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

marsbitОпубліковано о 2026-04-10Востаннє оновлено о 2026-04-10

Анотація

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.

Пов'язані питання

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.

Пов'язані матеріали

Those Pre-Bitcoin PoW Protocols Have Recently Been Reimplemented

This article details a recent surge in replicating pre-Bitcoin Proof-of-Work (PoW) protocols, specifically focusing on Hal Finney's 2004 RPOW (Reusable Proofs of Work). Within five days in May 2026, multiple independent builders in the Bitcoin/cypherpunk community launched projects inspired by this early electronic cash proposal. The initiative began with Fred Krueger's `rpow2.com`, a centralized but auditable system that replaced RPOW's original IBM 4758 hardware with Ed25519 signatures. Initially a faithful replica, it later adopted Bitcoin-like features (21M supply cap, difficulty adjustment) and a controversial 5.24% founder allocation. This sparked rapid forks, including `rpow4.com` which incorporated full Bitcoin parameters, a prediction market (`rpowmarket.com`), and a DEX (`rpow2swap.com`). Concurrently, Mike In Space created a prototype of Wei Dai's 1998 b-money proposal (`b-money.replit.app`), pushing the historical exploration even further back. The article contrasts these centralized, server-dependent experiments with Bitcoin's core innovation of decentralized, trustless consensus. It also highlights a parallel development: the `HASH` project on Ethereum, which uses smart contract hooks to enable a purely fair-launch, browser-mineable PoW token with 0% allocations to team or VCs. The collective activity is framed as a meme-driven, educational exploration of cypherpunk history rather than a serious financial movement, with all projects heavily disclaiming any investment value.

marsbit3 хв тому

Those Pre-Bitcoin PoW Protocols Have Recently Been Reimplemented

marsbit3 хв тому

South Korean Exchanges 'Battle' Regulators, Challenging the Boundaries of Enforcement and Legislation

South Korea's cryptocurrency industry is engaged in a rare, direct confrontation with regulators. The Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU), the primary anti-money laundering (AML) watchdog, has recently imposed heavy penalties on major exchanges like Upbit and Bithumb for alleged violations involving unregistered overseas VASPs and AML procedures. However, exchanges are now actively challenging these actions in court and through industry associations. In a significant shift, the Seoul Administrative Court ruled in favor of Upbit's operator, Dunamu, overturning part of an FIU-ordered business suspension. The court found the FIU's penalty criteria and justification insufficiently clear. Similarly, the court suspended the enforcement of a six-month business suspension against Bithumb pending a final ruling, citing potential irreversible harm to the exchange. Beyond legal battles, the industry is contesting proposed legislative amendments. The Digital Asset eXchange Alliance (DAXA) strongly opposes a draft rule that would mandate Suspicious Transaction Reports (STRs) for all crypto transfers over 10 million KRW (~$6,800). DAXA argues this "poison pill" clause violates legal principles and would overwhelm the STR system, increasing reports from 63,000 to an estimated 5.45 million annually for major exchanges, thereby crippling effective AML monitoring. This conflict highlights a structural tension in South Korea's crypto governance: comprehensive digital asset laws are still developing, while regulators rely heavily on AML enforcement. The industry's move from passive compliance to active legal and legislative challenges signifies a new phase, pressing for clearer rules and more proportionate enforcement. While short-term disputes may intensify, this clash could ultimately lead to a more mature and sustainable regulatory framework for South Korea's vibrant crypto market.

marsbit56 хв тому

South Korean Exchanges 'Battle' Regulators, Challenging the Boundaries of Enforcement and Legislation

marsbit56 хв тому

After 50x Storage Surge, Justin Sun Always Looks to the Next Decade

Sun Yuchen, known for his controversial stunts like a $30 million lunch with Warren Buffett (canceled due to a kidney stone) and eating a $6.2 million duct-taped banana, is often overshadowed by a significant fact: his decade-long track record of spotting major investment trends. In 2016, he famously advised young people to invest in Bitcoin, Nvidia, Tesla, and Tencent instead of buying property. A hypothetical $20,000 investment in Nvidia and Tesla from that list would now be worth over 50 million RMB. His latest major call was on November 6, 2025, predicting a "50x storage opportunity" tied to the AI boom, which materialized with Sandisk's stock surging nearly 50-fold by 2026. Looking ahead, Sun now focuses on the next frontier: Physical AI. He identifies four key areas: 1. **Embodied AI/Robotics**: He sees this reaching its "iPhone moment," with companies like UBTech and Galaxy General leading in commercialization. 2. **Drones**: Viewed as the first commercially viable form of Physical AI, revolutionizing sectors from warfare (e.g., AeroVironment's Switchblade) to logistics. 3. **Spatial Computing**: Beyond VR, it's about AI understanding physical space, a foundational technology for robotics and autonomous systems, exemplified by Apple's Vision Pro. 4. **Space Exploration**: After a 2025 suborbital flight with Blue Origin, Sun advocates for space as the ultimate frontier, discussing blockchain's potential role in space asset management and data transactions. His investment philosophy involves betting on entire, inevitable trends rather than single companies. For robotics, he sees Tesla (the body/manufacturer) and Nvidia (the brain/AI platform) as complementary plays. In defense drones, he highlights companies making tanks obsolete (AeroVironment) and those augmenting fighter jets (Kratos). For space, he participated in Blue Origin's flight and anticipates SpaceX's potential IPO to redefine the sector's valuation. Sun Yuchen's vision frames the next two decades not as a revolution in information flow (like the internet), but in the fundamental operation of the physical world through AI-powered robots, autonomous systems, and spatial intelligence, ultimately extending human and AI activity into space. While many still focus on conventional assets, he continues to look toward the next technological horizon.

marsbit1 год тому

After 50x Storage Surge, Justin Sun Always Looks to the Next Decade

marsbit1 год тому

The Billionaires Behind the Most Expensive Midterm Election in History

"The Most Expensive Midterm Elections and Their Billionaire Backers" This analysis details the unprecedented scale of spending in the 2026 midterm elections, highlighting the key billionaire donors shaping the political landscape. Jeff Yass, founder of Susquehanna International Group, has contributed over $81 million, ranking third among individual donors behind George Soros ($102.6M) and Elon Musk ($84.8M). Yass is a major donor to Trump's MAGA Inc. and supports school choice and various candidates. Overall, federal committees have raised over $4.7 billion this cycle, with political ad spending projected to reach $10.8 billion. Republican-aligned groups are significantly out-raising their Democratic counterparts. "Dark money" from undisclosed sources continues to grow. The core stakes involve control of Congress and policy direction for Trump's final term. Donors are also motivated by specific issues: Sergey Brin and Chris Larsen are funding opposition to a proposed California wealth tax and supporting crypto-friendly policies. Other top donors include OpenAI's Greg Brockman and his wife Anna ($50M total to MAGA Inc. and an AI-focused PAC), Richard Uihlein ($45.3M to conservative causes), venture capitalists Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz (each over $44M to crypto/AI PACs and MAGA Inc.), Miriam Adelson ($42.6M to GOP leadership PACs), Paul Singer ($33.9M), and Diane Hendricks ($25.8M to MAGA Inc.). The article notes that the peak fundraising period is still ahead, with major primaries approaching.

marsbit1 год тому

The Billionaires Behind the Most Expensive Midterm Election in History

marsbit1 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片