I ranked 16 revenue-generating crypto protocols using an index that puts equal weight on business performance and token economics
Pump comes out on top with 76 points. Hyperliquid has the strongest business of all 16 and comes in at #2
- Selection: $10M+ annualized revenue and a token above $150M market cap
- $PUMP is #1: $664M annualized revenue at 2.5x market cap / revenue, the lowest multiple of all 16
- $HYPE has the strongest business (79) and the most revenue ($871M), but trades at 80x FDV / revenue. My model uses 9% unlocks, based on what the team actually received in the last 12 months. Unlock trackers use 54%, which would drop it to #5
- $AERO is #3 at 6.7x. 99% of revenue went to lockers and stakers, but new supply (24% a year) more than offsets that payout (15% of market cap)
- $LIT has the third-best business (69) but the lowest token terms (41): unlocks over the next 12 months equal 61% of today's circulating supply
- $CAKE and $SKY are the opposite: token terms of 77 and 72 on a business score around 50
- $RAY (-40%), $CAKE (-35%), $MET (-32%), $JUP (-23%) and $UNI (-19%) earned less per day over the last 30 days than in the 90 days before. Their current run rate is below the revenue in the table
- Only 6 of 16 have a net holder yield clearly above zero, meaning burns, buybacks and staker payouts outweigh new supply: $RAY, $CAKE, $SKY, $JUP, $SYRUP and $PUMP
- $VVV (84x) and $AAVE (32x) are at the bottom. Most of Venice's revenue settles offchain, so the model only includes what reaches the token. If more of it flows onchain, VVV moves up. AAVE paused buybacks in April after the rsETH exploit. "Aavenomics 3.0" should bring them back, but it isn't live yet
Ranks 4 to 13 are only 8 points apart, so I wouldn't read much into #5 vs #9. Pump, Hyperliquid and Aerodrome stay in the top 5 in at least 95% of 5,000 random weightings
How the score works:
- Business (50%): revenue momentum (last 30 days vs the 90 days before), revenue trend (last 90 days vs the 90 before) and revenue size (the lower of the last 12 months and the annualized last 90 days, so one strong quarter doesn't inflate size)
- Token terms (50%): market cap / revenue, unlocks over the next 12 months, float and the share of revenue that goes to holders
Takeaways from the table:
- A strong business doesn't automatically reach the token. Only Pump scores 70+ on both sides. Without its unlocks LIT would be #4 instead of #13
- High payouts don't guarantee positive holder economics. HYPE, UNI, VVV, AERO and CRV all send 95%+ of revenue to holders, yet none has a net holder yield clearly above zero once new supply is factored in
- Cheap alone isn't enough. MET (3.4x) and LDO (7.0x) are among the four cheapest but only rank #8 and #7: MET has 15% unlocks, LDO returns nothing to holders on a recurring basis
The table is the data. The score is my own weighting on top of it and leaves out things like sentiment or regulation. Not investment advice. Full methodology and how each token was treated in the replies
Well, well, well
Rep. Ro Khanna sold $NVDA right before Nvidia's CEO admitted to having a Chinese spy side piece
He's a member of the following:
- Strategic Competition between the U.S. and the Chinese Communist Party Committee
- Taiwan Caucus
- High Tech Caucus
Apparently, federal agents informed some lawmakers last year that Jensen Huang might be the target of a foreign intelligence operation
He avoided a ~26% dip
Poor guy apes millions into #Zcash
Gets told to hodl, forget and come back in a few months
Then the #zcash team do an update, his coins are frozen, good as gone forever and he doesnt realize that’s $16 million of his gone forever
He’s still hodling , set and forgetting, zodling, zelieving thinking he’s sitting on a fat stack and up multiple 8 figs.
Feel bad for the guy . I wonder how many other zodlers are in the same situation and have no clue of the surprise waiting them
@QuantusNetwork ↔ @NEARProtocol now live on RHEA bridge
$QTC can now move between the Quantus and NEAR networks in seconds
On RHEA, your $QTC earns yield
Generated from every trade executed through the pool.
