Mint Ventures

Autors Alekss Sju, Mint Ventures pētniecības partneris
Ziņojuma dati uz: 2025. gada 24. augustu
1. Pētījuma kopsavilkums
Kā vadošais globālais kriptoaktīvu apmaiņas un pakalpojumu sniedzējs, Coinbase izmanto sava zīmola uzticību, plašo lietotāju bāzi, daudzveidīgos produktu piedāvājumus un agrīnās atbilstības iniciatīvas, lai pozicionētu sevi kā galveno spēlētāju, kas izmanto kriptovalūtu nozares ilgtermiņa izaugsmes potenciālu.
Konkrēti:
Tam ir ilgstoša pieredze un zīmola atpazīstamība atbilstošās darbībās un drošos, uzticamos pakalpojumos, sadarbojoties ar daudziem institucionāliem partneriem, kas palīdz piesaistīt gan institucionālos, gan privātos klientus.

By Lawrence Lee, Researcher at Mint Ventures

Recently, the tokenized US stocks sector has witnessed several new developments:
Centralized exchange Kraken announced the launch of its tokenized stock trading platform, xStocks.Centralized exchange Coinbase announced it is seeking regulatory approval for its tokenized stock trading services.Public blockchain Solana submitted a framework for blockchain-based tokenized US stock products.
Both US-based public blockchains and exchanges are accelerating their efforts in tokenized US stocks. Combined with the recent enthusiasm following Circle’s IPO, this momentum is fueling optimism about the future prospects of tokenized US equities.
In fact, the value proposition of tokenized U.S. stocks is very clear:
1. Expanded the scale of the trading market: It provides a 7×24-hour, borderless, and license-free trading venue for US stock trading, which is currently unavailable to Nasdaq and NYSE (although Nasdaq has applied for 24-hour trading, it is expected to be realized in the second half of 26)2. Superior composability: By combining with other existing DeFi infrastructure, U.S. stock assets can be used as collateral, margin, to build indexes and fund products, and derive many currently unimaginable gameplays.The needs of both supply and demand are also clear:Suppliers (US-listed companies): Through the borderless blockchain platform, they have reached potential investors from all over the world and obtained more potential buying orders.Demand side (investors): Many investors who were unable to trade U.S. Stocks directly in the past for various reasons can now directly allocate and speculate on U.S. stock assets hrough blockchain.Quoted from “U.S. Stocks on the Blockchain and STO: A Hidden Narrative“
In this round of tolerant crypto regulatory cycle, progress is a high probability event. According to RWA.xyz data, the current market value of tokenized stocks is only 321 million US dollars, and there are 2,444 addresses holding tokenized stocks. The huge market space is in sharp contrast to the current limited asset size.

In this article, we will introduce and analyze the product solutions of current players in the tokenized U.S. stock market and other players who are promoting the tokenization of U.S. stocks, and list potential investment targets under this concept.
This article is the author’s interim thinking as of the time of publication. It may change in the future, and the views are highly subjective. There may also be errors in facts, data, and logical reasoning. All views in this article are not investment advice, and we welcome criticism and further discussion from colleagues and readers.
According to data from rwa.xyz, the current tokenized stock market has the following projects by issuance size:

We will take a look at the business models of Exodus, Backed Finance, and Dinari (Montis Group targets European stocks, and SwarmX is similar to Backed Finance but on a smaller scale), as well as the progress of several other important players who are currently working on tokenized US stock business recommendations.
Exodus
Exodus (NYSE.EXOD) is an American company that develops non-custodial crypto wallets. Its stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE.EXOD). In addition to its own branded wallets, Exodus has also collaborated with NFT market MagicEden to launch a wallet.
As early as 2021, Exodus allowed users to migrate their common shares to the Algorand chain through Securitize, but the tokens migrated to the chain could not be traded or transferred on the chain, nor did they include governance rights or other economic rights (such as dividends). The Exodus token is more like a “digital clone” of real shares, and its symbolic significance on the chain is greater than its actual significance.
The current market value of EXOD is US$770 million, of which approximately US$240 million is on-chain.

Exodus is the first stock approved by the SEC to tokenize its common stock (or to be more precise, Exodus is the first tokenizable stock approved by the SEC to be listed on the NYSE). Of course, this process was not smooth sailing. The listing time of Exodus stock was delayed again and again since May 2024, and it was not officially listed on the NYSE until December.
However, Exodus’ stock tokenization is only for its own stocks, and the tokenized stocks cannot be traded, which is of little significance to us Web3 investors.
Dinari
Dinari is a company registered in the United States. They were founded in 2021. Since its establishment, they have been focusing on stock tokenization under the US compliance framework. They completed a $10 million seed round of financing in 2023 and a $12.7 million Series A financing in 2024. Investors include Hack VC and Blockchange Ventures, Coinbase CTO Balaji Srinivasan, F Prime Capital, VanEck Ventures, Blizzard (Avalanche Fund), etc. Among them, F Prime is a fund under the asset management giant Fidelity. The investment of Fidelity and VanEck also shows the recognition of the tokenized US stock market by traditional asset management institutions.
Dinari only supports non-US users. The process of trading US stocks is as follows:
User completes KYCThe user selects the US stocks they want to buy and pays with USD+ issued by Dinari (a short-term Treasury bond-backed stablecoin issued by Dinari that can be exchanged from USDC)Dinari submits the order to the cooperating broker (Alpaca Securities or Interactive Brokers). After the broker completes the order, the shares are kept in the custodian bank, and Dinari mints the corresponding dShares for the user.
Currently, Dinari operates on Arbitrum, Base, and the Ethereum mainnet. All dShares have a 1:1 correspondence with real-world equity. Users can view the equity corresponding to their dShares through the Dinari official website. Dinari can also distribute dividends or stock splits to users holding its dShares.
However, dShares cannot be traded on the chain. If you want to sell dShares, you can only trade through the Dinari official website. The actual transaction process is the reverse of the purchase process. dShares transactions must also follow US trading hours and cannot be bought or sold outside of trading hours. In terms of product form, in addition to direct stock trading, they also offer stock trading APIs that can work with other trading front ends.
In fact, Dinari’s business process, namely “KYC->payment exchange->clearing and settlement by compliant brokers”, is consistent with the current mainstream way for non-US users to participate in US stock transactions. The main difference is that the asset categories paid by users are Hong Kong dollars, euros, etc., while the asset categories accepted by Dinari are encrypted assets. The rest are completely implemented in accordance with the SEC’s regulatory framework.
As a company mainly engaged in the tokenization of US stocks, Dinari’s courage to register the company in the United States (the registration place of the corresponding entities of most other projects is in Europe) shows its confidence in its compliance capabilities. Their US stock tokenization products were officially launched in 2023. At that time, the former SEC Chairman Gary Gensler, who was known for his strict supervision of cryptocurrencies, could not find fault with its business model; and after the new SEC Chairman Paul Atkins took office, the SEC once held a special meeting with Dinari, asking Dinari to demonstrate its system and answer relevant questions (source), which showed that its products were impeccable in terms of compliance and the team’s strong resources in compliance.
However, since Dinari’s tokenized US stocks do not enable on-chain trading, cryptocurrency serves merely as an entry point and payment method for Dinari. Functionally, Dinari’s product offers little distinction from platforms like Futu or Robinhood. For its target users, Dinari’s product experience provides no advantage over its competitors. For a user in Hong Kong, trading US stocks on Dinari offers no improved experience compared to using Futu. Additionally, it lacks access to trading features like margin trading, and users may even face potentially higher fees.
Perhaps precisely for these reasons, Dinari’s tokenized stock market has remained small in scale. Currently, only the tokenized stock MSTR has a market capitalization exceeding $1 million, and just five tokenized stocks have market caps above $100,000. Presently, the vast majority of its TVL is participating in its floating-rate treasury products.

Dinari’s current market capitalization of tokenized stocks Source
Overall, Dinari’s tokenized stock business model has received regulatory certification. However, strict compliance requirements prevent its tokenized stocks from being traded/staked on-chain, eliminating composability. This results in an inferior user experience for dShare holders compared to traditional brokerages, diminishing the product’s appeal to mainstream Web3 users.
Among current market players, projects similar to Dinari include the meme coin Stonks community project mystonks.org. According to the project’s self-disclosed reserve report, their U.S. stock portfolio currently exceeds $50 million in market value, with significantly higher user trading activity than Dinari.
However, the regulatory framework of mystonks.org remains flawed. For instance, the qualifications of its securities custody account are not clearly specified, and users cannot verify its reserve reports.
Backed Finance
Backed Finance is a Swiss company, also founded in 2021. Its product launched in early 2023, and in 2024 it completed a $9.5 million funding round led by Gnosis, with participation from Cyber Fund, Blockchain Founders Fund, Blue Bay Capital, and others.
Like Dinari, Backed does not serve U.S. users. Its operational process is as follows:
Issuers (professional investors) complete KYC verification and review on Backed Finance.The issuer selects the U.S. stocks they wish to purchase and pays in stablecoins.Backed Finance submits the order to a partner brokerage to complete the stock purchase. After the purchase, Backed Finance mints the corresponding bSTOCK token and delivers it to the issuer.Both bSTOCK and its wrapped version wbSTOCK can be freely traded on-chain (the wrapping primarily facilitates handling dividend distributions, etc.). Retail investors can directly purchase bSTOCK or wbSTOCK on-chain.
As can be seen, unlike Dinari where retail investors directly purchase stocks, Backed Finance currently relies on professional investors buying the stocks and then transferring them to retail investors. This significantly improves overall operational efficiency and enables 24/7 trading. Another key difference is that the bSTOCK tokens issued by Backed are unrestricted ERC-20 tokens, allowing users to form LP on-chain for others to purchase.

Liquidity of Backed’s Tokenized Stocks Source
Backed Finance’s on-chain liquidity primarily derives from the SPX index, Coinbase, and Tesla. Users create liquidity by pairing bSTOCK tokens with stablecoins in AMM pools. The current TVL across all liquidity pools approaches $8 million, with an average APY of 32.91%. Liquidity is distributed across Balancer and Swapr on Gnosis Chain, Aerodrome on Base, and Pharaoh on Avalanche. Notably, the bCOIN-USDC liquidity pool currently offers an APY reaching 149%.
A critical operational distinction is that Backed Finance imposes no restrictions on on-chain trading of its bSTOCK tokens. This creates a secondary pathway for token holders, where on-chain users – without undergoing KYC verification – can directly purchase bSTOCK using stablecoins such as USDC or sDAI.
This approach effectively bypasses KYC restrictions while delivering a trading experience indistinguishable from trading standard on-chain tokens, making it more readily adoptable by Web3 users. Moreover, by issuing unrestricted ERC-20 tokens, Backed unlocks composability for tokenized stock holders – exemplified by stablecoin pairings generating LP yields averaging 33% APY. This likely explains why Backed Finance’s TVL is nearly 10 times larger than Dinari’s.
Regarding compliance, Backed Finance operates through a Swiss-registered entity. Its business model – where “ERC-20 tokens representing tokenized stocks are freely transferable” – has received approval from European regulatory authorities (source). Backed also publishes proof-of-reserve audits conducted by The Network Firm.
However, the U.S. SEC has not yet commented on Backed’s operations. Notably, all securities tokenized by Backed are U.S. stocks. While Swiss regulatory approval is certainly beneficial, the more critical factor is how U.S. regulators will ultimately assess this model.
Among comparable projects, SwarmX operates under an identical model but falls significantly short of Backed Finance in both operational scale and compliance rigor.
Despite Backed Finance’s tokenized stocks having a market cap ten times larger than Dinari’s, its $20 million-plus assets under management and $8 million TVL still represent relatively modest scale, while on-chain trading activity remains notably low. The core reasons for this include:
Limited Use Cases: Tokenized stocks currently only serve LP purposes on-chain. Their composability potential remains largely untapped, likely due to concerns from integrated protocols (e.g., lending/stablecoin) regarding regulatory uncertainty.Liquidity Constraints: As Backed itself is not an exchange, its tokenized stocks lack organic liquidity support. Existing liquidity relies entirely on issuers, specifically, their willingness to hold tokenized stocks and provide LP capital. Current data indicates that issuers lack the incentive to increase exposure in these areas.
Should the SEC establish clearer regulatory frameworks affirming Backed’s model, both issues could be alleviated.
xStocks
In May this year, the U.S. exchange Kraken announced plans to collaborate with Backed Finance and Solana to launch xStocks.
On June 30th, the xStocks product officially launched. Its partners include Backed, Kraken, and Solana, as well as centralized exchanges Kraken and Bybit, Solana-based decentralized exchanges Raydium and Jupiter, lending protocol Kamino, Bybit-incubated DEX Byreal, oracle Chainlink, payment protocol Alchemy Pay, and brokerage firm Alpaca.

