denies answers to the poor; it's that it provides abundant, cheap, and plausible-sounding answers to everyone. This availability shifts the true scarcity from obtaining answers to possessing the **judgment to evaluate them** and the access to turn them into real-world opportunities. New information poverty thus describes those who have AI tools and outputs, but lack the complementary skills, authorization, and contextual experience to critically assess and act on them. Research reveals a multi-layered divide: access to AI is stratified by income and platform design (e.g., premium vs. free, embedded tools). In workplaces, usage heavily favors higher-paid, more experienced, or formally trained employees, with AI often automating entry-level tasks that were traditional stepping stones. Crucially, the heaviest users are often mid-career professionals whose existing expertise allows them to effectively judge and leverage AI outputs, while novices risk over-relying on them without building judgment. While controlled experiments show AI can significantly boost low-skilled workers' performance, real-world adoption and benefit are constrained by unequal social and organizational structures. Historically, general-purpose technologies first reward those with existing complementary capital. AI, by affecting judgment-based work, may accelerate and deepen this initial inequality gap, even if it narrows over decades. The danger lies in the illusion of competence it creates, potentially stunting the very critical thinking needed in an era where judgment is paramount.

marsbit21 мин. назад

Is AI Creating a New Class of 'Information Poor'?

marsbit21 мин. назад

Jensen Huang 'Saves' South Korean Stock Market: Locks In SK Hynix Memory, Chip Shortage to Continue

On June 5th, South Korea's stock market experienced a sharp decline, with major chipmakers like Samsung and SK Hynix dropping nearly 10%. Amidst the turmoil, NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang's visit to Seoul played a dramatic role in boosting market sentiment. Following a dinner meeting with SK Group Chairman Chey Tae-won and SK Hynix CEO Kwak Noh-Jung, Huang confirmed that NVIDIA's new Vera CPU will utilize SK Hynix DRAM. The companies announced a multi-year technical partnership to co-develop next-generation memory for NVIDIA's AI infrastructure, covering products from data centers to personal AI and robotics. This collaboration extends beyond memory supply. SK Hynix is integrating NVIDIA's AI and Omniverse platform into its own semiconductor design and manufacturing processes, including computational lithography and creating digital twins of its fabrication plants for autonomous operation. While strengthening ties with SK Hynix, NVIDIA is diversifying its supply chain for the upcoming HBM4 memory, with Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron all certified as suppliers for its Vera Rubin platform. Despite this, Huang warned that the global chip shortage, driven by relentless demand from AI factory construction, is expected to persist for several years across the entire supply chain. His visit underscores NVIDIA's systematic effort to deepen integration with South Korea's broader tech industry.

marsbit1 ч. назад

Jensen Huang 'Saves' South Korean Stock Market: Locks In SK Hynix Memory, Chip Shortage to Continue

marsbit1 ч. назад

Nasdaq Plunges 4.2% in a Single Day: Does "Black Friday" Burst the U.S. Stock Market Bubble?

The Nasdaq plunged 4.18% on June 5, 2026, its worst single-day drop in over a year, as a much stronger-than-expected US jobs report triggered fears of economic overheating and delayed Federal Reserve interest rate cuts. The selloff, centered on high-valuation tech and AI stocks like Nvidia and Broadcom, spread across major indices. The article examines whether this signals a market top. The strong May non-farm payrolls data, nearly double expectations, pushed bond yields higher, directly hurting rate-sensitive tech stocks. This exposed vulnerabilities in the crowded AI trade, where valuations had soared on narratives of infinite growth, despite emerging signs of slowing order momentum and corporate AI monetization challenges. Prior to the drop, market indicators flashed warning signs: historically high valuations (e.g., Shiller CAPE ratio near 39.5), extreme bullish sentiment, and high levels of leverage. Technical charts showed key support levels being breached. Wall Street is divided on the outlook. Bears, citing risks of "stagflation" and AI bubble comparisons to the dot-com era, warn of a potential significant correction. Bulls view the drop as a healthy correction within a bull market, underpinned by a strong economy and expected corporate earnings growth of around 7% in 2026. The immediate future hinges on upcoming key events: the May CPI inflation data and the mid-June FOMC meeting. Their outcomes will critically shape market expectations for the Fed's rate path. The article concludes that conditions for a major market top are aligning, marking a fragile transition from narrative-driven gains to a phase demanding validation from macroeconomic data and corporate fundamentals. Caution is advised.

marsbit1 ч. назад

Nasdaq Plunges 4.2% in a Single Day: Does "Black Friday" Burst the U.S. Stock Market Bubble?

marsbit1 ч. назад

Nasdaq Plunges 4.2% in a Single Day, Did 'Black Friday' Pop the U.S. Stock Bubble?

