2026-01-03 16:31:07

Take a look at how different these two DeFi protocols are. One uses a combination of burning and buybacks to manage supply—permanently destroying 37 million tokens and then using $650 million in annual revenue to buy back 83 million tokens. Currently, its valuation is about 7 times its annual revenue. The other has a trading volume less than one-third of the first, and its annual earnings are 50 times lower, yet its valuation is as high as 40 times its revenue.

This reflects two completely different tokenomics philosophies. One chooses to support value by permanently reducing circulating supply with each transaction, gradually consuming it; the other directly distributes tokens to the community, following a distributed incentive approach. From the data, the former’s method of supporting token value through revenue seems more solid—just comparing revenue scale and valuation multiples reveals the difference.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

24 Likes

Reward
24
9
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

ForumLurker

· 01-06 15:52

The former method of destruction + buyback is really awesome; it feels like telling a story to the market—showing you real gold and silver smashing the market. The latter's 40x revenue valuation is indeed a bit outrageous. What are they thinking?

View OriginalReply0

FlashLoanLord

· 01-06 02:32

The former's method of destruction and buyback is indeed ruthless; the data speaks for itself. The latter's 40x revenue valuation... how inflated must that mindset be?

View OriginalReply0

SocialFiQueen

· 01-05 23:35

Look at this comparison: the former is about doing real work, while the latter relies solely on storytelling. The combination of destruction and buyback is indeed powerful. A 7x revenue valuation is much more solid, unlike some projects that boast a 40x price-to-sales ratio every day—it's ridiculous.

View OriginalReply0

FUDwatcher

· 01-03 17:01

Wait, that valuation based on the 40x income... how much hype would it take to justify that?

View OriginalReply0

TokenEconomist

· 01-03 17:01

actually, let me break this down... the burn-and-buyback model is basically just traditional stock buybacks wrapped in blockchain theater, ceteris paribus. 40x revenue multiple on the second one screams pure speculation to me, ngl.

Reply0

rugpull_ptsd

· 01-03 17:01

40x revenue valuation? How can you compare that? The latter is just pie-in-the-sky talk.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-bd883c58

· 01-03 16:59

Wow, 40x income? The multiplier has to be ridiculously high to really take off... The destruction and buyback strategy really has some flavor to it.

View OriginalReply0

LoneValidator

· 01-03 16:50

The difference is too big—one is 7 times the income, and the other is 40 times. The latter seems a bit outrageous.

View OriginalReply0

GweiTooHigh

· 01-03 16:39

The buyback and burn mechanism, to put it simply, is about artificially creating scarcity. The numbers can be a bit misleading, but the logic is clear... Another approach is directly airdropping to the community, which feels a bit hollow. How can a 40x valuation be sustained? This wave is about to explode.

View OriginalReply0