# Сопутствующие статьи по теме Revenue

Новостной центр HTX предлагает последние статьи и углубленный анализ по "Revenue", охватывающие рыночные тренды, новости проектов, развитие технологий и политику регулирования в криптоиндустрии.

Public Chains 2025: The Bustle Belongs to the Casino, the Desolation to the Ecosystem

The 2025 public blockchain landscape reveals a stark divide between hype and reality, with a severe concentration of value and widespread "zombification" of projects. Analysis of DeFiLlama's on-chain fee data exposes a critical structural issue: the crypto space is dominated by a "profit concentration and long-tail zombie" era. Notable examples highlight this crisis. Algorand, a chain with a $1 billion market cap and advanced technology, generated a mere $17 in daily fees, while Cardano, a top-10 asset, saw only around $6,000. These "classic chains" are likened to empty, expensive cities with no real economic activity. The biggest value capturers are not the most technologically elegant chains. Tron leads with $1.24 million in daily fees, succeeding as a low-cost payment rail for USDT transfers—crypto's only true mass-adoption use case. Solana ($600k daily) thrives as a high-frequency casino for meme coins and speculation, and Base ($105k daily) demonstrates that distribution (via Coinbase) is more critical than pure technology. The only validated business models generating significant fees are low-cost payments, high-frequency speculation, and, to a lesser extent, Ethereum's asset settlement layer. The VC-driven model is failing. New chains like Sui, Sei, and Starknet, which raised hundreds of millions, show a severe disconnect between their high valuations and meager daily fee revenue (ranging from $320 to $12,000). Their lifecycle often follows a "pump and dump" pattern: VC funding -> airdrop farming -> token listing -> user exodus -> collapsed on-chain activity. The industry suffers from a massive oversupply of block space with a dire lack of killer applications. The article concludes that investors must shift from valuing narratives to scrutinizing financials. They should avoid "zombie coins" with high valuations and negligible fees, focus on chains with organic, fee-generating demand, acknowledge that distribution and community are now more valuable than pure tech, and see through the VC subsidy game. This is a necessary market correction; only by paying for real, generated value—not promised future stories—can the industry achieve healthy growth.

比推12/18 06:36

Public Chains 2025: The Bustle Belongs to the Casino, the Desolation to the Ecosystem

比推12/18 06:36

Next Year, Can Pump.fun Tell a New Story?

Pump.fun, a dominant meme coin launchpad, faces the challenge of evolving beyond its current speculative trading model to achieve sustainable growth in 2026. While its core business remains resilient, its foray into creator-driven tokens and streaming has struggled, except for the viral but short-lived success of Bagwork. The platform must design a viable incentive model to attract non-crypto-native creators and avoid the zero-sum dynamics that plague most creator tokens. Key opportunities include leveraging unallocated ecosystem funds, expanding multi-chain capabilities via Padre, and potentially entering iGaming or mobile-focused verticals to align with its speculative user base. Despite market skepticism around token unlocks and revenue sustainability, Pump.fun maintains a low market-cap-to-revenue ratio and continues to generate significant daily income. Strategic focus and execution in one core area—rather than spreading efforts across streaming, ICM, and mobile—will be critical to its future success.

marsbit12/18 06:09

Next Year, Can Pump.fun Tell a New Story?

marsbit12/18 06:09

Can Pump.fun Crack the Creator Token Conundrum by 2026?

