Stablecoins Control 60% of Revenue but Face 'Liquidation' from Interest Rate Cuts

比推2026-01-14 tarihinde yayınlandı2026-01-14 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

The article analyzes the revenue structure of the crypto industry, highlighting that stablecoin issuers, particularly Tether and Circle, dominate with over 60% of the total revenue, though their share is expected to weaken due to declining interest rates. Decentralized perpetual exchanges (perp DEXs) like Hyperliquid emerged as a significant revenue driver, accounting for 7-8% of total revenue in 2025, surpassing older DeFi sectors. Three key revenue sources are identified: spread income (from stablecoins), trade execution (from perp DEXs), and distribution channels (from token launch platforms). The industry generated $16 billion in revenue in 2025, with 58% retained by protocols after paying suppliers. Notably, value transfer to token holders via rewards, buybacks, and burns increased, reaching over 18% of protocol revenue at its peak, signaling a shift toward token-based economic ownership. The trend is expected to accelerate in 2026 as protocols prioritize incentivizing holders.

Author: Prathik Desai

Compilation: Chopper, Foresight News

Original title: Who Controls the Revenue Lifeline of the Crypto Industry?


I love the seasonal traditions in the crypto industry, like Uptober and Recktober. People in the community always bring out a ton of data around these events, and humans naturally enjoy such anecdotes, right?

The trend analysis and reports around these events are even more interesting: "This time, ETF fund flows are different," "Crypto industry financing has matured this year," "Bitcoin is poised for a rally this year," and so on. Recently, while browsing the "2025 DeFi Industry Report," I was drawn to several charts about how crypto protocols generate "substantial revenue."

These charts list the top crypto protocols with the highest annual revenue, confirming a fact many in the industry have discussed over the past year: the crypto industry is finally making revenue attractive. But what is driving this revenue growth?

Behind these charts lies another lesser-known question worth exploring: Where do these fees ultimately flow?

Last week, I delved into DefiLlama's fee and revenue data (Note: Revenue refers to fees retained after paying liquidity providers and suppliers) to find answers. In today's analysis, I will add more details to this data, dissecting how and where funds flow in the crypto industry.

Crypto protocols generated over $16 billion in revenue last year, more than double the approximately $8 billion in 2024.

The value capture capability of the crypto industry has全面提升, with many new tracks emerging in the decentralized finance (DeFi) space over the past 12 months, such as decentralized exchanges (DEX), token issuance platforms, and decentralized perpetual contract exchanges (perp DEX).

However, the profit centers generating the highest revenue are still concentrated in traditional tracks, with stablecoin issuers being the most prominent.

The top two stablecoin issuers, Tether and Circle, contributed over 60% of the crypto industry's total revenue. In 2025, their market share slightly decreased from about 65% in 2024 to 60%.

But the performance of decentralized perpetual contract exchanges in 2025 cannot be underestimated; this track was almost insignificant in 2024. Four platforms—Hyperliquid, EdgeX, Lighter, and Axiom—collectively accounted for 7% to 8% of the industry's total revenue, far exceeding the combined revenue of mature DeFi tracks such as lending, staking, cross-chain bridges, and decentralized exchange aggregators.

So, what will drive revenue in 2026? I found the answer in the three major factors that influenced the crypto industry's revenue landscape last year: spread income, trade execution, and distribution channels.

Spread trading means that whoever holds and transfers funds can profit from the process.

The revenue model of stablecoin issuers is both structural and fragile. Its structural nature lies in the fact that revenue scales with the supply and circulation of stablecoins; every digital dollar issued by the issuer is backed by U.S. Treasury bonds and generates interest. The fragility lies in the fact that this model relies on macroeconomic variables that the issuer has almost no control over: the Federal Reserve's interest rates. Now, the monetary easing cycle has just begun, and as interest rates are further cut this year, the dominant revenue position of stablecoin issuers will weaken accordingly.