Source: Official Website of xStocks
The legal architecture of xStocks is identical to that of Backed Finance. It currently supports over 200 stock products, with Kraken offering 24/5 trading hours. Key partnerships include: Kraken, Bybit, Jupiter, Raydium, and Byreal as supporting exchanges; Kamino enables xStocks to be used as collateral, while Kamino Swap facilitates trading of xStocks; Solana as the underlying blockchain; Chainlink providing reserve attestations; and Alpaca serving as a brokerage partner.
Due to its relatively short time since launch, comprehensive data metrics remain limited, and trading volumes are currently modest. However, xStocks demonstrates significantly stronger partner integration compared to Backed Finance’s native offering:
CEX like Kraken and Bybit may leverage their existing market makers and user bases to enhance liquidity for xStocks. Within the on-chain ecosystem, multiple DEXs and Kamino support xStocks. Significantly, Kamino has pioneered new use cases for tokenized U.S. stocks beyond liquidity provision. Additional protocols are expected to integrate xStocks in the future, further expanding its composability potential.
Given these strategic advantages, the author maintains that despite its nascent launch status, xStocks will rapidly surpass existing providers to become the dominant tokenized U.S. stock issuer.
Robinhood
Robinhood, which has been actively expanding its cryptocurrency business, submitted a report to the SEC in April 2025 calling for the establishment of an RWA regulatory framework covering tokenized stocks. In May, Bloomberg reported that Robinhood would create a blockchain platform enabling European investors to trade U.S. stocks, with Arbitrum or Solana being candidate public chains.
Also on June 30, Robinhood officially announced the launch of its tokenized U.S. stock trading product for European investors. The product supports dividend distributions and offers 5*24 market access.
Robinhood’s tokenized stock product was initially issued on Arbitrum. In the future, its tokenized stock infrastructure will operate on Robinhood’s proprietary L2, which is also built on Arbitrum.
However, according to Robinhood’s official documentation, its current tokenized stock product does not constitute genuine tokenized equity, but rather derivative contracts tracking the prices of corresponding U.S. Stocks, with the underlying assets securely held by licensed U.S. institutions in Robinhood Europe accounts. Robinhood Europe issues these contracts and records them on the blockchain. Currently, these tokenized stocks can only be traded within Robinhood and are not transferable.
Other Players Venturing into the Space
Beyond the projects with operational deployments discussed above, numerous other players are venturing into tokenized U.S. equities, including:
Solana
Solana demonstrates a significant commitment to tokenized equities beyond its involvement with xStocks. It has established the Solana Policy Institute (SPI), which aims to “educate policymakers on why decentralized networks like Solana represent foundational infrastructure for the future digital economy.” Two projects are currently being advanced. One is named Project Open, “enable compliant blockchain-based issuance and tradingof securities. This initiative seeks to harness blockchain technology to create more efficient, transparent, and accessible capitalmarkets while maintaining robust investor protections.” Members of Project Open, besides SPI, include the Solana-based DEX Orca, RWA service provider Superstate, and the law firm Lowenstein Sandler LLP.
Since April this year, Project Open has repeatedly submitted public written comments to the SEC’s Crypto Task Force. On June 12, the SEC’s Crypto Task Force held a meeting with them, after which Project Open members separately submitted further explanations regarding their respective business operations.
The tokenized U.S. stock issuance and trading process advocated by Project Open is as follows:

Source: SEC official document
The process is summarized as follows:
Issuers must pre-apply for SEC approval. Upon approval, they may issue tokenized U.S. stocks.Users wishing to purchase tokenized U.S. stocks must complete KYC verification beforehand. After completion, they may use cryptocurrency to purchase these issuer-approved tokenized stocks.SEC-registered transfer agents will record share transfers on-chain.
Project Open specifically advocates for SEC permission enabling peer-to-peer trading of tokenized U.S. stocks via smart contracts. This would allow tokenized stock holders to trade through AMM, thereby unlocking on-chain composability. However, per the proposed framework, all holders of tokenized U.S. stock positions must complete KYC. To implement this process, Project Open has requested 18-month exemptive relief or confirmatory guidance for multiple operations (see references for details).
Overall, Project Open’s proposal builds upon Backed Finance’s existing framework by adding KYC requirements. From the author’s perspective, approval under the current SEC leadership, which has shown relative tolerance toward DeFi, appears almost certain. The only remaining question is the timing of approval.
Coinbase
As early as 2020, when Coinbase applied for a Nasdaq listing, its filing included plans for on-chain issuance of tokenized COIN. However, this initiative was abandoned due to non-compliance with SEC requirements at the time. Recently, Coinbase has been seeking a no-action letter or exemptive relief from the SEC for its tokenized stock trading business. While detailed documentation remains unavailable, a key confirmed detail from press releases states: Coinbase’s tokenized stock trading program will be accessible to U.S. users.
This represents the key distinction from other current tokenized stock market players and enables Coinbase to directly compete with online brokerages like Robinhood and traditional brokers such as Charles Schwab. For Web3 investors, however, this development holds far less significance than its implications for Nasdaq:COIN.
Ondo
Ondo, which has established a proven presence in the treasury bond RWA market (see Mint Ventures’ earlier coverage on Ondo), has long planned a tokenized U.S. stocks business. According to their documentation, their tokenized stock product features:
Accessibility to non-U.S. users24/7 trading availabilityReal-time token minting and redemptionPermission to use tokenized stock assets as collateral
Judging from these specifications, Ondo’s product closely aligns with the new framework proposed by Solana. Ondo has also announced at Solana’s Accelerate conference its intention to launch the tokenized stock product on the Solana network.
Ondo’s tokenized stock platform, Ondo Global Markets, is scheduled to launch later this year.
The above outlines the current landscape of the tokenized U.S. stock market and key players expanding into this space.
Fundamentally, users’ primary motivation for purchasing tokenized stocks is to profit from price fluctuations. Their focus centers on: exchange liquidity, settlement guarantees, and the ability to trade while bypassing KYC. Whether the tokenization is performed by compliant institutions is not a user priority. Consequently, the Web3 market has consistently offered derivative-based solutions for synthetic U.S. stock exposure.
U.S. equity trading via derivative-based instruments
Platforms providing U.S. stock derivatives services primarily include Gains Network (on Arbitrum and Polygon) and Helix (on Injective). Their users do not actually trade U.S. equities, thus eliminating the need for tokenization.
Their core product logic applies perpetual contract mechanisms to U.S. stocks, typically featuring:
No KYC requirements for traders, and stablecoins as collateral with leveraged tradingTrading hours synchronized with U.S. market sessionsAsset prices sourced directly from trusted oracles like ChainlinkFunding rates balancing on-platform prices against fair market values
However, neither current platforms (Gains/Helix) nor predecessors (Synthetix/Mirror) have achieved significant trading volumes with synthetic stock models. Helix processing under $10 million daily in synthetic U.S. stock derivatives, and Gains Network handling less than $2 million in comparable activity. This underperformance stems from two critical factors:
This model carries significant regulatory risks. Although they do not actually facilitate trading of U.S. stocks, they effectively function as exchanges, enabling users to trade U.S. equities. Regulators impose clear requirements on any exchange, with KYC being one of the most fundamental compliance obligations. While regulators may overlook such platforms when they remain under the radar, they will inevitably come under scrutiny if their profile grows substantially.Furthermore, none of these platforms currently possesses sufficient liquidity to meet genuine user trading demands. Their liquidity models rely entirely on internal, self-contained solutions without access to third-party liquidity sources. Consequently, none of them can provide users with viable trading depth.

Trading Volume of Helix’s U.S. Stocks & Forex Products

Order Book for COIN (Highest Volume)
On the centralized exchange front, Bybit recently launched a U.S. equities trading platform based on MT5. This product similarly adopts perpetual contract-like mechanics, executing no actual equity transactions but facilitating index trading with stablecoins as collateral.
Additionally, the upcoming Shift project introduces the concept of Asset-Referenced Tokens (ART), claiming to enable KYC-free U.S. stock trading through the following operational flow:
Shift purchases U.S. stocks and custodies them with regulated brokers (e.g., Interactive Brokers) and uses Chainlink Proof-of-Reserve for asset verificationIssues ART backed by reserved stocks, each ART corresponds to underlying equities, but does not constitute tokenized stocks.Retail investors can purchase ART without KYC
Shift’s model maintains 100% reserve backing between ARTs and underlying U.S. equities. However, ARTs do not constitute tokenized stocks and confer no share ownership rights, dividend entitlements, or voting privileges. Consequently, they fall outside existing regulatory frameworks, enabling KYC-free trading (Source).
From a regulatory logic perspective, ART is not permitted to be pegged to securities assets. It remains unclear how the Shift team intends to implement ‘pegging ART to U.S. stocks’ in practice, nor is it certain whether the final product design will truly operate according to the above-described mechanisms. However, by leveraging certain loopholes in regulatory provisions, this solution achieves KYC-free U.S. stock trading and warrants ongoing monitoring.
What Kind of Tokenized U.S. Stock Products Does the Market Need?
Regardless of the tokenization approach, all solutions share this core two-step process:
Tokenization: The process is typically managed by regulated entities that provide periodic proof-of-reserves. Fundamentally, it enables KYC-compliant users to access U.S. equities through blockchain representation after traditional acquisition. Minimal divergence exists across current implementation frameworks.Trading: End-users transact with tokenized equities. The critical divergence across solutions manifests here: certain platforms prohibit trading entirely (Exodus); others restrict transactions to licensed broker channels (Dinari and mystonks.org); while several enable native on-chain trading (Backed Finance, Solana, Ondo, Kraken). Notably exceptional is Backed Finance, which currently leverages Swiss regulatory frameworks to allow non-KYC users direct AMM purchases of its tokenized U.S. stock products.
For end-users, the tokenization process primarily concerns regulatory compliance and asset security, criteria currently met by most market players. The pivotal differentiator lies in trading mechanisms. Platforms like Dinari restrict transactions to licensed broker channels while offering no liquidity mining or lending, substantially diminishing the utility of tokenized equities. Regardless of compliance rigor or operational refinement, such limitations inherently deter user adoption.
Conversely, models like xStocks, Backed Finance, and Solana represent more consequential long-term solutions. By enabling native on-chain trading—bypassing traditional brokerage systems—they fully harness DeFi’s core advantages: 24/7 accessibility and programmable composability.
However, on-chain liquidity remains insufficient to rival traditional venues. Low-liquidity exchanges functionally equate to unusable platforms; tokenized equities cannot scale without deeper liquidity pools. This is also why the author is optimistic about xStock.
Ultimately, as regulatory clarity emerges and tokenized stocks proliferate across Web3, market share will likely consolidate toward exchanges with pre-existing advantages: superior liquidity and established trader networks.
In fact, we can see from the few examples in the previous cycle that Synthetix, Mirror, and Gains all launched products featuring U.S. stock trading in 2020. However, the most influential U.S. stock trading product was FTX. FTX’s approach was actually quite similar to the current solution offered by Backed Finance, but FTX’s trading volume and AUM for stocks were far higher than Backed Finance’s.
Potential Investment Targets
Although the market potential for tokenized U.S. stocks is significant, there are currently very few investable options available to investors.
Among existing players, neither Dinari nor Backed Finance has issued a token. Dinari has even explicitly stated that it will not issue one. The only potential investment target in this category is the meme token STONKS, associated with mystonks.org.
As for actively involved players, the tokens of Coinbase, Solana, and Ondo already have relatively high market capitalizations. Moreover, tokenized U.S. stocks are not their core business. While progress in tokenized equities may have some influence on their tokens, the extent of that impact is hard to predict.
xStock’s partners include leading Solana-based DEXs such as Raydium and Jupiter, as well as the lending protocol Kamino. However, these collaborations are unlikely to bring significant growth to the mentioned protocols.
Among the members of the SPI Project Open initiative, Phantom and Superstate have not issued tokens, while only Orca has.
In the derivatives space, Helix has yet to launch a token, leaving GNS as the only investable option.
Since these projects vary widely in their business models and approaches to tokenized U.S. stocks, it’s not possible to conduct a meaningful valuation comparison. Instead, we provide a summary of the basic information for the relevant tokens below:

References
https://x.com/xrxrisme69677/status/1925366818887409954
https://www.odaily.news/post/5204183
Project Open References:
Initial Framework Submitted in April: https://www.sec.gov/files/ctf-written-project-open-wireframe-04282025.pdfJune 12 Meeting Between SEC Crypto Working Group and Project Open Team: https://www.sec.gov/files/ctf-memo-solana-policy-institute-et-al-061225.pdfJune 17 Updates by SPIUpdated Proposal Framework by SPI: https://www.sec.gov/files/project-open-chain-equities-infrastructure-061725.pdfSupplemental Materials from SPI: https://www.sec.gov/files/project-open-061725.pdfPhantom Technologies Submission: https://www.sec.gov/files/phantom-technologies-061725.pdfSuperstate Submission: https://www.sec.gov/files/ctf-superstate-letter-061725.pdfOrca Creative Submission: https://www.sec.gov/files/orca-creative-061725.pdf
Project Open submitted an application for exemptive relief or confirmatory guidance, which includes:
Blockchain, as a technological tool, does not in itself require or mandate any SEC registration.Network fees on blockchain are considered technical costs and are not treated as securities transaction fees.Peer-to-peer transactions conducted via smart contract protocols are permissible and do not fall under the regulatory definition of exchange or ATS transactions, as they are bilateral transactions, similar to those envisioned under Section 4(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933.Relief for broker-dealers to participate in Section 4(a)(1) transactions (serving in a limited administrative role).Non-custodial/self-custodial wallets (and their providers) are not classified as broker-dealers.Holding tokenized equities in non-custodial/self-custodial wallets that have passed proper whitelisting and KYC is allowed.Broker-dealers may create sub-wallets for clients to hold tokenized equities. For custodial purposes, this satisfies the SEC’s requirement for “possession and control” of securities.Transfer agents may fulfill their responsibilities using blockchain if they have access to the KYC information of whitelisted wallet owners and modernized accredited investor educational materials, enabling the enforcement of: a) Transfer restrictions; b) Restrictive legends (e.g., for securities held by affiliates).Registration statements may be used to register tokenized equities, provided appropriate exemptive relief is granted. This includes: a) Proposals on content and format requirements; b) Proposals on methods of periodic reporting.Direct purchases of shares from the issuer, as envisioned above, would not cause purchasers to be considered underwriters or broker-dealers. These purchases are not made in the capacity of a broker or dealer.Requests for appropriate exemptions from Reg NMS, such as: Order Protection Rule, Best Execution, and Access Rule.