Based on Delphi's upcoming 2026 applications report, this analysis examines Pump.fun, a leading meme coin launchpad, and its challenges in realizing its vision for creator tokens. While Pump.fun dominates the launchpad space, its core challenge remains unresolved: creating a sustainable economic model for creator tokens. Most creator tokens fail to retain value, as the token itself becomes part of the product with unclear utility for holders. The notable exception was the viral @onlybagwork phenomenon, which demonstrated the potential of the model by generating over 2300 SOL in fees for its creators without them selling their holdings. However, such success has proven fleeting, and no subsequent creator token has achieved similar organic momentum or valuation. The platform's shift to using 100% of net revenue for $PUMP token buybacks has fueled a significant price increase, giving it a lower market-cap-to-revenue ratio than major competitors like Hyperliquid. Despite a sharp decline in daily launchpad revenue from its peak, Pump.fun maintains a structural advantage and dominant market share. Looking ahead to 2026, key questions remain: Can Pump.fun design a sustainable incentive structure for creator tokens? How will it manage upcoming token unlocks? The report suggests the team may need to focus its strategy, which currently spans streaming, Initial Community Offerings (ICM), and mobile. Potential strategic directions include expanding into iGaming—a natural fit for its user base—or further developing its mobile application to reach a broader, more mainstream audience. Success in any of these key areas could significantly shift market sentiment and help the platform attract non-crypto-native users.

比推12/17 13:58

Can Pump.fun Crack the Creator Token Conundrum by 2026?

比推12/17 13:58

Why Are Bitcoin Miners Collectively Turning to AI? The Reasons Behind Are Astonishing

Bitcoin miners are shifting from cryptocurrency mining to leasing data center space to major tech companies for AI workloads, driven by fundamental vulnerabilities in their core business model. Mining revenues are highly volatile and entirely dependent on Bitcoin's unpredictable price, while structural expenses—including rising electricity costs, increasing mining difficulty, and hardware depreciation—continue to climb. With the current cost to mine one Bitcoin estimated at around $130,000, far above its market price, miners face sustained operational losses. This financial pressure has accelerated a strategic pivot. Miners possess key infrastructure valuable to AI firms: high-performance GPU clusters, massive power capacity, and advanced cooling systems. Companies like Core Scientific are repurposing their facilities into AI data centers, generating stable rental income. This transition provides more reliable cash flow, reduces reliance on Bitcoin's price volatility, and strengthens the overall industry by weeding out weaker players and fostering a more resilient, diversified business model.

marsbit12/17 11:07

Why Are Bitcoin Miners Collectively Turning to AI? The Reasons Behind Are Astonishing

marsbit12/17 11:07

Bitcoin Network Activity Drops to Yearly Low. What Has Changed

Bitcoin network activity has dropped to its lowest level of the year, with the 7-day moving average of active addresses falling to 660,000. This decline is attributed to reduced activity following the peak in December 2024, which was driven by Ordinals and Runes protocols. These technologies, used for creating and trading on the Bitcoin blockchain, have shifted transaction dynamics, now accounting for most transactions but contributing only 5-10% of total fee revenue. This shift has negatively impacted miner economics. Daily miner revenue has decreased from around $50 million in Q3 to approximately $40 million, with fees making up a smaller portion of earnings (0.65% in December compared to 2.73% a year ago). Average transaction fees have also fallen to $0.48, down from $3.7 a year earlier. With block subsidies continuing to halve (currently 3.125 BTC per block until spring 2028), miner profitability is increasingly dependent on transaction fees. Fred Thiel, CEO of MARA Holdings, warned that without Bitcoin appreciating by at least 50% annually or a significant rise in network fees, traditional mining could become unprofitable in the coming years.