Next is the trade execution layer, which is the birthplace of the most successful track in the DeFi space in 2025: decentralized perpetual contract exchanges.

The simplest way to understand why decentralized perpetual contract exchanges quickly captured a significant market share is to see how they help users complete trading operations. These platforms create low-friction trading venues where users can enter and exit risk positions as needed. Even if market volatility is flat, users can still hedge, leverage, arbitrage, adjust positions, or build positions early for future layouts.

Unlike spot decentralized exchanges, decentralized perpetual contract exchanges allow users to conduct continuous, high-frequency trades without the hassle of transferring underlying assets.

Although the logic of trade execution sounds simple and the operation speed is extremely fast, the technical support behind it is far more complex than it appears. These platforms must build stable trading interfaces that do not crash under high load; create reliable order matching and liquidation systems that remain stable in market chaos; and provide sufficient liquidity depth to meet traders' needs. In decentralized perpetual contract exchanges, liquidity is the key to victory: whoever can continuously provide ample liquidity will attract the most trading activity.

In 2025, Hyperliquid dominated the decentralized perpetual contract trading track with the most market makers providing ample liquidity on its platform. This also made the platform the decentralized perpetual contract exchange with the highest fee income for 10 of the 12 months last year.

Ironically, the success of these DeFi track perpetual contract exchanges is precisely because they do not require traders to understand blockchain and smart contracts but instead adopt the familiar operational model of traditional exchanges.

Once all the above issues are resolved, exchanges can achieve automated revenue growth by charging small fees for traders' high-frequency, large-volume trades. Even if spot prices are range-bound, revenue can continue because the platform provides traders with a wealth of operational choices.

This is precisely why I believe that although decentralized perpetual contract exchanges accounted for only a single-digit percentage of revenue last year, they are the only track that could potentially challenge the dominance of stablecoin issuers.

The third factor is distribution channels, which bring incremental revenue to crypto projects such as token issuance infrastructure, like pump.fun and LetsBonk platforms. This is not much different from the models we see in Web2 companies: Airbnb and Amazon do not own any inventory, but with their vast distribution channels, they have long surpassed the定位 of aggregation platforms and also reduced the marginal cost of new supply.

Crypto token issuance infrastructure similarly does not own the crypto assets such as Meme coins, various tokens, and micro-communities created through their platforms. But by creating a frictionless user experience, automating the listing process, providing ample liquidity, and simplifying trading operations, these platforms have become the preferred choice for people to issue crypto assets.

In 2026, two questions may determine the development trajectory of these revenue drivers: Will the industry revenue share of stablecoin issuers fall below 60% as interest rate cuts impact spread trading? Can perpetual contract trading platforms break through the 8% market share as the landscape of the trade execution layer becomes concentrated?

Spread income, trade execution, and distribution channels—these three factors reveal the sources of revenue in the crypto industry, but this is only half the story. Equally important is understanding what proportion of the total fees is allocated to token holders before the protocol retains net revenue.

Value transfer through token buybacks, burns, and fee sharing means that tokens are no longer just governance credentials but represent economic ownership of the protocol.

In 2025, the total fees paid by users of decentralized finance and other protocols were approximately $30.3 billion. Of this, the revenue retained by the protocols after paying liquidity providers and suppliers was about $17.6 billion. About $3.36 billion of the total revenue was returned to token holders through staking rewards, fee sharing, token buybacks, and burns. This means that 58% of the fees were converted into protocol revenue.

This is a significant shift compared to the previous industry cycle. More and more protocols are beginning to experiment with making tokens represent ownership claims on operational performance, providing investors with tangible incentives to continue holding and going long on the projects they favor.

The crypto industry is far from perfect, and most protocols still do not distribute any收益 to token holders. But from a macro perspective, the industry has undergone considerable changes, a signal that everything is moving in a good direction.

Over the past year, the proportion of token holder收益 to total protocol revenue has continued to rise, breaking through the historical high of 9.09% early last year and even exceeding 18% at its peak in August 2025.