By Alex Xu, Mint Ventures' research partner
Introduction
Circle’s stock price has been soaring since its IPO (though showing a noticeable pullback recently), and stablecoin-related stocks in global markets are also exceptionally volatile. The U.S. stablecoin bill, the Genius Act, has passed the Senate vote and is now making its way through the House of Representatives. Recently, news emerged that tokens for the Trump family’s flagship project, World Liberty Financial (WLF), might be unlocked and enter circulation ahead of schedule. This counts as major news in the recently overall lackluster altcoin market, which has been starved of compelling narratives.
So, how is World Liberty Financial actually performing currently? How is its token mechanism designed? And what benchmarks should be used for its valuation?
Through this article, the author will attempt to provide a multi-dimensional analysis of World Liberty Financial’s current business status, project background details, tokenomics, and valuation expectations, offering readers several perspectives for evaluating the project.
PS: This article represents the author’s preliminary thoughts as of the time of publication and is subject to change. The views expressed are highly subjective and may contain factual, data-related, or logical errors. All opinions herein are in no way investment advice. Constructive feedback and further discussion from industry peers and readers are welcome.
Business: Product Status and Core Competitive Advantages
World Liberty Financial (WLF) is a decentralized finance DeFi platform co-founded with participation from the family of U.S. President Donald Trump. Its core product is the USD1 stablecoin. USD1 is a 1:1 dollar-pegged stablecoin fully backed by reserves of cash and U.S. Treasury bonds. World Liberty Financial also has plans for lending services (built on Aave) and a DeFi app, though these are not yet live.
USD1 Business Data
As of June 2025, the circulating supply of the USD1 stablecoin has reached approximately $2.2 billion. Among these, BNB Chain hosts 2.156 billion USD1 in circulation, Ethereum holds 48 million, and Tron maintains 26,000. BNB Chain accounts for 97.8% of the total supply, confirming that the vast majority of USD1 is issued on this network.
Regarding on-chain user metrics, BNB Chain leads with 248,000 wallet addresses holding USD1, followed by Ethereum at 66,000 addresses. Tron currently maintains merely one active address with USD1 holdings.
Analysis of token distribution reveals that on BNB Chain, 93.7% of USD1 (equivalent to 2.02 billion USD1) is held across two Binance-controlled addresses. Within this, 1.9 billion USD1 is concentrated in a single Binance address (0xF977814e90dA44bFA03b6295A0616a897441aceC).
Examining USD1’s historical market capitalization, we observe that prior to May 1, 2025, its market value remained around $130 million. However, on May 1 itself, the value surged to $2.13 billion, representing an overnight increase of nearly $2 billion.

Growth curve of USD1 scale | Source: CMC
The explosive growth primarily stems from Abu Dhabi investment firm MGX’s $2 billion equity investment in Binance in May 2025, where USD1 was selected as the payment currency. The current USD1 balance retained in Binance’s addresses aligns precisely with this $2 billion amount.
This implies:
After receiving MGX’s USD1 investment, Binance did not convert it to USD or other stablecoins, making it USD1’s largest holder with 92.8% of total supply.Excluding this transaction-derived volume, USD1 remains a small-scale stablecoin with a circulating market value barely exceeding $100 million.
This business expansion model is likely to recur in future project development.
Business Partnerships
WLFI has established collaborations with multiple institutions and protocols to expand its market presence.
In June 2025, WLFI announced a partnership with London-based crypto fund Re7 to launch USD1 stablecoin vaults on Ethereum lending protocol Euler Finance and BNB Chain staking platform Lista. This initiative aims to amplify USD1’s footprint across Ethereum and BNB Chain ecosystems. Notably, Lista is a leading BNB staking platform backed by Binance Labs.
Additionally, Aave – currently the largest decentralized lending platform – has proposed integrating USD1 into its markets on Ethereum and BNB Chain. The draft proposal has already passed community voting.
For trading accessibility, USD1 is now listed on centralized exchanges including Binance, Bitget, Gate, and Huobi, as well as decentralized exchanges such as Uniswap and PancakeSwap.
World Liberty’s Competitive Advantages
World Liberty’s competitive edge is straightforward: the Trump family’s formidable political influence grants the project inherent advantages in specific business expansions unavailable to competitors. This initiative also serves as a potential conduit for interests among individuals, organizations, or even nations with commercial or political ties to Donald Trump.
A prime example is Binance’s use of USD1 – issued by World Liberty – as the capital vehicle for Abu Dhabi investment firm MGX’s massive funding. Binance continues to hold these assets interest-free (effectively boosting USD1’s TVL) while rapidly listing USD1 across its platforms.
However, World Liberty token holders face three primary risks:
The Trump family maintains numerous channels for financial interests, and World Liberty may not be the ultimate choice for contributors. (For context on the Trump family’s diverse revenue streams, refer to Bloomberg’s late-May 2025 exposé: “THE TRUMP FAMILY’S MONEY-MAKING MACHINE“, detailing their multifaceted approaches.)WLFI tokens are fundamentally decoupled from World Liberty’s project value. (Analysed in the “Tokenomics” section below.)Potential operational abandonment by the Trump family post-token sell-off—or even during divestment—mirroring historical patterns observed in all Trump-affiliated crypto assets (from Trump Tokens to various NFTs).
Background: Backing and Financing Details
Core Team Background
World Liberty Financial’s core team hails from political and business circles, forming the foundation of the project’s competitive edge and influence.
Undoubtedly, the project’s central figures are Donald Trump—the 45th and 47th President of the United States—and his three sons: Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and Barron Trump (aged 17).
However, their listed roles on World Liberty Financial’s official website have undergone subtle yet notable shifts over the past month. As of mid-June, Donald Trump held the symbolic title of “Chief Crypto Advocate,” while his three sons were given equally vacuous roles as “Web3 Ambassadors.”
These definitions for all four Trump family members are identically stated in the project’s “Golden Paper”.

Nonetheless, the four Trump members are listed above all project Co-Founders in official placements.

World Liberty Financial Team Profile Page (Mid-June 2025)
However, the project’s official team page has recently been updated with revised titles: Donald Trump is now listed as “Co-Founder Emeritus”, while his three sons have been designated as “Co-Founders.”

World Liberty Financial Team Profile Page (Late June 2025)
Another subtle detail: both Donald Trump and Steven Witkoff (another “Co-Founder Emeritus” whose title was downgraded from “Co-Founder” in the recent update) now have an almost imperceptible footnote marker “1” appended to their titles. At the bottom of the webpage, fine print clarifies: “Removed upon taking office”, indicating their honorary titles will be revoked if they assume public office.
This compliance mechanism aims to prevent conflicts of interest for government-affiliated figures by severing private commercial ties—a standard ethical requirement for U.S. public officials.
However, a critical contradiction exists: Donald Trump currently holds public office as the sitting U.S. President.
Beyond the Trump family, another pivotal figure is Steven Witkoff—a longtime business associate of Trump and prominent New York real estate magnate—serving as Co-Founder Emeritus. As founder and chairman of the Witkoff Group, he has maintained close ties with Donald Trump since the 1980s, frequently socializing on golf courses as widely recognized “longtime friends and business partners.”
Following Trump’s presidential inauguration, Witkoff was appointed “U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East,” reporting directly to Trump. He played central roles in high-stakes negotiations involving Israel, Qatar, Russia, and Ukraine, additionally acting as Trump’s “private emissary” to Moscow for multiple meetings with Russian leadership.
The Witkoff family is deeply embedded in the project: Both sons, Zach Witkoff and Alex Witkoff, are WLFI Co-Founders.
Beyond political and business figures, WLFI’s technical and operational operations are primarily managed by crypto industry professionals. Zak Folkman and Chase Herro, both Co-Founders, are serial entrepreneurs in the cryptocurrency space. Their previous venture involved launching the DeFi platform “Dough Finance,” though the project failed following an early-stage hack, rendering their entrepreneurial track record unremarkable. Within WLFI, Folkman and Herro initially held primary control until January 2025, when they relinquished authority to a Trump-family-controlled entity.
Another key member is Richmond Teo, heading WLFI’s Stablecoin and Payments division. Teo previously co-founded the renowned compliant stablecoin firm Paxos and served as its Asia CEO. The team further includes blockchain practitioners such as Corey Caplan (Head of Technical Strategy) and Ryan Fang (Growth Lead), alongside traditional finance compliance experts, including Brandi Reynolds (Chief Compliance Officer).
The project has also enlisted several advisors, including Luke Pearson (Partner at Polychain Capital) and Sandy Peng (Co-Founder of Ethereum Layer-2 network Scroll). Notably, Peng provided operational support during WLFI’s token sale period.
Equity Evolution of the Trump Family in World Liberty Financial
The Trump family’s stake in World Liberty Financial has steadily declined, from an initial 75% to the current 40%.

The decline from the initial 75% to 40% stake may involve transfers to Justin Sun, DWF Labs, and the recently announced $100M investor Aqua 1 Foundation (this remains unverified).
Financing Journey & Backers
Since its September 2024 inception, World Liberty Financial has raised cumulatively over $700 million through multiple funding rounds, with its valuation surging rapidly post-Trump’s inauguration and token launch.
I delineate key funding rounds below:

Notably, according to the project’s Gold Paper and website disclosures, the Trump family is entitled to 75% of net proceeds from token sales (through subsequent equity divestments, which represent an indirect resale of token sale proceeds) and 60% of future net profits generated by stablecoin operations.
Tokenomics: Allocation, Utility & Protocol Revenue
Token Distribution & Vesting Details
The governance token $WLFI has a total supply of 100 billion tokens. Per the token economic model outlined in the official “Golden Paper”, the allocation and vesting schedule are structured as follows:

Here are the key points to note: The team allocated 35% of the tokens for the token sale (public sale), but only 25% of that allocation has been completed so far. There is currently no information on how the remaining 10% will be handled.
Additionally, while the public sale portion of the WLFI tokens has an additional clause specifying an expected 12-month lock-up period, the tokens in the other allocation categories have no clearly defined unlock conditions or timelines. However, like public sale tokens, they are currently non-transferable.
The ambiguity surrounding the specific unlock terms for the non-public sale WLFI tokens creates significant uncertainty for the project.
Token Functionality
WLFI is a pure governance token. It does not confer any profit-sharing or income rights, nor does it represent equity claims in the project company. Its value primarily derives from governance participation.
Protocol Revenue Distribution
The official WLFI Gold Paper states the following regarding the handling of protocol revenue:
$30 million of initial net protocol revenues will be held in a reserve controlled by a WLF (the project is abbreviated as WLF here but later renamed WLFI) Multisig to cover operating expenses, indemnities, and obligations. Net protocol revenues include revenues to WLF from any source, including without limitation platform use fees, token sale proceeds, advertising or other sources of revenue, after deduction of agreed expenses and reserves for WLF’s continued operations. The remainder of net protocol revenues will be paid to DT Marks DEFI LLC, Axiom Management Group, LLC WC Digital Fi LLC, which are entities affiliated with our founders and certain service providers (“Initial Supporters”). These entities have indicated to WLF their intent to deploy the majority of the fees received on the WLF Protocol once launched.
In essence, protocol revenue primarily flows to corporate entities behind WLFI (though they have committed to allocating most funds to support the protocol). Crucially, WLFI tokens themselves have no direct linkage to business revenue.
Valuation: What is WLFI Worth Long-Term?
Since WLFI’s core business revolves around stablecoins, we can reference the valuation metrics of its major listed competitor, Circle, using its “Market Cap / Stablecoin Market Cap” ratio to roughly estimate WLFI’s fair valuation range.
As of late June 2025, Circle’s USDC stablecoin maintained a circulating supply of approximately $61.7 billion. During the same period, Circle’s market capitalization stood at $41.1 billion, with a fully diluted valuation (including options and convertible instruments) reaching approximately $47.1 billion. This establishes Circle’s “Market Cap to Stablecoin Supply” ratio within the range of 0.66 to 0.76 ($41.1B/$61.7B = 0.66; $47.1B/$61.7B = 0.76).
“Applying this benchmark to WLFI, which currently supports $2.2 billion in stablecoin supply, yields a projected valuation range of $1.452 billion to $1.672 billion ($2.2B × 0.66 = $1.452B; $2.2B × 0.76 = $1.672B), implies a theoretical token price range of $0.0145 to $0.0167 ($1.452B ÷ 100B = $0.0145; $1.672B ÷ 100B = $0.0167).”
Clearly, this is a figure that WLFI investors find difficult to accept. For first-round public offering investors, it’s barely above the break-even point. Expectations for WLFI are high, and possible reasons include:
Early WLFI had incomplete unlocking: Its circulating market cap is significantly lower than its FDV, allowing WLFI to command a higher premium.WLFI is in its early stages: Its potential growth rate is far higher than Circle’s.WLFI possesses strong political resources: It should carry a “Trump premium,” attracting numerous projects eager to partner with WLFI.Sentiment and speculation in the crypto market are more aggressive than in the stock market: WLFI will enjoy a higher premium than Circle.WLFI may time its token issuance closely with the passage of the US GENIUS Act stablecoin bill: This would allow it to capitalize on high market sentiment and enthusiasm.
……
However, we can also present corresponding counter-arguments, such as:
The stablecoin business has extremely strong network effects: The leader should have a stronger competitive advantage and command a higher valuation premium than a new entrant (consider the profit-generating power of the sector leader Tether compared to the second-place Circle).WLFI project revenue is unrelated to the WLFI token: The WLFI token lacks value capture and should be heavily discounted in valuation.93% of WFLI’s current stablecoin market cap is held by Binance for support. This indicates very low organic adoption, and the business volume is heavily inflated.WLFI might be just one of many Trump family “white-label licensing projects”: They could be as ruthless in dumping and operations as they were with the Trump token and various Trump NFTs, likely incapable of long-term commitment.Liquidity in the crypto market, especially for altcoins, has long dried up: Secondary market players hardly believe any story not backed by solid business data, and most newly listed tokens go into free fall.
……
As an investor, which side of the argument you lean towards is a matter of perspective.
In the author’s view, the decisive factor for WLFI token’s short-term price movement after listing will depend, on one hand, on the final content and timing of the Genius Act’s passage. More importantly, however, it hinges on whether the Trump family, in its various backroom deals and transactions, is willing to position WLFI as a relatively central medium of exchange for mutual benefits. This would manifest as “influential individuals/business entities/sovereign nations” actively embedding USD1 (even symbolically) into their business processes to gain political and commercial advantages – such as using USD1 as an investment currency (equity investments) or a settlement currency (cross-border trade).
If there is a lack of such concentrated business news following the listing, WLFI likely holds a precarious position within the Trump family’s business empire. They undoubtedly have more lucrative channels.
Let’s wait and see how WLFI develops after its listing.
So, when specifically will the WLFI token become transferable?
I speculate it will be after the US “Genius Act” is formally enacted (it has currently passed the Senate). That will be the optimal time for the project team to act freely, and it’s not far off.

Autori: Aleks Xu, Mint Ventures pētniecības partneris un Lorenss Lī, Mint Ventures pētnieks

Pirmajos un otrajos iepriekš publicētajos 'Zeltu meklējot: Ilgtermiņa investīciju mērķu identificēšana caur tirgus cikliem (2025. gada izdevums)' mēs analizējām un iepazīstinājām ar projektiem aizdevumu sektorā — Aave, Morpho, Kamino un MakerDao — kopā ar staking sektora projektiem, piemēram, Lido un Jito, un tirdzniecības sektora projektiem, tostarp Cow Protocol, Uniswap un Jupiter. Kā šī sērijas noslēdzošā daļa šis raksts turpinās uzsvērt projektus ar stabilām pamata vērtībām un ilgtermiņa potenciālu uzmanības pievēršanai.

Autors: Aleks Xu, Mint Ventures pētniecības partneris & Lorens Lee, Mint Ventures pētnieks

Mēs iepriekš publicētajā “Zeltu vākt: ilgtermiņa ieguldījumu mērķu identificēšana caur tirgus cikliem (2025. gada izdevums – I daļa)” analizējām aizdevumu sektora projektus, tostarp Aave, Morpho, Kamino un MakerDAO, kā arī staking sektora projektus Lido un Jito. II daļa turpinās pētīt fundamentāli spēcīgus projektus ar ilgtermiņa potenciālu.
PS: Šis raksts atspoguļo autoru viedokli publicēšanas datumā, kas var attīstīties laika gaitā. Izteiktie viedokļi ir ļoti subjektīvi un var saturēt faktiskas, datu vai loģiskas kļūdas. Neviens no satura neuzskata par ieguldījumu padomu. Mēs gaidām kritiku un turpmākas diskusijas no nozares kolēģiem un lasītājiem.

By Alex Xu, Mint Ventures' research partner & Lawrence Lee, Mint Ventures' researcher
Introduction: Altcoin Bear Market – Fundamental Investing Still Works
Undoubtedly, this bull cycle has witnessed the worst performance of altcoins in crypto history.
Contrary to historical patterns where altcoins surged and Bitcoin’s market dominance rapidly declined after previous bull market initiations, Bitcoin’s dominance has steadily climbed from about 38% in November 2022 (the market bottom) to over 61% today. This trend persists despite the exponential growth in altcoin supply during this cycle, highlighting the unprecedented weakness of altcoin prices.

BTC Dominance Chart Source: Tradingview

The current market trajectory aligns with Mint Ventures’ analysis in Preparing for Primary Wave: My Periodic Strategy on This Bull Market Cycle (March 2024). In that report, we argued that only three of the four key bull market drivers were present:
Bitcoin halving (supply-demand dynamics) ✓Loose monetary policy or dovish expectations ✓Regulatory easing ✓Innovative asset models or business paradigms ✗
Consequently, we advised tempering expectations for legacy altcoin categories—including smart contract platforms (L1s/L2s), GameFi, DePIN, NFTs, and DeFi—and recommended the following strategy:
Increase allocation to BTC and ETH (with a long-term preference for BTC)Limit exposure to legacy altcoin sectors (DeFi, GameFi, DePIN, NFTs)Seek alpha in emerging narratives: Memes, AI, and Bitcoin ecosystem
To date, this strategy has largely proven effective (though the Bitcoin ecosystem has underperformed expectations).
However, it’s worth noting that despite the overall sluggish price performance of most altcoins this cycle, a few altcoin projects have performed significantly better than BTC and ETH over the past year. The best examples are Aave and Raydium, which were highlighted in the Mint Ventures report titled Altcoins Keep Falling, Time to Refocus on DeFi published in early July 2024 during the altcoin market’s lowest ebb.
Starting from early July last year, Aave’s peak increase relative to BTC exceeded 215%, and 354% relative to ETH. Even after substantial price corrections, Aave’s increase relative to BTC is still 77%, with a 251% increase relative to ETH.

AAVE/BTC Exchange Rate Source: Tradingview
Starting from early July last year, Raydium’s peak increase relative to BTC exceeded 200%, and 324% relative to ETH. Currently, despite the overall decline in the Solana ecosystem and the negative impact of Pump.fun’s self-developed DEX, Raydium’s gain relative to BTC remains positive and significantly outperforms ETH.

RAY/BTC Exchange Rate Source: Tradingview

Considering that BTC and ETH, especially BTC, have significantly outperformed most altcoins this cycle, Aave and Raydium have stood out in terms of price performance among altcoins.
This is because, unlike most altcoin projects, Aave and Raydium have stronger fundamentals. Their core business data set new records in this cycle, and they possess unique moats with stable or rapidly expanding market shares.
Even during an “altcoin bear market,” betting on projects with outstanding fundamentals can yield Alpha returns exceeding BTC and ETH, which is the primary goal of our research efforts.
In this report, Mint Ventures will identify quality projects with solid fundamentals from thousands of listed crypto projects. We’ll track their recent business performance and market share, analyze their competitive advantages, assess their challenges and potential risks, and provide some valuation references.
It’s important to emphasize:
The projects mentioned in this article have certain advantages and appeal, but they also face various issues and challenges. Readers might have differing opinions on the same project after reading.Likewise, projects not mentioned in this article do not imply “poor fundamentals” or that “we’re not optimistic about them.” We welcome you to recommend projects you find promising and share your reasons.This article represents the stage-based thoughts of the two authors as of publication. Future changes may occur, and the views are highly subjective, with possible errors in facts, data, or reasoning. All opinions in this article are not investment advice, and we welcome criticism and further discussion from industry peers and readers.
We will analyze the projects from several dimensions, including current business status, competitive landscape, main challenges and risks, and valuation status. Below is the main text.
1. Lending Sector: Aave, Morpho, Kamino, MakerDao
DeFi remains the sector with the best product-market fit in the crypto business world, and lending is one of its most crucial sub-sectors. It features mature user demand and stable business revenue, attracting numerous excellent projects, both new and established, each with its own strengths and weaknesses.
For lending projects, the most critical metrics are active loans and revenue. It’s also important to assess the protocol’s expenses, particularly token incentives.
1.1 Aave: The King of Lending
Aave is one of the few projects that has successfully navigated three crypto cycles, maintaining stable growth. It completed financing through an ICO in 2017 (then called Lend, with a peer-to-peer lending model) and surpassed the then-leader Compound in the previous cycle. Today, it consistently holds the top position in lending volumes. Aave currently offers services across most major EVM-compatible L1 and L2 chains.
Current Business Status
Aave’s primary business model involves operating a pool-based lending platform, generating income from lending interest and liquidation penalties during collateral liquidations. Additionally, Aave’s stablecoin business, GHO, is now in its second year, providing Aave with direct interest income.
Active loans

Aave’s loan volume Data source: Tokenterminal
Aave’s total loan volume has surpassed its previous cycle’s (November 2021) peak of 12.14 billion since November of last year, reaching an all−time high of 15.02 billion in late January 2025. However, as market activity has cooled recently, the loan volume has declined and currently stands at approximately $11.4 billion.
Revenue

Aave’s protocol revenue Data source: Tokenterminal

Similar to its loan volume, Aave’s protocol revenue has consistently exceeded its previous peak from October 2021 since November last year. Over the past three months, Aave’s weekly protocol revenue (excluding GHO interest income) has mostly remained above 3 million. However, recent cooling market sentiment coupled with declining interest rates has driven weekly protocol revenues down to the 2 million+ range over the last fortnight.
Token Incentives

Aave’s token incentive expenses Data source: Aave Analytics

Aave currently maintains substantial token incentives, distributing 822 AAVE daily (worth approximately 200,000 at the current market price of 245 per AAVE). This elevated incentive value stems from Aave’s significant price appreciation over the past six months.
Notably, unlike most protocols that directly tie token incentives to user deposit/borrow activities, Aave’s incentives are allocated to its Safety Module (deposit protection fund). Consequently, Aave’s core lending/borrowing metrics remain driven by organic demand rather than artificial incentives.
However, in our view, Aave’s incentive allocation to its Safety Module remains excessive. The current incentive scale could be reduced by at least 50% without compromising protocol security. This issue will likely resolve organically with the rollout of Aave’s new tokenomics model, particularly the upcoming Umbrella module, which will phase out AAVE-based incentives for the Safety Module.
For a detailed analysis of Aave’s updated tokenomics, refer to Mint Ventures’ 2024 report: Exploring The Updated AAVEnomics: Buybacks, Profit Distribution, and Safety Module Shift
Competitive Landscape
In terms of loan volume (EVM chains), Aave’s market share has remained relatively stable, consistently holding the top position since June 2021. In the second half of 2023, its market share briefly dropped below 50%, but since the beginning of 2024, it has regained momentum and is now stable at around 65%.

