# 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.

From Aave to Ether.fi: Who Captures the Most Value in the On-Chain Credit System?

In the DeFi lending ecosystem, lending protocols like Aave and SparkLend capture more value than the vaults and asset issuers built on top of them, despite the narrative that distribution is king. Analysis shows that major vaults, including Ether.fi, Fluid, and Mellow, pay more in interest fees to lending protocols than they earn in platform revenue. For example, Ether.fi’s ETH vault pays Aave ~$4.5M annually in interest while earning only ~$1.07M in fees. Even when combining vault strategy revenue and issuer fees (e.g., Lido), lending layer value capture remains higher. Lending protocol income is tied to borrowing scale and remains stable, whereas vault earnings depend heavily on fee structures. The true moat in on-chain credit lies with lending protocols, not distribution or asset issuance.

marsbit12/24 06:21

From Aave to Ether.fi: Who Captures the Most Value in the On-Chain Credit System?

marsbit12/24 06:21

Will Solana Flip Ethereum? Revenue Numbers Show Disturbing Trend

Solana is on track to surpass Ethereum in annual revenue for the first time, with $1.4 billion year-to-date compared to Ethereum's $522 million. This represents a significant shift, as Ethereum's revenue has declined by around 90% over five years, while Solana's has surged by approximately 5,000%. Key contributors to Solana's growth include dApps like Pump.fun, Jupiter, and Phantom, along with user base fees. Solana co-founder Anatoly Yakovenko emphasized the importance of providing a superior execution layer for decentralized applications. Despite a recent drop in meme coin trading activity, which previously drove user engagement, analysts suggest growing stablecoin usage and tokenized equities—such as those from Galaxy Digital and Visa's planned USDC settlements—may sustain Solana's momentum. Critics point to reduced monthly traders, but proponents believe new user bases will emerge.

bitcoinist12/22 19:01

Will Solana Flip Ethereum? Revenue Numbers Show Disturbing Trend

bitcoinist12/22 19:01

Second Largest Whale Cuts Losses and Liquidates, Can AAVE Still Be Bought Amid Deepening Divisions?

The second-largest AAVE whale, excluding the project team, protocol contracts, and CEXs, has sold 230,000 AAVE tokens at a significant loss of $13.45 million, causing a 12% price drop. This sell-off reflects growing tensions between Aave Labs and the community over governance and fund allocation. The conflict began when Aave switched its default swap aggregator to Cow Swap, redirecting front-end transaction fees—previously sent to the Aave DAO treasury—to Aave Labs instead. Community members estimated this change could divert over $10 million annually from the DAO to the team, raising concerns about transparency and control. Aave Labs argued that front-end products are separate from the protocol and that the team has the right to monetize them. In response, a proposal was made to transfer control of Aave’s brand assets (domains, social accounts, etc.) to token holders. Founder Stani Kulechov opposed the proposal, citing its oversimplification of complex legal and operational issues, further escalating community backlash. The situation highlights deeper structural challenges in DeFi governance, where protocol value, team control, and community rights intersect. The outcome of an ongoing snapshot vote on the proposal may determine AAVE’s short-term price direction and long-term community trust. If the conflict signals fundamental misalignment between Aave Labs and the DAO, this could mark the start of continued tension rather than an isolated incident.

marsbit12/22 04:13

Second Largest Whale Cuts Losses and Liquidates, Can AAVE Still Be Bought Amid Deepening Divisions?

marsbit12/22 04:13

Second Largest Whale Cuts Losses and Liquidates, Can AAVE Still Be Bought Amid Deepening Conflict?

The second-largest AAVE whale, excluding the project team, protocol contracts, and exchanges, has sold off 230,000 AAVE tokens (worth approximately $38 million) at a loss, causing a 12% price drop. The sale occurred amid growing tensions between the Aave team and its community over governance and financial control. The conflict began when the community discovered that Aave Labs, without prior communication, redirected front-end exchange fees—previously directed to the Aave DAO treasury—to its own address after switching the default trading path to Cow Swap. This change could divert an estimated $10 million annually from the community to the team. Aave Labs defended the move, arguing that front-end products are separate from the protocol and that the team has the right to monetize its own infrastructure. In response, a proposal was made to transfer control of Aave’s brand assets—including domains and social accounts—to AAVE token holders. Founder Stani Kulechov opposed the proposal, calling it oversimplified and poorly structured, further escalating community backlash. The situation highlights deeper structural tensions in DeFi between team-controlled products and community-governed protocols. The outcome of the ongoing snapshot vote on the proposal may significantly influence AAVE’s price and long-term community trust.

Odaily星球日报12/22 04:10

Second Largest Whale Cuts Losses and Liquidates, Can AAVE Still Be Bought Amid Deepening Conflict?

Odaily星球日报12/22 04:10

Solana vs. Ethereum heats up – Is the ‘ETH killer’ narrative finally real?