The Nasdaq Composite plummeted 4.18% on June 5, its biggest single-day drop since April 2025, triggering widespread debate over whether the U.S. stock market has peaked. The sell-off was sparked by a stronger-than-expected U.S. non-farm payrolls report, which fueled fears of economic overheating and pushed back market expectations for Federal Reserve rate cuts, leading to a sharp rise in Treasury yields. The AI sector, the primary driver of the recent bull market, suffered severe losses, with the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index crashing over 10%. Stocks like Nvidia, Broadcom, and Micron led the decline. Concerns are mounting about the sustainability of AI capital expenditures and high valuations, with signs of order cuts for next-generation chips emerging. Analyses point to several warning signs: historically high market valuations (e.g., elevated Shiller CAPE ratio, Buffett Indicator), extreme bullish sentiment indicators, and significant insider selling. The sell-off also caused a key technical breakdown, with the S&P 500 breaking below its short-term moving average and testing its 200-day moving average. Wall Street is divided on the outlook. Bears warn this could be the start of a bubble deflation or a "stagflation" scenario, while bulls view it as a healthy, overdue correction within a bull market driven by solid corporate earnings growth. A more moderate view suggests the easy liquidity-driven rally is over, and markets are entering a phase of fundamental stock-picking with potential for consolidation. The immediate future hinges on key upcoming events: the May CPI report and the mid-June FOMC meeting. Their outcomes will be critical in determining whether this is a temporary pullback or the beginning of a more significant trend reversal. The consensus is that the era of one-directional market gains may be ending, requiring increased investor caution.

Odaily星球日报1 ч. назад

Nasdaq Plunges 4.2% in a Single Day, Did 'Black Friday' Pop the U.S. Stock Bubble?

Odaily星球日报1 ч. назад

The First Case on AI Agents: What Was Adjudicated?

"The First 'Agent' Ruling: What Was Decided?" On April 30, the Guangzhou Internet Court issued a ruling—China's first behavior preservation order in the intelligent agent (AI agent) field. The defendant, an open-source AI agent software, was ordered to stop downloads, cease actions that bypassed a platform's technical protection measures, and delete related tutorials and data. The core issue: the software used the operating system's "accessibility service" permissions to automate user interactions within other apps without those platforms' authorization. This mirrors a recent US case where Amazon sued Perplexity for similar reasons—bypassing Amazon's API to directly scrape and interact with its pages—and won a preliminary injunction. Both rulings establish a crucial legal boundary for the AI agent era: agents cannot operate unchecked. The article argues the fundamental legal principle emerging is one of **dual authorization**. An AI agent requires both **user consent** AND **platform consent** to operate legitimately within that platform's ecosystem. Bypassing platform rules through system-level permissions, even with user permission, undermines platform responsibilities for content moderation, data security, and user privacy, creating liability issues. The piece uses the evolution of "Doubao Phone" (an AI-integrated smartphone) as a case study. Its initial, aggressive version that bypassed platform controls faced roadblocks. Its upcoming 2.0 version is reportedly pivoting to negotiate API access and authorization deals with major platforms (like Alibaba's ecosystem), seen as a strategic adaptation to the new regulatory reality. A global trend is identified: the era of unregulated, "wild west" growth for AI agents is ending, replaced by a **compliance race**. This raises barriers to entry, as securing platform authorizations becomes a new cost. Open-source status is also not a legal shield if the code facilitates bypassing technical protections. In conclusion, these first rulings target not the largest, but the most **aggressive and representative** cases. By setting precedent with them, regulators are efficiently steering the entire industry towards a new, more regulated operating paradigm defined by dual authorization and platform cooperation.

marsbit1 ч. назад

The First Case on AI Agents: What Was Adjudicated?

marsbit1 ч. назад

Торговля

Спот
Фьючерсы
活动图片