Data Source: Tokenterminal

Aave’s Competitive Advantages
Since I analyzed Aave last July, its core competitive advantages have remained largely unchanged, stemming from four main aspects:
Continuous Accumulation of Security Credibility: Unlike many new lending protocols that experience security incidents within their first year, Aave has operated without any security breaches at the smart contract level. This strong track record is a key consideration for DeFi users, especially large-scale “whale” users, in choosing a lending platform. Notably, Justin Sun is a long-term user of Aave.Bilateral Network Effects: Similar to many internet platforms, DeFi lending is a typical two-sided market where depositors and borrowers form the supply and demand sides. Growth in deposits or lending on one side spurs growth on the other, making it harder for new competitors to catch up. Additionally, greater overall platform liquidity results in smoother transactions for both sides, attracting big fund users who further stimulate platform growth.Superior DAO Management: The Aave protocol is fully governed by a DAO, offering more transparent information disclosure and thorough community discussion for important decisions compared to centralized team management. Aave’s DAO includes active participation from professional institutions such as top VCs, university blockchain clubs, market makers, risk management providers, third-party development teams, and financial advisory teams. This diversity and active governance have enabled Aave to balance growth and security, outperforming its predecessor Compound in both product development and asset expansion.Multi-Chain Ecosystem Presence: Aave is deployed on nearly all EVM L1/L2 chains, with its TVL consistently ranking at the top. The upcoming V4 version of Aave will enable cross-chain liquidity, enhancing its advantages in this area. Aave plans to expand further to Aptos (its first non-EVM chain), Linea, and make a return to Sonic (formerly Fantom).
Challenges and Risks
Although Aave’s market share has been steadily increasing over the past year, new competitors like Morpho are growing rapidly.
Unlike Aave, where collateral assets, risk parameters, and oracles are centrally managed by Aave DAO, Morpho offers a more open approach. It provides a foundational lending protocol that allows independent markets to be built without permission, with the freedom to choose collateral assets, risk parameters, and oracles. Morpho also introduces vaults, akin to investment funds, managed by professional third parties like Gaunlet. Users can deposit funds directly into these vaults, and the managing institutions will assess risks and decide where to lend funds to generate returns.
This open and modular model allows Morpho to quickly enter new or niche markets, such as lending markets for innovative stablecoin projects like Usual and Resolv, enabling users to gain project rewards or points through leveraged loans.
Further analysis on Morpho will be provided later.
In addition to competition from within the Ethereum ecosystem, Aave’s development is also influenced by competition between the Ethereum ecosystem and other high-performance L1 chains. If ecosystems like Solana continue to erode Ethereum’s territory, Aave, which is heavily invested in the Ethereum ecosystem, will undoubtedly face limitations in its business potential.
Additionally, the highly cyclical nature of the crypto market directly affects Aave’s user demand. In bear market cycles, speculation and arbitrage opportunities shrink rapidly, leading to a significant decline in Aave’s lending volume and protocol income—common challenges for all lending protocols.
Valuation Reference
In terms of longitudinal valuation, Aave’s current PS ratio (fully diluted market cap to protocol income) is 28.23, sitting in the median range for the past year, still far from the PS values in the hundreds during the peaks of 2021-2023.

Mainstream Lending Protocols PS (Based on FDV) Data Source: Tokenterminal

When compared horizontally, Aave’s PS metric is much lower than that of Compound, Silo, and Benqi, but higher than Venus.
It’s important to consider that DeFi, similar to traditional financial enterprises, has highly cyclical revenue multiples. Typically, PS decreases rapidly during bull markets and increases during bear markets.
1.2 Morpho: The Rising Star
Morpho started as a yield optimization protocol based on Compound and Aave, originally acting as a symbiotic project. However, in 2024, it officially launched the permissionless lending protocol Morpho Blue, becoming a direct competitor to major lending projects like Aave. After its launch, Morpho Blue experienced rapid business growth and was favored by new projects and assets. Morpho currently operates on Ethereum and Base.
Current Business Status
Morpho offers several products, including:
Morpho Optimizers
Morpho’s initial product aimed to enhance capital efficiency for existing DeFi lending protocols like Aave and Compound. It optimized fund usage by depositing user funds on these platforms to earn base yields and matching funds peer-to-peer based on borrowing demand.
As Morpho’s first-generation product, Morpho Optimizers accumulated significant users and funds, helping Morpho Blue avoid a cold start. However, despite still holding substantial funds, the interest rate optimization from its matching feature has become negligible. This product is no longer a focus on Morpho’s development and has stopped allowing new deposits and loans since December last year.

Due to the extremely low matching rate, the interest rate optimization by Optimizers is currently only 0.07% Source: https://optimizers.morpho.org/

Morpho Blue (or simply Morpho)
Morpho Blue is a permissionless lending protocol that allows users to create custom lending markets. Users can freely choose parameters such as collateral assets, loan assets, liquidation ratios (LLTV), oracles, and interest rate models to create independent markets. The protocol’s design ensures that market creators can manage risks and returns based on their assessments without external governance intervention, thus meeting diverse market needs.
After its launch, Morpho Blue’s rapid growth put pressure on lending giant Aave, which subsequently introduced the Merit incentive program. According to the program, users following the incentive rules on Aave receive rewards, while those using Morpho may face reduced incentives.
Before Morpho Blue, most isolated lending markets focusing on niche or new assets, like Euler and Silo, were generally unsuccessful, with most funds still concentrated on centrally managed platforms like Aave, Compound, and Spark, using mainstream blue-chip assets as collateral.
Morpho Blue has successfully paved the way, thanks to several factors:
A long-standing, positive safety record. Before Morpho Blue, Morpho Optimizers managed substantial funds without any issues, earning DeFi users’ trust.Serving only as the underlying protocol for lending markets, it opens parameters such as asset support, asset parameter design, oracle selection, and fund management permissions:This further liberalizes the lending market, allowing for a quick response to market demands. New asset issuers actively build markets on Morpho to offer leverage services, and specialized risk service providers like Gauntlet can create and profit from their own evaluated vaults without relying solely on servicing major platforms like Aave and Compound.It enables further specialization in lending services, where participants focus on their roles, enriching product options. Crucially, “free outsourcing” reduces costs associated with self-operated businesses, such as frequent protocol upgrades, code audits, and services from specialized risk providers.
MetaMorpho Vaults
MetaMorpho Vaults are asset management tools designed to simplify the lending process, providing liquidity and yield opportunities. Users earn returns by depositing assets into vaults managed by professional teams, which are optimized based on unique risk configurations and strategies. Currently, funds from these vaults primarily flow into various lending markets built on Morpho Blue.

The product structure diagram of Morpho

After understanding Morpho’s product situation, let’s take a look at the key business data of Morpho.
Active loans

Morpho’s loan volume Data source: Tokenterminal
Morpho’s highest total loan volume, similar to Aave, was at the end of January, reaching 2.35 billion, and is currently 1.9 billion.
Morpho has not officially initiated protocol fees yet, so there is no protocol revenue. However, we can observe the “Fee” (the total income earned by depositors from the protocol) to estimate the potential revenue Morpho could generate if it decides to implement protocol fees.

Comparison of Fees between Morpho and Aave Data source: Tokenterminal

In February 2025, Aave generated a total fee of 67.12 million, while Morpho generated 15.59 million.
During the same period, Aave created 8.57 million in protocol revenue from the generated 67.12 million fee, indicating an approximate fee retention rate of 12.8% (just a rough calculation).
Since Aave is a lending protocol operated by the Aave Dao, it can direct all income from its lending market to its treasury while covering operational expenses.
On the other hand, Morpho serves as an underlying protocol for lending markets and involves numerous third-party participants, such as market creators and vault operators. Therefore, even if Morpho decides to activate protocol fees in the future, the proportion of revenue it can retain from the generated fees will likely be significantly lower than Aave’s, as it needs to be shared with other service providers. I estimate Morpho’s actual fee retention rate to be 30% to 50% of Aave’s, which is approximately 3.84% to 6.4%.
By calculating (3.84% to 6.4%) * 15.59 million, we can estimate that if Morpho implements protocol fees,its protocol revenue from February′s total fee of 15.59 million would range roughly from 598,700 to 997,800, which is 7% to 11.6% of Aave’s protocol revenue.
Token Incentives
Morpho also uses its own tokens for incentives, but unlike Aave, which incentivizes deposit insurance, Morpho directly incentivizes borrowing and lending activities. As a result, Morpho’s core business data may not be as organically strong as Aave’s.

Morpho’s Token Incentives Dashboard Source: https://rewards.morpho.org/

According to Morpho’s token incentive dashboard, in the Ethereum market, Morpho’s current overall subsidy rate for borrowing is approximately 0.2%, and for deposits, it is about 2%. In the Base market, the borrowing subsidy rate is about 0.29%, and the deposit subsidy rate is approximately 3%.
Morpho has frequently adjusted token incentives. Since December of last year, the Morpho community initiated three proposals to gradually reduce the token subsidies for user borrowing and lending activities.
The latest Morpho incentive adjustment occurred on February 21, reducing the number of reward tokens on ETH and BASE by 25%. Post-adjustment, the annual incentive expenditure of Morpho will be:
Ethereum: 11,730,934.98 MORPHO/yearBase: 3,185,016.06 MORPHO/year
Total: 14,915,951.04 MORPHO/year
Based on today’s Morpho market price (March 3, 2024), the corresponding annual incentive budget is $31.92 million. Given Morpho’s current protocol scale and generated fees, this incentive amount is quite substantial.
However, it is expected that Morpho will continue to reduce incentive expenditures and eventually cease subsidies altogether.
Competitive Landscape

Data Source: Tokenterminal

In terms of market share of total loan amounts, Morpho accounts for 10.55%, slightly higher than Spark, but still significantly behind Aave, placing it in the second tier of the lending market.
Morpho’s Competitive Advantages
Morpho’s moat mainly comes from the following two aspects:
Solid Security History: Morpho’s protocol hasn’t been around for too long; since the launch of its yield optimization product, it has been operational for nearly three years without any major security incidents. This track record has built a solid reputation for security, as evidenced by the increasing volume of funds it attracts, reflecting user trust.Focus on Lending Base Protocol: This approach, previously analyzed, helps attract more participants into the ecosystem, providing a richer and faster selection of lending options, enhancing specialization in different areas, and reducing operational costs.
Challenges and Risks
Morpho faces challenges from competition with other lending protocols, and the ecological impact of L1 competitors like Ethereum and Solana. Additionally, its token will face significant unlock pressures over the next year.
According to Tokenomist data, Morpho’s new token unlocks over the next year will equal 98.43% of its currently circulating supply, resulting in an inflation rate close to 100%. Most of these tokens belong to early strategic investors, early contributors, and Morpho DAO, potentially exerting significant downward pressure on the token price.
Valuation Reference
Although Morpho has not yet activated protocol fees, based on its generated protocol fees, we have estimated potential revenues upon fee activation. Based on its February protocol fee, projected revenue could range between 598,700 to 997,800.
Using today’s (March 3rd) FDV of $2,138,047,873 (Coingecko data) and the estimated income, its PS ratio ranges from 178 to 297, indicating a significantly higher valuation level compared to other mainstream lending protocols.

The PS ratios of mainstream lending protocols (based on FDV) Source：Tokenterminal

However, if calculated based on circulating market cap, Morpho’s circulating market cap as of today (March 3rd) is $481,361,461 (Coingecko data), resulting in a PS ratio of 40.2 to 67. Compared to other lending protocols, this metric is not excessively high.

The PS ratios of mainstream lending protocols (based on MC) Source：Tokenterminal

Of course, using FDV as a market cap reference is a more conservative valuation comparison method.
1.3 Kamino: The Number One Player on Solana
Kamino Finance is a comprehensive DeFi protocol based on Solana, established in 2022. Its initial product launch was an automated management tool for concentrated liquidity. Currently, it has integrated lending, liquidity, leverage, and trading functions. However, lending remains its core business, contributing the majority of the protocol’s revenue. Kamino charges various fees for its services. In the lending sector, these include a commission on interest income, an initial fee charged at the time of borrowing, and liquidation fees. For liquidity management, fees include deposit fees, withdrawal fees, and performance fees.
Current Business Status
Active Loans

Kamino’s Key Data Metrics Source: https://risk.kamino.finance/

Currently, Kamino’s loan size is 1.27 billion, with a peak loan volume of 1.538 billion occurring in late January this year.

Kamino’s Borrowing Volume Trend Source: https://allez.xyz/kamino

Revenue

Kamino Protocol Total Revenue Source: DefiLlama

January was the highest revenue month for the Kamino protocol, reaching 3.99 million. February also performed well, with revenue at 3.43 million.