RBK-crypto12/16 13:14

Bitcoin Network Activity Drops to Yearly Low. What Has Changed

RBK-crypto12/16 13:14

The Governance Struggle Behind the Power Play of Aave DAO and Aave Labs

The article details a governance conflict between Aave DAO and Aave Labs, centering on a dispute over revenue generated by the frontend. The controversy began when Aave Labs replaced the integrated ParaSwap with CoW Swap on its frontend and directed the resulting fees to its private address, rather than to the DAO treasury. An anonymous DAO member, EzR3aL, publicly criticized this move, accusing Labs of privatizing protocol value. Aave DAO represents the protocol layer, governed by $AAVE token holders who vote on proposals. Aave Labs is the development team responsible for building and maintaining the frontend, brand, and product partnerships. The core issue is whether Aave is a decentralized protocol owned by the DAO or a project built and controlled by Labs, and how this distinction affects revenue rights. DAO supporters argue that all value generated should benefit token holders, while Labs contends that frontend-related income rightfully belongs to them. The situation highlights a broader industry-wide governance dilemma: the tension between decentralized community control and the need for a centralized, efficient team to drive development and maintain market position. The article suggests that a potential compromise, such as transparent revenue-sharing agreements, may be necessary. It concludes that how Aave resolves this conflict could set a precedent for other DeFi projects facing similar governance challenges.

marsbit12/15 14:41

The Governance Struggle Behind the Power Play of Aave DAO and Aave Labs

marsbit12/15 14:41

Detailed Analysis of Robinhood's Latest Fundamentals and Revenue Sources in Its 'Full Transition to Cryptocurrency'

Robinhood has emerged as a top performer in the current market cycle, with its stock surging 17x from its 2022 lows. The company is undergoing a strategic "full pivot to crypto" and has significantly diversified its revenue streams beyond its core transaction-based income. In 2024, Robinhood is projected to generate $2.95 billion in revenue, a 58% increase from 2023. Its revenue composition is now more balanced: transaction-based revenue (from stocks, options, and crypto) accounts for 58% of total revenue, down from 77% in 2021. This diversification is driven by new revenue lines, including its fast-growing prediction market platform (Kalshi, with $100M in annualized revenue) and Robinhood Gold (2.34M paid subscribers). Net interest income now constitutes 35% of total revenue. Notably, crypto is a major profit driver, contributing 21% of YTD revenue despite representing only 12% of total trading volume. This highlights its superior monetization model compared to stock trading. Options remain the largest revenue source. Robinhood's ambitious crypto roadmap includes the integration of the acquired Bitstamp exchange, development of a crypto wallet V2 with DeFi connectivity, plans to build an L2 on Arbitrum, and a pioneering strategy to tokenize public and private equities. This positions Robinhood to become a full-stack platform for tokenization, crypto trading, and financial services. Key risks include intense competition from traditional brokers and crypto-native firms like Coinbase, execution challenges in merging its user experience with crypto, and potential slow adoption of its equity tokenization strategy by issuers. Trading at a high P/E of 56, Robinhood's stock may be susceptible to a significant pullback if retail risk appetite cools, potentially creating a long-term buying opportunity. The company's leadership, user experience, and aggressive crypto vision make it a potential future leader in finance.

marsbit12/15 12:29

Detailed Analysis of Robinhood's Latest Fundamentals and Revenue Sources in Its 'Full Transition to Cryptocurrency'

marsbit12/15 12:29

Digital Banks No Longer Rely on Banking for Profit; The Real Goldmines Are Stablecoins and Identity Verification

Digital banks are no longer competing on user scale but on revenue per customer, as seen in Revolut's diversified income streams versus Nubank's reliance on credit. The real value lies in stablecoins and identity authentication. Stablecoins, especially those backed by reserves, generate profit from interest on assets like treasury bonds—a revenue stream captured by issuers, not front-end platforms. This has pushed firms like Stripe and Circle to build proprietary settlement networks (e.g., Tempo, Arc) to control profitability, privacy, and transaction efficiency. Stablecoins disrupt traditional payment systems by enabling direct, low-cost transfers, forcing digital banks to integrate stablecoin channels or become obsolete. Simultaneously, identity authentication is evolving into a portable, cross-platform system. Initiatives like the EU Digital Identity Wallet and crypto projects (Worldcoin, Gitcoin Passport, Polygon ID) aim to create reusable digital identities, reducing redundant KYC processes. This shifts digital banks from controlling identity to becoming service providers within a trusted identity framework. Future digital banks will succeed by focusing on one of three models: 1. **Interest-driven**: Profit from user deposits via stablecoin interest and staking. 2. **Payment flow-driven**: Generate revenue from high transaction volumes as the default transfer channel. 3. **Infrastructure-driven**: Control stablecoin issuance, reserves, and settlement for the highest profitability. The market will split between consumer-facing apps (low switching costs) and infrastructure players (high stickiness, core to value flow).