The competition between Solana and Ethereum intensifies as Solana demonstrates significant on-chain growth, positioning it to potentially surpass Ethereum in annual revenue for the first time with $1.4 billion. This surge is largely driven by Solana's dominance in the Real World Asset (RWA) sector, which has grown 372% compared to Ethereum's 198%, attracting substantial capital inflows. Despite a bearish SOL/ETH price ratio in 2025, Solana has shown relative strength with a higher high on the 12-month chart. Its scalability and increasing network activity suggest that its on-chain dominance may soon reflect in price performance, making it a key competitor to watch.

ambcrypto12/20 15:02

Solana vs. Ethereum heats up – Is the ‘ETH killer’ narrative finally real?

ambcrypto12/20 15:02

Ethereum Takes The Lead In DeFi Lending Revenue, Leaving Rivals Behind – See How

Despite facing selling pressure, Ethereum has solidified its dominance in DeFi lending revenue, capturing 80-90% of all activity and fees. Data from Leon Waidmann shows Ethereum remains the core settlement layer for DeFi, significantly outpacing rivals like Base and Arbitrum. Aave drives over 50% of lending funds and 60% of active loans on Ethereum, generating $885 million in fees in 2025 alone. While Layer 2s improve user experience, the mainnet continues to be reinforced as the trusted hub for liquidity and credit markets. Additionally, active Ethereum addresses are nearing all-time highs, with 2.4 million weekly users, signaling strong retail and institutional engagement.

bitcoinist12/19 18:02

Ethereum Takes The Lead In DeFi Lending Revenue, Leaving Rivals Behind – See How

bitcoinist12/19 18:02

Hyperliquid at a Crossroads: Following Robinhood or Continuing the Nasdaq Economic Paradigm?

Hyperliquid, a decentralized exchange, processes perpetual contract volumes comparable to Nasdaq ($617 billion annualized) but generates significantly lower fee revenue—just 3.9 basis points—compared to retail platforms like Coinbase (35.5 bps) and Robinhood (33.5 bps). This reflects a structural divide: Hyperliquid operates at the low-margin "market layer" (exchange execution), while retail brokers capture higher profits through diversified revenue streams like net interest, subscriptions, and order flow. Hyperliquid’s architecture encourages permissionless third-party frontends (Builder Codes) and product listings (HIP-3), fostering ecosystem growth but risking "commoditization" if external interfaces gain routing power and compress fees. Recent strategic shifts suggest a move to defend its official frontend’s competitiveness and expand beyond trading fees. Initiatives like the native stablecoin USDH (capturing 50% of reserve yields) and portfolio margin lending (10% fee on borrower interest) aim to introduce broker-like revenue pools. The platform now faces a key challenge: balancing its open, modular design with the need to capture higher-margin brokerage economics—potentially requiring tighter integration and control over distribution and user balances to avoid long-term margin compression.

marsbit12/18 13:07

Hyperliquid at a Crossroads: Following Robinhood or Continuing the Nasdaq Economic Paradigm?

marsbit12/18 13:07

Why Does Hyperliquid Earn Less Than Coinbase?

Hyperliquid, a decentralized exchange, processes near-Nasdaq-level perpetual trading volumes but captures significantly lower fees compared to centralized platforms like Coinbase and Robinhood. While Hyperliquid cleared $205.6 billion in notional volume over 30 days, it generated only $80.3 million in fees—an effective take rate of ~3.9 bps. In contrast, Coinbase and Robinhood achieve take rates of ~35.5 bps and ~33.5 bps, respectively, by operating as retail brokers that monetize multiple layers: distribution, balances, subscriptions, and order flow. This gap stems from a structural difference: Hyperliquid positions itself as a low-fee *market layer* (like Nasdaq), providing high-throughput execution and清算 infrastructure, while brokers like Coinbase control user relationships and extract value through higher-margin activities. Hyperliquid’s model includes permissionless distributor frontends (Builder Codes) and product deployment (HIP-3), which drive ecosystem growth but also create long-term fee compression risks by outsourcing high-value distribution. To defend its economics, Hyperliquid is taking steps to retain distribution control, integrate HIP-3 markets natively, and introduce balance-driven revenue streams like USDH (a native stablecoin with 50% reserve收益 sharing) and portfolio margin (10% interest fee on borrows). These moves aim to shift its model from pure exchange-level execution toward a hybrid approach that captures broker-like profit pools—without sacrificing its core infrastructure advantages. The key challenge remains balancing open ecosystem growth with tighter economic integration to avoid being commoditized as a wholesale execution venue.

marsbit12/18 07:03

Why Does Hyperliquid Earn Less Than Coinbase?

marsbit12/18 07:03

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

活动图片

Популярные категорииright-arrow

Популярные тегиright-arrow

Indepth Research

Industry News