Bridge: https://t.co/8f7Fiq6SBn
Pool: https://t.co/IJf5n87vPU
91% of all tokenized stocks lead back to one broker.
Tokenized stocks total $4.60B today and $4.17B of that is backed by real shares held at a single US broker called Alpaca Securities.
- 7 issuers use it - Binance bStocks, Ondo, xStocks, Robinhood, Reality, Coinbase and Dinari.
- Alpaca holds those shares at DTC, the central US securities depository. On the company's books, the owner is Cede & Co., and not you.
- Securitize and Backpack take a different path, through RQD Clearing but still ends at DTC.
- Superstate and Securitize’s ISTs are the only one that skips both. The shares sit on the company's own register, with no broker and no DTC.
In total, that’s 4.7M token holders across those 7 issuers, and one broker between all of them and the real shares.
Now you know.
I am a professor at the @UofCalifornia. I am appalled by the conduct of one of its Regents, Scott Galloway, appointed in August by Governor Newsom.
@profgalloway is one of only 26 voting Regents entrusted with governing a university system serving hundreds of thousands of students & employing tens of thousands of faculty & staff.
Twice, first on a live Pivot episode featuring Hillary Clinton & on Prof G with Fareed Zakaria, Galloway called Elon Musk a “traitor to the West.”
He invoked Julius & Ethel Rosenberg, who were executed for espionage, and declared that Musk should be held to the same standards.
He didn’t explicitly demand Musk’s execution. But invoking the deaths of two convicted spies while calling an American citizen a traitor makes the implication hard to miss.
Musk has not been convicted of treason. Indeed, “treason against the West” isn’t even an actual crime.
Now imagine UCLA alumnus @BenShapiro, appointed a UC Regent, saying the same about George Soros.
Would the Governor defend his right to serve? Would Regent leadership shrug and call it provocative commentary? Or would there be demands for resignation?
But there’s something worse here than another of Scott’s trademark podcast rants.
He sits on the Regents’ Academic & Student Affairs Committee.
The committee’s charter says it oversees student conduct, faculty conduct, academic personnel, & campus climate, among other responsibilities.
This is not some honorary title.
The Board sets university policy, controls institutional budgets, & appoints senior university leadership.
You can unsubscribe from a podcast.
A student who finds Scott’s comments morally repugnant can’t unsub from the Regents.
UC bylaws require Regents to serve the public trust with a “high degree of ethics and candor,” including as private citizens.
Professors owe students intellectual integrity. Regents bear an even greater duty: they govern institutions that teach it.
Yet a Regent serving on the committee responsible for student & faculty conduct invokes executions while labeling a fellow citizen a traitor.
What does that say to our students?
That intellectual restraint is expected of the governed but optional for those who govern?
That standards of conduct depend on whether the target of your rhetoric is politically fashionable to despise, as long as the audience applauds?
This isn’t about defending @ElonMusk. He needs no defense from me.
Nor is it about silencing Scott. As if that were possible. He’s free to express his opinions, however reckless they may be.
But freedom of speech is not freedom from accountability, and holding a university office of public trust is not an entitlement.
There is an enormous moral chasm between exercising your right to speak recklessly and demonstrating the judgment required of one of the 26 people who govern our great public university.
The UC Board of Regents isnt a podcast sponsors can boycott. It’s a public trust.
One final irony. At @NYUStern, Galloway teaches Brand Strategy, including a session on crisis management.
His own prescription for leadership in a crisis is unequivocal: acknowledge the problem, have leadership take responsibility, and “overcorrect.”
He’s praised the departure of corporate leaders as evidence of effective crisis management.
Now Galloway himself sits on the UC Board of Regents.
Will he hold himself to the standards he teaches, or does accountability apply only to other people’s institutions?
Professor lecture thyself!
I believe Scott Galloway should seriously consider whether his continued service on the Board of Regents is consistent with the ethical standards and responsibilities of that office, or whether he should resign.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues with Galloway directly, including what standards we should expect of those entrusted with governing the world’s best university.
Scott, you have an open invitation to join me on @Into_Impossible for an honest conversation.