The revenue of the Kamino protocol comes from lending Source: DefiLlama

In January, for instance, lending accounted for 89.5% of Kamino’s protocol revenue.
Token Incentives
Unlike other lending protocols that directly use token incentives, Kamino employs a new incentive method called the “seasonal points system.” Users earn project points by completing designated activities and receive a share of the total token rewards at the end of the season based on their points.
Kamino’s first season lasted three months and distributed 7.5% of the total token supply as a genesis airdrop. The second season also lasted three months, distributing 3.5% of the tokens.
Based on the current token price, the total 11% of KMNO tokens distributed over these two seasons is valued at $105 million, significantly driving Kamino’s rapid growth over the past year.
Kamino’s third season is currently underway. Unlike previous seasons, it began on August 1st last year and has continued for over six months, with no end yet. This has not slowed Kamino’s growth; if the third season’s airdrop mirrors the second, the incentive could be valued between 30 to 40 million.
Notably, one of the main functions of Kamino’s KMNO token is to accelerate point acquisition through staking, enhancing user engagement and token retention.
Competitive Landscape
On the Solana blockchain, major lending protocols include Kamino, Solend, and MarginFi.
Kamino: Currently holds 70% to 75% of the market share (by loan volume), with its market presence on Solana even stronger than Aave’s on Ethereum.Solend: Led the market from 2022 to 2023 but experienced slowed growth in 2024, reducing its market share to below 20%.MarginFi: Faced a management crisis in April 2024, leading to a mass withdrawal of user assets and dropping its market share to single digits.
Kamino’s total value locked (TVL) has secured a stable position in the top two on Solana, second only to Jito, which focuses on staking. Its lending TVL has also significantly surpassed former competitors like Solend and MarginFi.
Competitive Advantages of Kamino
Rapid Product Iteration and Strong Delivery Capability: Founded in 2022 by members of the Hubble team, Kamino was initially positioned as the first concentrated liquidity market maker optimizer on Solana. This pioneering product met user needs in the concentrated liquidity market making by offering an automated, optimized yield liquidity vault solution. Building on this foundation, Kamino has expanded into lending, leverage, trading, and other modules, forming a full-stack DeFi product suite. Such integrated DeFi projects across multiple scenarios are rare, and Kamino’s team continues to explore new ventures.Proactive Ecological Integration: Kamino has been actively building a network of partnerships both within and outside the Solana ecosystem. A notable example is its integration with PayPal stablecoin—Kamino was the first Solana protocol to launch and support PYUSD lending, taking a leading role in the asset’s expansion. Additionally, its collaboration with Solana staking project Jito resulted in leverage products related to JitoSOL, attracting many SOL stakers to Kamino. With the announcement of Kamino Lend’s V2 upgrade in 2024, plans include introducing order book lending, supporting real-world assets (RWA), and opening modular interfaces for other protocols. These moves will further embed Kamino in Solana’s foundational financial infrastructure, making it harder for competitors to challenge its position as more projects are built on Kamino and new capital prefers to flow into it.Economies of Scale and Network Effects: The DeFi lending space exhibits a noticeable “winner-takes-all” effect, with Kamino’s rapid expansion in 2024 exemplifying this network effect. A high TVL and liquidity mean safer borrowing and lower slippage, boosting confidence for significant investors to enter the platform. This substantial fund scale acts as a competitive barrier: capital typically flows to platforms with the most liquidity, further augmenting the platform’s scale. Kamino benefits from the positive feedback of these network effects through its early accumulation of liquidity and users.Strong Track Record in Risk Management: To date, Kamino has not experienced any major security incidents or large-scale liquidations. In contrast, competitors like MarginFi have faced issues that drove ecosystem users toward Kamino.
Challenges and Risks
Aside from common risks faced by newer lending protocols, such as contract security and asset parameter design, Kamino’s potential issues include:
Token Economy, Inflation Pressure, and Profit Distribution
Kamino employs a points system similar to a Ponzi model, akin to Ethena. If the value of future airdropped tokens falls short of expectations, it may lead to some user attrition (though given its current scale, this is less of a concern for the project’s objectives). Additionally, according to tokenomics data, a significant amount of KMNO tokens will be unlocked over the next year, with an inflation rate of 170% based on the current circulating supply. Furthermore, all current protocol revenue seems to be funneled into the team’s pockets, without distribution to token holders or even being added to the treasury. While it’s typical for decentralized governance to be absent in early stages, if protocol revenue isn’t shifted to a DAO-controlled treasury and lacks transparent governance and financial planning, entirely monopolized by the core team, the expected value of protocol tokens may decline further.
Development of the Solana Ecosystem
Although Solana’s ecosystem development in this cycle has outperformed Ethereum, apart from memes, Solana has yet to see a track type with a clear Product-Market Fit (PMF). DeFi remains Ethereum’s strong point. Solana’s ability to expand asset types and capacity and attract more capital will be crucial for Kamino’s potential growth ceiling.
Valuation Reference

Kamino’s 30-day protocol revenue Data Source: https://allez.xyz/kamino/revenue

Using Kamino’s recent 30-day revenue and its Fully Diluted Valuation (FDV) as benchmarks, we calculate the Price-to-Sales (PS) ratio for its FDV and Market Cap based on data from CoinGecko, resulting in:
FDV PS = 34, MC PS = 4.7. This earnings multiple is relatively low compared to other major lending protocols.
1.4. MakerDAO: Old Roots, New Blossoms?
MakerDAO is one of the earliest DeFi protocols on the Ethereum blockchain, founded in 2015, making it nearly a decade old. With its first-mover advantage, its stablecoin DAI (including its upgraded version USDS) has long been the largest decentralized stablecoin in the market.
In terms of its business model, MakerDAO’s primary revenue comes from the stability fees paid for generating DAI and from the spread of DAI. This model is quite similar to the interest spread in lending protocols: borrowing DAI from the protocol incurs fees; providing excess liquidity to the protocol (sUSDS & sDAI) earns interest.
Moreover, looking at the business process, generating DAI with a CDP (Collateralized Debt Position) by depositing ETH is not much different from depositing ETH into AAVE to borrow USDC. Therefore, in early DeFi analyses, many regarded CDP protocols like MakerDAO as a form of lending protocol. With the brand upgrade to Sky, MakerDAO also launched a standalone lending protocol called Spark, which is why we consider MakerDAO as a lending protocol and analyze it in this section.
Current Business Status
Active Loans
For a stablecoin protocol, the most important metric is the scale of its stablecoin, which corresponds to the loan size for lending protocols.

Source: Sky Official Website

The loan size for MakerDAO is currently close to 8 billion. It is still below the last cycle′s peak of 10.3 billion.
Spark’s loan size is around $1.6 billion, higher than that of the established lending protocol Compound but slightly lower than Mophro mentioned above.

Source: Tokenterminal

Revenue
The concept corresponding to protocol revenue for MakerDAO and lending protocols should be the sum of all revenues, minus the interest costs paid to sDAI and sUSDS. From the chart below, we can see that MakerDAO’s revenue primarily consists of stability fees, totaling $421 million, which constitutes the vast majority of its income. Other contributions such as liquidation fees and price stability module charges are minimal.

Historical Revenue of MakerDAO Source: Sky Official Website

Within stability fees, the DAI issued through Spark is expected to generate an annualized stability fee of 140 million, while DAI directly generated from USDC can yield 125 million in stability fees. These two parts account for two-thirds of the stability fees. The remaining stability fees come from DAI generated by RWA (71.83 million) and crypto asset-collateralized (78.61 million).

MakerDAO’s Liabilities and Annual Revenue Source: Sky Official Website

To incentivize the generation of stability fees at this scale, MakerDAO is expected to pay 246 million annually, MakerDAO′s annual protocol revenue is approximately 175 million, with an average weekly income of $3.36 million.
MakerDAO also reported its protocol operating expenses, totaling 96.6 million annually. After deducting operating expenses from the protocol revenue, the net profit is approximately 78.4 million, which is the main source for MKR and SKY buybacks.
Token Incentives
One reason for MakerDAO’s recent brand upgrade is the lack of additional MKR reserves to incentivize new business growth. Currently, MakerDAO’s token incentives are mainly used to encourage the deposit of USDS. Since the incentive plan’s launch at the end of September 2024, 274 million SKY tokens have been distributed over five months, equivalent to 17.4 million, with an annualized incentive amount of around 42 million.

Source: Sky Official Website

Competitive Landscape
Currently, MakerDAO’s market share in the stablecoin sector is 4.57%. Stablecoins are one of the clearest areas of demand for cryptocurrency. As an established stablecoin, MakerDAO has built certain advantages, such as brand impact and first-mover advantage. This was evident in the previous Curve liquidity battle, where DAI, as part of 3CRV, could naturally benefit from significant incentives released by other stablecoin projects aiming to establish popularity.
However, the competitive situation for MakerDAO in the stablecoin sector is not optimistic. As shown in the market share chart below, MakerDAO’s market share (represented by the pink segment) decreased during this cycle instead of increasing.

Market Share of the Top Ten Stablecoins Source: Tokenterminal

The core factor behind this phenomenon is that DAI, the third-largest stablecoin, has lost (or perhaps never truly had) the function of a settlement tool. Currently, users hold USDT and DAI for entirely different purposes: USDT is primarily used as a settlement tool, while DAI is held for leveraging and yield purposes. Aside from both being pegged to the US dollar, they share few commonalities.
Stablecoins with settlement capabilities have strong network effects, but unfortunately, DAI lacks such functions, making it difficult to develop network effects.
In terms of issuance scale, DAI’s market share is gradually decreasing. DAI still hasn’t returned to its 2021 peak issuance level, while USDT’s issuance continues to rise, having doubled since the end of 2021.
Stablecoins solely as yield tools have limited potential. Growth relies on ongoing yield incentives and various external conditions (such as relatively high US Treasury rates). Achieving long-term organic growth is crucial for MakerDAO to thrive anew in the stablecoin market.
Challenges and Risks
Beyond the challenges we’ve previously analyzed, MakerDAO also faces competition from newcomers.
The new stablecoin player, Ethena, has grown rapidly. In less than a year, its market size is already 60% that of MakerDAO’s. Ethena’s core product focuses on yield-driven stablecoins and has a significant advantage over MakerDAO: its yield base—”arbitrage profits from cryptocurrency perpetual contracts”—is much higher than MakerDAO’s “Treasury RWA yields.” In the medium to long term, if Treasury rates continue to decline, USDE will demonstrate a greater competitive edge over DAI.
Furthermore, MakerDAO’s governance capabilities are concerning. With a team costing $97 million annually, MakerDAO’s governance outcomes are inefficient and opaque. A prime example is the costly rebranding from MakerDAO to SKY, only to later reconsider reverting to Maker—a process that seems almost whimsical.
Valuation Reference
With protocol revenue of $175 million, MKR’s current price-to-sales (PS) ratio is about 7.54, making it relatively cheaper compared to its main competitor, Ethena (22). Historically, MKR’s PS ratio has also been consistently low.

PS Ratios of Stablecoin Projects Excluding MakerDAO Source: Tokenterminal

2. Liquid Staking Sector – Lido and Jito
Liquid staking stands as one of crypto’s native verticals, offering enhanced liquidity and composability compared to native staking mechanisms. This inherent value proposition drives sustained demand and establishes its pivotal role within PoS chain ecosystems. Notably, the protocols commanding the largest TVL on Ethereum and Solana – the two most significant PoS chains – are both liquid staking solutions: Lido and Jito, which we will subsequently analyze.
For liquid staking protocols, the paramount evaluation metric remains staked asset volume (equivalent to TVL in this context). The operational model introduces a third-party dynamic through node operators, necessitating a revenue-sharing arrangement where protocol revenue is partially distributed to these network participants. Consequently, gross profit emerges as a more indicative performance benchmark than raw revenue figures. Concurrently, token incentives – representing protocol expenditure – must be rigorously evaluated to complete the economic assessment framework.
2.1 Lido: Treading Carefully on Ethereum
Current Business Status
Lido launched its operations at the end of 2020 with the opening of ETH staking, and within six months, it secured a leading position in Ethereum network liquid staking. Previously, Lido was the largest liquid staking service provider on the Luna network and the second largest on the Solana network, having expanded its services to nearly all major PoS networks. However, starting in 2023, Lido began a strategic contract, and currently, ETH liquid staking is Lido’s sole business. Its business model is straightforward: Lido stakes users’ ETH through various node operators on Ethereum, taking a 10% share of the staking rewards as protocol revenue.
Assets Staked
Currently, more than 9.4 million ETH are staked in Lido, accounting for about 8% of circulating ETH. This gives Lido a staking asset size (TVL) of over 20 billion, making it the protocol with the largest TVL today. At its peak, Lido′s TVL was nearly 40 billion.

Source: Tokenterminal

The fluctuation in the staked asset size, when measured in ETH, is much smaller. Since 2024, the amount of ETH staked with Lido has remained relatively stable. Most of the changes in Lido’s staked asset size are due to fluctuations in the price of ETH.