marsbit12/15 10:05

Digital Banks No Longer Rely on Banking for Profit; The Real Goldmines Are Stablecoins and Identity Verification

marsbit12/15 10:05

Digital Banks Are No Longer in the Banking Business; The Real Gold Mine Lies in Stablecoins and Identity Verification

The article argues that the core value of digital banking has shifted away from traditional models. Valuation is no longer driven by user numbers but by revenue per customer, as seen with Revolut's diversified income streams versus Nubank's reliance on credit. The true "gold mines" are now stablecoins and identity verification. For stablecoins, the primary profit is the interest earned on reserve assets (like Treasury bills), a revenue stream captured by the issuer (e.g., Circle) rather than the consumer-facing digital bank. This is leading to vertical integration, with companies like Stripe and Circle building proprietary settlement networks (Tempo, Arc) to control this profitable infrastructure and ensure privacy. Stablecoins are disrupting the old, multi-layered payment system by enabling direct, peer-to-peer transfers, forcing digital banks to become efficient routing layers for these transactions or risk obsolescence. Simultaneously, identity is becoming the new account core. The trend is moving away from siloed KYC processes towards portable, verifiable credentials (e.g., EU's Digital Identity Wallet, Worldcoin, Polygon ID). This will allow a user's identity to travel across platforms, simplifying compliance and making the crypto wallet the central hub for assets and identity. The article concludes that user count, cards, and UI are no longer competitive advantages. Future successful digital banks will be "wallet-first" systems, falling into one of three models: 1. **Interest-driven:** Profit from holding user stablecoin balances and earning yield on reserves. 2. **Payment-flow-driven:** Profit from facilitating a high volume of stablecoin transactions. 3. **Stablecoin infrastructure-driven:** The most profitable model, controlling the issuance, reserves, and settlement of stablecoins itself. The market will split between simple consumer apps and powerful infrastructure providers that control the core of the financial stack.

深潮12/15 09:52

Digital Banks Are No Longer in the Banking Business; The Real Gold Mine Lies in Stablecoins and Identity Verification

深潮12/15 09:52

Loss of Tens of Millions in Annual Income Sparks Governance Controversy, Aave Labs Accused of 'Stabbing DAO in the Back'

The recent dispute between Aave Labs and Aave DAO over fee allocation from the CoWSwap integration has exposed deeper governance and value-capture tensions within the Aave ecosystem. Aave Labs switched the default swap integration on its frontend from ParaSwap to CoWSwap, redirecting an estimated $10M+ in annual fees from the DAO treasury to an address controlled by Aave Labs. Aave Labs argues that its frontend is a separate product, not part of the protocol, and has the right to monetize it. Critics, including Aave DAO delegates, contend that the Aave brand’s value was built through DAO-funded efforts, risk management, and community trust, and that the Labs are extracting value that should belong to token holders. The conflict extends to other issues, including the controversial Horizon RWA deployment—which critics say has cost the DAO more than it has earned—and a proposed deployment on MegaETH that bypassed ongoing DAO discussions. The core issue is the blurred line between the protocol, managed by the DAO, and the frontend products, operated by Aave Labs. With Aave V4 intending to move more complexity into abstraction layers, the dispute over who controls—and profits from—the user experience becomes critical for the future of value distribution between equity (Labs) and token holders (DAO).

marsbit12/15 06:56

Loss of Tens of Millions in Annual Income Sparks Governance Controversy, Aave Labs Accused of 'Stabbing DAO in the Back'

marsbit12/15 06:56

活动图片

Популярные категорииright-arrow

Популярные тегиright-arrow

Project Updates