This change is also reflected in token trading: If the tokens I hold never bring any return, my trading decisions will only be influenced by media narratives; but if the tokens I hold can bring me收益 through buybacks or fee sharing, I will regard them as interest-bearing assets. Although they may not be safe and reliable, this shift will still affect how the market prices tokens, making their valuation closer to fundamentals rather than being swayed by media narratives.

When investors look back at 2025 and try to predict where crypto industry revenue will flow in 2026, incentive mechanisms will be an important consideration. Last year, project teams that prioritized value transfer did stand out.

Hyperliquid built a unique community ecosystem, returning about 90% of its revenue to users through the Hyperliquid Aid Fund.

Among token issuance platforms, pump.fun strengthened the concept of "rewarding active platform users" and has burned 18.6% of the circulating supply of the native token PUMP through daily buybacks.

In 2026, "value transfer" is expected to no longer be a niche choice but a necessary strategy for all protocols that want their tokens to trade based on fundamentals. Last year's market changes taught investors to distinguish between protocol revenue and token holder value. Once token holders realize that the tokens in their hands can represent ownership claims, returning to the previous model seems irrational.

I believe that the "2025 DeFi Industry Report" did not reveal a completely new nature of the crypto industry's exploration of revenue models; this trend has been hotly discussed over the past few months. The value of this report lies in using data to reveal the truth, and after digging deep into this data, we can find the secret to the most likely revenue success in the crypto industry.

By analyzing the revenue dominance trends of various protocols, the report clearly points out: whoever controls the core channels, spread income, trade execution, and distribution channels will earn the most profits.

In 2026, I expect more projects to convert fees into long-term returns for token holders, especially as the attractiveness of spread trading declines due to the interest rate cut cycle, making this trend even more apparent.


Twitter:https://twitter.com/BitpushNewsCN

Bitpush TG Communication Group:https://t.me/BitPushCommunity

Bitpush TG Subscription: https://t.me/bitpush

Original link:https://www.bitpush.news/articles/7602787

İlgili Sorular

QWhat are the three main factors driving crypto industry revenue according to the article?

AThe three main factors are spread income (from stablecoin issuers), trade execution (from perp DEXs), and distribution channels (from token launch platforms).

QWhich two stablecoin issuers dominate the crypto industry's revenue, and what is their combined market share?

ATether and Circle are the dominant stablecoin issuers, contributing over 60% of the total crypto industry revenue.

QWhy is the revenue model of stablecoin issuers considered fragile despite its structural strength?

AIt is fragile because it relies on macroeconomic variables like the Federal Reserve's interest rates, which are beyond the issuers' control. Lower interest rates in a monetary easing cycle will reduce their revenue dominance.

QWhat is the significance of value transfer to token holders in the crypto industry, as highlighted in the article?

AValue transfer means token holders receive economic benefits through mechanisms like staking rewards, fee sharing, token buybacks, and burns. This transforms tokens into yield-bearing assets and aligns valuations more with fundamentals than narratives.

QWhich decentralized perpetual exchange (perp DEX) led in fee revenue for most of 2025, and what was key to its success?

AHyperliquid was the leading perp DEX in fee revenue for 10 out of 12 months in 2025. Its success was largely due to having the most market makers providing deep liquidity, attracting high trading activity.

İlgili Okumalar

From Robinhood to Polymarket: Is the Era of Integrating All Assets on a Single Platform Coming?