Lido’s Staked Asset Size in ETH Source: DeFiLlama
Lido’s staked asset size has continued to grow, primarily due to the gradual increase in Ethereum’s network staking rate (from 0% to 27%). As a leading liquid staking service provider, Lido has benefited from the overall market growth.
Gross Profit
Lido takes 10% of staking rewards as protocol revenue. Currently, this revenue is split, with 50% going to node operators and 50% to the DAO, resulting in a 5% gross profit. As shown in the chart below, Lido’s gross profit has steadily increased. Over the past year, the weekly gross profit of the Lido protocol has fluctuated between 750,000 and 1.5 million.

Source: Tokenterminal

It can be observed that Lido’s protocol revenue is strongly correlated with the size of staked assets, driven by their fee structure. Weekly changes in Lido’s protocol revenue are mainly due to fluctuations in the price of ETH.
Token Incentives
In the first two years after launch (2021-2022), Lido spent a significant amount of LDO tokens to incentivize the liquidity of its stETH and ETH. Over two years, it expended over $200 million in token incentives, which helped ensure ETH liquidity during major market liquidity crises, such as China’s BTC mining ban in May 2021, the LUNA crash in May 2022, and the FTX collapse in November 2022. This resulted in Lido’s leading position in liquid staking on the Ethereum network.
After this, Lido’s spending on token incentives significantly decreased, with expenditures below $10 million in the past year. The primary allocation of these token incentives is towards ecosystem development. Lido maintains its current market share with almost no need for token incentives.

Source: Tokenterminal

Competitive Landscape
In the realm of liquid staking projects on the Ethereum network, few can compete with Lido. Currently, the second-largest liquid staking project, RocketPool, has a staked asset size that is less than 10% of Lido’s.
Among newer projects, the Liquid Restaking project ether.fi poses some competitive pressure on Lido. However, ether.fi’s staked asset size is only about 20% of Lido’s. Additionally, with Eigenlayer’s token issuance, the growth rate of ether.fi’s staked assets have significantly slowed, making it unlikely to challenge Lido’s position in Ethereum staking.

Source： Dune

Over time, Lido has developed a significant moat:
Network Effects from stETH (wstETH) Liquidity and Composability: Beyond the liquidity advantages mentioned earlier, stETH is accepted as collateral by all major lending and stablecoin protocols. This unmatched composability among LSTs can significantly influence new stakers’ choices.Accumulation of Security Credit and Brand Recognition: Since its launch, Lido has not experienced major security mishaps. Combined with its long-standing market leadership, this reputation makes it a key consideration for whale users and institutions when selecting staking service providers. Notable examples include Justin Sun and Mantle, before developing their mETH, who used Lido’s services.
Challenges and Risks
Lido currently faces significant challenges related to the decentralization demands of the Ethereum network.
For PoS chains, stakers determine consensus formation, and the Ethereum ecosystem is particularly dedicated to decentralization among mainstream PoS chains. As a result, concerns about Lido’s scale have been quite “stringent.” When Lido’s staked assets reached 30% of the Ethereum network’s total, there were calls to limit Lido’s growth. The Ethereum Foundation has been actively adjusting its staking mechanisms to prevent any “overly large single staking entity” from emerging.
For dApps, a significant challenge is when their sole underlying blockchain doesn’t support or restricts their business development. This presents a long-term challenge for Lido. Despite recognizing this and focusing entirely on Ethereum by cutting off operations on other chains from 2023, results have been limited.
Moreover, while the current ETH staking rate is below 30% (at 28%), there’s still a notable gap compared to other top PoS chains like Solana (65%), ADA (60%), and SUI (77%). However, the Ethereum team has historically wanted to keep the staking rate under 30%, limiting Lido’s potential market expansion.
Additionally, ETH’s underperformance in this cycle has been challenging for Lido, whose success is closely tied to ETH’s price.
Valuation Reference
Over the past year, LDO’s PS ratio has been at historic lows. In the past six months, it has consistently remained below 20.

It’s also worth noting that there is a possibility of protocol revenue being converted into LDO revenue this year. Starting in 2024, there have been multiple community proposals to allocate protocol revenue (the 5% allocated to the DAO) to $LDO holders. However, the core team, out of caution, has opposed this idea, and several governance votes have not passed. With the regulatory environment becoming significantly more relaxed and the protocol achieving accounting profitability from 2024 onwards (meaning revenue exceeds all expenses, including team salaries), the core team has officially included in their 2025 goals a discussion on “directly linking protocol revenue to LDO.” We might see $LDO beginning to capture staking revenue from the protocol in 2025.

Lido Protocol Economics (the blue-purple line in the chart represents the protocol’s “net profit”) Source: Dune

2.2 Jito: Quietly Profiting on Solana
Current Business Status
Jito is a leading liquid staking service provider on the Solana network and also serves as an MEV infrastructure. In 2024, they began offering restaking services, although the scale is still small, with TVL just exceeding $100 million, and the revenue sources for restaking remain unclear. Jito’s main businesses are still liquid staking services and MEV provisioning.
The liquid staking service that Jito offers on Solana is similar to Lido’s on the Ethereum network, utilizing node operators to stake deposited SOL and extracting 10% from user earnings as protocol revenue.
In terms of MEV, the Jito Labs team previously took 5% of all income. However, with the recent launch of NCN (Node Consensus Networks) and proposals like JIP-8 at the end of January this year, the Jito protocol now obtains 3% of MEV revenue, distributed as follows: 2.7% goes to Jito DAO, 0.15% to stakers in the JTO Vault, and 0.15% to jitoSOL and other LST stakers.
When users conduct transactions on Solana, the gas fee they pay can be divided into three categories: base fee, priority fee, and MEV tip. The base fee is mandatory, while the priority fee and MEV tip are optional, both primarily aiming to increase transaction priority. The difference is that the priority fee boosts the transaction’s priority in the on-chain phase, which is universally set by the Solana protocol and belongs to validators (i.e., stakers). The MEV tip, however, is an independent agreement between the user and MEV service provider, aiming to obtain a higher transaction priority with the MEV provider (a prerequisite for being on-chain), with specific allocation determined by the MEV provider.
Currently, Jito’s MEV service returns 94% of the fees to validators, with 3% extracted by Jito Labs and 3% distributed to the Jito protocol. In the Solana network’s gas fees, the base fee is negligible, while the proportions of the priority fee and MEV tip are similar.

Solana Network’s REV (i.e., total fees paid by users) Source: Blockworks

Compared to Lido on Ethereum, Jito can extract more value from MEV revenue due to its near-monopoly in Solana’s MEV ecosystem (similar to Flashbots’ position in Ethereum).
Next, let’s look at Jito’s specific data:
Assets Staked
Currently, Jito’s staked assets (liquid staking) exceed $2.5 billion.

Data Source: Tokenterminal

In terms of SOL, Jito has staked 15.82 million SOL, which is approximately 3% of the total circulating supply of SOL. Over the past year, the amount of staked SOL has shown a steady linear increase.

Source: Jito Official Website

In the MEV domain, Jito holds a near-monopoly position in Solana. Of the 394 million SOL staked, over 94% utilize Jito’s MEV services.

Source: Jito Official Website

Gross Profit
Jito’s current protocol revenue comes from two sources: they take 10% of the yield generated by liquid staking and 3% of MEV income. Jito currently shares 4% of the liquid staking yield with node operators, resulting in a gross profit of 60% for this part of the revenue. Since I couldn’t find separate data for Jito’s gross profit, we’ll analyze it based on Jito’s revenue situation, as shown in the chart below:

Data Source: Tokenterminal

It can be seen that Jito’s revenue is closely tied to the activity on the Solana network. Starting from October 2024, their revenue increased significantly, exceeding 1 million weekly. There were two notable peaks: on November 20 and January 20, when Jito′s protocol revenue reached 4 million and $5.4 million, respectively, corresponding to major speculative waves on the chain. However, as activity on the Solana chain cooled, their revenue quickly decreased.
Regarding the MEV portion, since MEV revenue sharing was just introduced, I couldn’t find specific statistics on mainstream data sites or Dune. However, we can estimate based on Jito’s total MEV revenue. Below is Jito’s total MEV revenue situation:

Jito’s Total MEV Revenue Source: Jito Official Website

The trend of Jito’s total MEV revenue aligns with their liquid staking income. At its peak on January 20, this year, MEV’s total revenue was 100,000 SOL. After October 2024, the average daily MEV income was around 30,000 SOL, with a minimum of 10,000 SOL.
Using a protocol revenue rate of 3%, we back-calculate this period’s income. The highest single-day income was 3,000 SOL, equivalent to approximately 840,000 at the time. The highest weekly income was 14,400 SOL, about 3.7 million, and the average daily MEV income was 1,000 SOL (approximately 170,000U, For more details, readers can refer to the prediction in the JIP-8 proposal.
Overall, in addition to the current liquid staking revenue, MEV income can roughly increase Jito’s revenue scale by 50%.
From a gross profit perspective, liquid staking revenue generates an average weekly gross profit of around $600,000. The MEV revenue boasts a gross profit margin as high as 95% (with only the 0.15% allocated to jitoSOL not considered gross profit, and the portions entering the DAO and JTO Vault counted as gross profit). The corresponding gross profit is approximately $1,000,000 per week. This could increase Jito’s gross profit by about 150%, with the annualized gross profit reaching approximately $85 million.
It’s important to note that Jito’s revenue and gross profit are strongly related to the activity on the Solana network. As the meme trading frenzy on Solana has faded recently, their daily revenue has dropped to about 10% of its peak, showing significant volatility.
Token Incentives
For both liquid staking and MEV, Jito does not employ token incentives in their operations. The only form of token incentive was a 10% one-time token airdrop at launch.
Competitive Landscape
Restaking has not yet achieved a true product-market fit, so we will focus on Jito’s competitive situation in liquid staking and MEV.
In the Solana liquid staking market, although Jito launched in 2023, it has quickly risen to a leading position. Previously dominant players, Marinade and Lido, once held over 90% of the Solana liquid staking market. However, due to their own reasons, Jito has surpassed them.

Solana Liquid Staking Market Share Source: Dune

Since the end of 2023, the Solana liquid staking market has seen an influx of new players like Blazestake and Jupiter joining the fray. However, Jito’s market share remained unaffected initially. Starting in October 2024, exchange-based SOL liquid staking products (mainly Binance’s bnSOL, as well as Bybit’s bbSOL) caused a dip in Jito’s market share. This shift primarily arises from centralized exchanges’ inherent asset custodial advantage, as they converted their SOL investment products from native staking to liquid staking, offering users a superior experience and thereby quickly increasing their market share. From Figure 1, we also observe that the growth from bnSOL and bbSOL is relatively independent, not encroaching on the share of any specific LST protocols.
Currently, over 90% of Solana’s staking is still native, with less than 10% involving liquid staking. This leaves significant room for growth compared to Ethereum’s approximately 38% liquid staking rate. While participating in Solana’s native staking is much easier for average users than Ethereum’s, Solana’s liquid staking ratio may not eventually match Ethereum’s. Nonetheless, liquid staking offers better liquidity and composability. In the future, Jito is expected to continue benefiting from the overall increase in Solana’s liquid staking scale.

Solana Staking Market Share Source: Dune

In the MEV sector, Jito commands over 90% of the market share with virtually no competition. The potential for this market largely depends on the future activity on the Solana chain.
Overall, Jito has a solid leading edge in both the liquid staking and MEV sectors on the Solana network. This was also underscored when the SEC’s ETP working group consulted Jito on ETF staking issues.
Challenges and Risks
Jito’s current business and income are heavily reliant on the popularity of the Solana network, making this the primary risk they face. After the TRUMP and LIBRA events, interest in Meme coins cooled rapidly, causing a sharp decline in SOL’s price and a resulting decrease in Jito’s revenues. Whether Jito’s business can regain momentum in the future will largely depend on Solana network activity.
In the liquid staking domain, competition from centralized exchanges could impact Jito’s market share.
From an investment standpoint, another potential risk is the circulation rate of the JTO tokens, which is less than 40%. A significant 15% unlock occurred last December, and there will be continuous linear unlocking over the next two years, with an inflation rate of 62% in the next year. The selling pressure from early investors is also a potential risk factor.

Source: Tokennomist

Valuation Reference
With the recent rise in Solana’s popularity, the fully diluted PS valuation of JTO has rapidly decreased, currently down to around 33. This valuation does not yet account for the recently started MEV income. If MEV income is considered, the fully diluted valuation of JTO would decrease to approximately 22.

Source: Tokenterminal

Additionally, JTO might accelerate revenue sharing. Currently, 0.15% of the MEV revenue collected by the protocol is allocated to JTO stakers. As revenue continues to grow, more income will likely be distributed to JTO stakers in the future.