From Robinhood to Polymarket: The Era of All-in-One Asset Platforms Is Coming Asset classes are rapidly converging. Platforms that once specialized in single categories—such as stocks, cryptocurrencies, or prediction markets—are now moving toward offering all three. Robinhood pioneered this model, starting with equities, adding crypto in 2018, and prediction markets in 2025. This strategy has proven resilient: when crypto revenues fell, other segments like options and stocks filled the gap. Now, prediction market leaders Polymarket and Kalshi are moving in the same direction, both announcing perpetual futures trading on April 21, 2026, pending regulatory approval. These futures will cover assets like Bitcoin, gold, and stocks such as Nvidia. This trend mirrors the consolidation seen in consumer tech, like smartphones replacing dedicated cameras and MP3 players. Younger users, accustomed to interacting with multiple asset types from an early age, will increasingly demand unified platforms. A key competitive advantage in prediction markets is collateral utilization—idle assets locked during betting periods. Polymarket’s move into perpetuals may be a strategy to generate yield from that capital, similar to earlier DeFi integrations like PolyAave. As the regulatory landscape evolves, traditional finance is also likely to incorporate crypto and prediction markets, further accelerating this convergence.

marsbit8 dk önce

From Robinhood to Polymarket: Is the Era of Integrating All Assets on a Single Platform Coming?

marsbit8 dk önce

OpenAI Goes Left, DeepSeek Goes Right

On April 24, 2026, DeepSeek released V4, a Chinese large language model offering a free "million-token context window," enabling it to process vast amounts of data like entire books or years of corporate documents in one go. In contrast, OpenAI’s GPT-5.5, released around the same time, is more powerful but significantly more expensive, charging up to $180 per million output tokens. DeepSeek’s strategy represents a shift from a pure AI research firm to a heavy-infrastructure player, building data centers in Inner Mongolia’s Ulanqab to bypass U.S. chip export restrictions. This move, supported by Huawei’s Ascend chips and China’s cheap green electricity, highlights a fundamental divergence in AI development models: U.S. firms focus on high-cost, high-margin services, while Chinese players like DeepSeek prioritize accessibility and affordability. Facing intense talent poaching from tech giants, DeepSeek is seeking a $44 billion valuation funding round to retain researchers and scale infrastructure. Meanwhile, Chinese manufacturers are compressing AI models to run on smartphones, making AI accessible offline and across the Global South. Through open-source models and localized solutions, Chinese AI is empowering non-English speakers and low-income users, driving a form of "digital equality." While Silicon Valley builds walled gardens, DeepSeek and others are turning AI into a public utility—like tap water—flowing freely to those previously left behind.

marsbit34 dk önce

OpenAI Goes Left, DeepSeek Goes Right

marsbit34 dk önce

$292 Million KelpDAO Cross-Chain Bridge Hack: Who Should Foot the Bill?

On April 18, 2026, an attacker stole 116,500 rsETH (worth ~$292M) from KelpDAO’s cross-chain bridge in 46 minutes—the largest DeFi exploit of 2026. The stolen assets were deposited into Aave V3 as collateral, causing $177–200M in bad debt and triggering a cascade of losses across nine DeFi protocols. Aave’s TVL dropped by ~$6B overnight. This legal analysis argues that KelpDAO and LayerZero Labs share concurrent liability, with fault apportioned 60%/40%. KelpDAO negligently configured its bridge with a 1-of-1 decentralized verifier network (DVN)—a single point of failure—despite LayerZero’s explicit recommendation of a 2-of-3 setup. LayerZero, which operated the compromised DVN, failed to secure its RPC infrastructure against a known poisoning attack vector. Both protocols’ terms of service cap liability at $200 (KelpDAO) or $50 (LayerZero), but these limits are likely unenforceable due to unconscionability, gross negligence exceptions, and potential securities law invalidation (if rsETH is deemed a security under the Howey test). Aave’s governance also faces fiduciary duty claims for raising rsETH’s loan-to-value ratio to 93%—far above competitors’ 72–75%—without adequately assessing bridge risks, amplifying the systemic fallout. Practical recovery targets include LayerZero Labs (a registered Canadian entity), KelpDAO’s founders, auditors, and identifiable Aave governance delegates. The incident underscores escalating legal risks for DeFi protocols, infrastructure providers, and governance participants.

marsbit1 saat önce

$292 Million KelpDAO Cross-Chain Bridge Hack: Who Should Foot the Bill?

marsbit1 saat önce

İşlemler

Spot
Futures
活动图片