Autors: Lawrence Lee, Mint Ventures pētnieks
1. Ievads
Hyperliquid var uzskatīt par vienu no lielākajiem izcelšanās punktiem kriptovalūtu tirgū pēdējā laikā, izņemot AI un Meme tendences. Tās tirgus pievilcības stratēģijas — atteikšanās no VC finansējuma, 70% savu tokenu piešķiršana kopienai un visu platformas ieņēmumu pārdalīšana atpakaļ tās lietotājiem — ir piesaistījušas plašu uzmanību. Turklāt, izmantojot savus ieņēmumus tieši HYPE tokenu atkāpei, Hyperliquid veicināja HYPE cirkulējošo tirgus ierobežojumu, ātri pārsniedzot UNI, iegūstot vietu starp top 25 kriptovalūtām. Tajā pašā laikā šī pieeja ir veicinājusi platformas biznesa rādītāju eksplozīvo izaugsmi visos aspektos.

Autors: Aleks Xu, pētniecības partneris Mint Ventures
Ievads
Ja mēs nosauktu Layer 1 blokķēdi, kurai ir bijusi visnozīmīgākā biznesa izaugsme šajā bullis tirgus ciklā, vairums cilvēku, iespējams, atbildētu: Solana.
Neatkarīgi no tā, vai runa ir par aktīvo adreses skaitu vai darījumu maksu ieņēmumiem, Solanas tirgus daļa starp Layer 1s ir strauji paplašinājusies:
Aktīvās adreses: Solanas aktīvo adresu īpatsvars ir pieaudzis no 3,48% līdz 56,83%, salīdzinājumā ar iepriekšējo gadu pieaugums ir 1533%.

Mēneša aktīvo adresu tirgus daļa L1s

Autors: Lorrens Lī, Mint Ventures pētnieks
Pēc tam, kad tika nodrošinātas divas secīgas finansēšanas kārtas, tostarp 12 miljonu dolāru investīcijas, ko vadīja Polychain un finansējums no Binance Labs, Solayer, atkārtotās likmes projekts Solana ķēdē, ir izrādījies viens no nedaudzajiem izciliem piemēriem DeFi telpā nesen. Tā TVL ir pakāpeniski pieaugusi, tagad pārsniedzot Orca un ieņemot 12. vietu TVL Solana ķēdē.

Solana projekta TVL rādītāji
Avots: DeFiLlama
Kā galvenais kriptovalūtu apakšsektors, likmju sektors ir vislielākais kopējais vērtības bloķējums (TVL) starp visām kriptovalūtu nozarēm. Tomēr, neskatoties uz savu nozīmīgumu, galveno likmju projektu pārstāvju žetoni, piemēram, LDO, EIGEN un ETHFI, šajā ciklā ir cietuši ievērojamus zaudējumus. Izņemot ar Ethereum tīklu saistītās iekšējās problēmas, vai ir kādi papildu iemesli šiem izaicinājumiem?

Lidija Vu, Mint Ventures pētniece

Dati ir spēkā līdz 2024. gada 8. oktobrim
TL; DR
Šaurā nozīmē prognožu tirgi parasti izslēdz tradicionālās azartspēles un sporta derības. Viņi vairāk koncentrējas uz informācijas atklāšanu un palīdzību sabiedrības lēmumu pieņemšanā.
Prognožu tirgi ne vienmēr var būt "precīzi". Neveiksmes bieži rodas tāpēc, ka cilvēki mēdz uzskatīt prognožu tirgu sniegtās varbūtības kā konstatētus faktus.
Kriptovalūtas prognožu tirgos ir ieviesušas brīvākas darījumu summas un bezrūpīgāku maksājumu pieredzi.

Autors Lorenss Lī, Mint Ventures pētnieks
Ievads
Kriptoekonomika ir ievērojami augusi, kā rezultātā ir izveidota sarežģīta ķēdes infrastruktūra. Neskatoties uz šiem sasniegumiem, lietotāja pieredze joprojām ir jāuzlabo. Lietotāju mijiedarbības uzlabošana ir ļoti svarīga, jo tā varētu piesaistīt vairāk dalībnieku blokķēdes ekosistēmā. Tas, visticamāk, stimulētu turpmāku infrastruktūras attīstību un dažādotu uzņēmējdarbības modeļus, radot dinamiku, kurā progress vienā jomā veicina izaugsmi citā — parādību, ko mēs varētu raksturot kā "kāpnēm līdzīgu pakāpienu efektu". Kriptogrāfijas “1995. gada brīdis” var būt atkarīgs no uz lietotāju orientētas slepkavas lietojumprogrammas vai operētājsistēmas parādīšanās.

Autors: Līdija Vu, pētniece Mint Ventures

Ja tu esi sajucis, sastopoties ar „ķēdes abstrakcijas” jēdzienu pirmo reizi, tu neesi viens.
Tas šķiet nozīmīgs, ar daudziem projektiem un plašu finansējumu, visi apgalvo, ka ir standarts… tomēr tā praktiskais pielietojums vēl ir jāatklāj. Vai „ķēdes abstrakcija” ir vēl viens modes vārds jaunā Web3 koncepciju plūsmā?
Šis raksts sāksies ar jēdzienu, atgriezīsies pie pamatjautājumiem un centīsies radīt kaut ko no nekas.

Autors Alekss Sju, Mint Ventures pētniecības partneris

Aave jau sen ir bijis manā radarā, un tikai pirms dažām dienām tās pārvaldības komanda ACI pārvaldības forumā atklāja Aave jauninātās marķierikādes projektu. Šajā priekšlikumā ir sīki aprakstīti gaidāmie uzlabojumi galvenajās jomās, tostarp Aave marķiera vērtības uztveršana un protokola drošības moduļu uzlabojumi.
Lai iegūtu plašāku ieskatu par Aave, izlasiet manu neseno pētījumu Altcoins Keep Falling, Time to Refocus on DeFi, kur es rūpīgi novērtēju tā pašreizējo statusu, konkurences priekšrocības un marķiera novērtējumu.

Autors: Alex Xu, Mint Ventures pētniecības partneris un Lorenss Lī, Mint Ventures pētnieks
Ievads
Neskatoties uz to, ka DeFi projekti ir viena no nobriedušākajām nozarēm kriptovalūtu jomā, šajā vēršu skrējienā tie ir uzrādījuši neapmierinošus rezultātus. Pēdējā gada laikā DeFi sektors ir piedzīvojis nelielu pieaugumu par 41,3%, ievērojami atpaliekot no vidējā tirgus pieauguma 91% un Ethereum 75,8% pieauguma.

Avots: artemis
Koncentrējoties uz 2024. gada datiem vien, DeFi sektora sniegums ir grūti teikt pozitīvu, jo kopējais kritums ir 11,2%.

Lidija Vu, Mint Ventures pētniece

Lūdzu, ņemiet vērā: tā kā Quilibrium galvenais tīkls vēl nav palaists un publiskā informācija ir ierobežota, tā stimulēšanas mehānismu, tokenomikas, finansējuma un ceļveža apraksti ir balstīti uz publiskajiem resursiem un var mainīties nākotnē. Šis raksts ir paredzēts pētniecības un izglītības nolūkiem, un to nevajadzētu uzskatīt par ieguldījumu padomu. Mēs atzinīgi vērtējam visas atsauksmes.
Galvenās atziņas 
Tēzes
Quilibrium mērķis ir pārvarēt plaisu starp tradicionālā interneta skaitļošanas iespējām un blokķēdes decentralizēto raksturu, izveidojot unikālu decentralizētu mākoņdatošanas arhitektūru. Šī sintēze piedāvā līdzsvarotu pieeju, izmantojot abu pasaules stiprās puses.

Autors: Alekss Sju, Mint Ventures pētniecības partneris

Ievads
Šis kriptovalūtu tirgus cikls ir bijis visneiedvesmojošākais komerciālo inovāciju ziņā. Atšķirībā no iepriekšējā buļļu tirgus, kurā bija tādas fenomenālas tendences kā DeFi, NFT un GameFi, šim ciklam trūkst nozīmīgu nozares karsto punktu. Līdz ar to ir bijis lēns lietotāju bāzes, nozares investīciju un izstrādātāju aktivitātes pieaugums.
Šī tendence ir acīmredzama arī kriptovalūtu cenās. Visa cikla laikā lielākā daļa altkoīnu, tostarp ETH, ir pastāvīgi zaudējuši vērtību attiecībā pret BTC. Viedo līgumu platformu vērtēšanu lielā mērā nosaka to lietotņu labklājība. Kad inovācijas lietojumprogrammu izstrādē stagnē, kļūst sarežģīti paaugstināt publisko ķēžu vērtību.

Autors Alekss Sju, Mint Ventures pētniecības partneris
Ievads
Savā pēdējā ziņojumā mēs minējām, ka salīdzinājumā ar iepriekšējiem diviem cikliem pašreizējā kriptovalūtas skrējienā trūkst jauno uzņēmējdarbības modeļu un aktīvu stāstījumu. Mākslīgais intelekts (AI) ir viens no jaunajiem stāstījumiem Web3 telpā šajā ciklā. Šajā rakstā ir apskatīts gada aktuālākais AI projekts IO.NET un apkopotas domas par šādiem diviem jautājumiem:
AI+Web3 nepieciešamība komerciālajā vidē
Decentralizēta skaitļošanas tīkla izvietošanas nepieciešamība un izaicinājumi

Autors Lorenss Lī, Mint Ventures pētnieks

Ievads
Mint Ventures vienmēr ir rūpīgi sekojis Web3 spēlēm. Lai gan savulaik populārais Play-to-Earn modelis, ko ieviesa iepriekšējais buļļu tirgus, ir izkritis no diskusijas (to izcēla dramatiskais Axie Infinity un StepN kā Ponzi shēmu sabrukums), to maksimālais iesaistīšanās līmenis parādīja miljoniem ikdienas aktīvo lietotāju. , atzīmējot kriptogrāfijas telpas pirmo tikšanos ar “Massive Adoption”. Atšķirībā no sociālajiem produktiem, kas ir vēl viena kategorija ar masveida adopcijas potenciālu, spēlēm, protams, ir bagātāka un sarežģītāka ekonomiskā ekosistēma. Tas dod komandām izsmalcinātu telpu un lielāku kontroli, lai īstenotu dažādas nodokļu stratēģijas, kopā ar ieskaujošo pieredzi un neracionālo patēriņu, ko rada izsmalcināts dizains, tādējādi visticamāk saglabājot relatīvu līdzsvaru ekosistēmā ilgu laiku. Turklāt Web3 spēles lieliski izmanto kriptovalūtu marķieru iespējas, radot plašu investoru optimismu par tās nākotni.

Lidija Vu, Mint Ventures pētniece

Klasiskās ķēdes koncepcijas atsaiste
Šķiet, ka DefiLlama un CoinMarketCap skaitļi pārliecinoši parāda, ka TON ir "zem radara gigants starp ķēdēm" — pastāvīgi ierindojas labāko 20 skaitā pēc tirgus ierobežojuma, tomēr tā 24 stundu tirdzniecības apjoms pārsniedz 100. Neskatoties uz to, ka tika sasniegts jauns Total Value Locked (TVL) maksimums 53 miljonu ASV dolāru apmērā, tas nespēja iekļūt 50 populārāko publisko ķēžu sarakstā; turklāt tā tirgus maksimālā attiecība pret TVL sasniedza pārsteidzošu 293, kas ir 33 reizes lielāka nekā Ethereum.

👉Garuma ierobežojumu dēļ šeit tiek sniegta tikai daļa no atskaites. Lūdzu, noklikšķiniet uz saites, lai skatītu visu saturu:

https://mintventures.fund/pdf/Gelato-A-Veteran-in-Web3-Developer-Services-Embarks-on-a-RaaS-Journey

Autors: Lawrence Lee, Mint Ventures pētnieks

Investīciju darbs
Gelato daudzus gadus ir cieši iesaistīts izstrādātāju pakalpojumu jomā un ir izstrādājis visaptverošu rīku un pakalpojumu komplektu izstrādātājiem. Paredzams, ka tas panāks izrāvienu biznesā, integrējot šos piedāvājumus ar savu jaunizveidoto Rollup-as-a-Service (RaaS) platformu, kas tika uzsākta 2023. gada beigās. RaaS projekti pašlaik atrodas enerģiskas marķieru izdošanas fāzē. nozīmīgi projekti, piemēram, Altlayer, Dymension un Saga, kas nesen laiduši klajā savus žetonus. Turklāt šajā nozarē ir tādi labi finansēti konkurenti kā Conduit un Caldera. Ņemot vērā uzmanības un finansējuma pieplūdumu, sagaidāms, ka RaaS ainava pārskatāmā nākotnē joprojām būs tirgus interešu un aktivitāšu centrālais punkts.