Comparing results for buyback vs. ve-tokenomics. A small case study comparing two baskets consisting 4 biggest buyback tokens and 3 biggest ve-tokens. Takeaways: 1. The peformance gap "buyback vs. ve" is much smaller that it was stated in the original post: $67 vs $300 -> $81 vs. $139 2. The highest valuation multiples are concentrated in major assets like $HYPE and $UNI. This suggests that market attention and valuation premiums remain heavily concentrated in the largest projects. Ongoing observations: 1. Buybacks outperformed on price returns. $100 invested in each of the four buyback tokens one year ago would be worth $130 on average today (equal-weighted across the group). 2. ve-tokenomics underperformed. The same $100 investment across each of the three ve-tokens would be worth just $72 on average. 3. But price performance doesn't tell the whole story. Both groups generate economic value for token holders beyond price appreciation. 4. To account for this: - Buybacks: we account the reduction in total supply as a kind of an income, since each remaining token represents a larger share of the supply. - ve-tokenomics: we account for revenue claimable by token holders. 5. $HYPE was the strongest price performer. Excluding $HYPE, the buyback group's average ending value drops from $130 to $115. 6. Accounting for accumulated revenue in the position: Buybacks: $130 → $139 ve-tokenomics: $72 → $81 7. $HYPE and $UNI have relatively small supply reductions: just 1.6% and 1.3%, respectively. We calculate these figures against maximum supply (the FDV basis), since buybacks increase the proportional ownership of all remaining tokens. 8. $PUMP and $CAKE burned significantly larger portions of their supply, making their buyback-driven value accrual more substantial. 9. $PUMP and $CAKE trade at roughly the same P/FCFt multiples as $CRV and $PENDLE, around 17x, despite their fundamentally different value accrual mechanisms. 10. $AERO stands out with a P/FCFt below 10x, making it one of the cheapest assets in this comparison on a token-holder revenue basis. All the results are presented at the infographic Source: Valueverse API

We don't know why Defillama AI says that @CurveFinance annual revenue is less than $5m. - It's simply not true. - We estimate it $15.2m - $27.64m is our data. - Maybe it was an AI Slop? Our manually verified data for that: - $7.19m fees for veCRV holders - $20.45m bribes that protocol brought for all kind of veCRV holders (incl. @ConvexFinance owning a huge veCRV stake) - $15.23m veCRV holders yearly income, EXCLUDING vlCVX bribes (so direct veCRV bribes only!) With all due respect, DeFiLlama appears to lack bribe coverage and proper attribution of fees and bribe revenue to token holders. You can dig into all numbers yourself👇

Highlights on @citrini's selection: 8 major revenue generators over 15 tokens Valuation by cost Holders' Revenue* (P/FCFt 30D): 🥇@aerodrome's $AERO 5.7x, max-locked veAERO rev 🥈@pendle_fi's $PENDLE 16.1x, vePENDLE** rev 🥉@uniswap's $UNI 36.0x, $UNI buybacks rev *Lower number corresponds to higher token holder's revenue more per unit of token price: 5.7x means that $1 of revenue/year requires owning $5.7 of token equivalent **vePENDLE is taken since the majority of @pendle_fi revenue is still distributed to vePENDLE, not sPENDLE Source: Valueverse Data & API

A while ago, we teamed up with Yield Basis and delivered "A State of BTCFi", a joint report on how BTCs are used onchain. You can read it in the @yieldbasis article👇 The results are straightforward: • Only ~0.5% of existing BTCs or 246k are tokenized (can be used productively onchain) • Less than 50% of that (or ~104k only) are deployed somewhere • BTCFi has two clear leaders $cbBTC, $wBTC and one small runner-up $tBTC • The main use case is lending accounting for >80% of productive BTCs • Only the minority of BTCs are deployed to DEXes (mainly BTC-BTC or BTC-ETH pairs) We are not talking about that lending yield is <0.01% and all these BTCs are mainly used to borrow something else. BTC staking is heavilly subsidized, and LPs struggle to deposit to LP pairs due to Impermanent Loss. This report was covered by @BitcoinNews, @HTX_Global, and many others. BTCFi is so early.

$UNI Price–Revenue Divergence: - Sep 9: $UNI revenue starts outperforming the price trend - Price keeps declining/flat while revenue grows steadily over the following days - Just 8 days later, the market starts re-rating those cash flows $UNI moved from ~$6.5 to $9, and briefly higher. Stick to fundamentals.

$NEST revenue grew >3x counting 7D and 30D periods during recent 1.5 months: - 7D: $50k -> $169k, $8.82m annualized - 30D: $203k -> $655k, $7.97m annualized Cashflow valuation is 2.69-3x, meaning $NEST investors pay approximately $3 per $1 of real revenue captured by max-locked veNEST. Those who use $HYPE Engine earn additional $HYPE rewards on top of that. Comparing valuation with other DEXes by the price of $1 of revenue (see the table below): - 2.5-3x cheaper than $AERO - 10x cheaper than $UNI What is even more interesting: - it was achieved by operating only on HyperEVM - deployment on other chains could further multiply these numbers.

Fundamental valuation case study: $NEST $NEST captures trading fees/bribes earned by @nestexchange, HyperEVM MetaDEX Our data: $NEST trades now at 3.02× 30D P/FCFt Meaning: $NEST revenue is priced by the market as ~$3 per $1 of future cashflow It's one of the lowest valuation tracked by Valueverse👇

$UNI revenue growth outpaced the token price growth. See yourself: - 15 Aug: $3.25 price, 52x P/FCFt 30D - Recently (27 sep): $9.8 price (3x growth since 15th aug), 28.9x P/FCFt 30D - Revenue: $4.6m 30d prior 15th aug, $25m 27 sep, >5x rev growth. Annualized rev now is $159m

$PENDLE buybacks are distributed to sPENDLE and vePENDLE as rewards, so it's a way to distribute revenue to holders. Buybacks don't remove PENDLE from circulation forever. The majority of revenue is received by vePENDLE (~$16m/year), not sPENLDE (~$1.2m/year at current rate)

Pareto Rule for data is 99-1: - 1% of onchain data helps you to make money (with proper interpretation) - 99% of it doesn’t lead to valuable decisions but everyone tries to build it. Our business is 1%. Others can spend time for 99%

Hype gets attention. Fundamentals build durable businesses. Join today's @Genzio Space featuring our founder @vasily_sumanov alongside other builders and investors, sharing perspectives on separating signal from noise.

What happens if we value $HYPE against the supply that is actually exposed to its fundamentals? / Not just the liquid float / On this basis: buybacks are priced at roughly >150× annual revenue. The logic is simple: buybacks and burns should be measured against the entire supply they enrich. Locked tokens benefit from supply reduction just as much as liquid tokens do. Illiquidity affects the ability to sell, not the amount of value accrued. Revenue sources analyzed: 1. Buyback & burn (most known) 2. Staking yield (it's also holders revenue even if it is an expense for the protocol) 3. HyperEVM/HyperCore $HYPE burns and 4 = 2+3 Additional utility such as tiered discounts for stakers and buying something like tickers with $HYPE are not included here. In supply, everything is counted incl. team tokens, foundation, community grant, and future emissions that de-facto exist as tokens onchain. The fact that team tokens cannot currently be sold and staked in validators does not change the fact that they receive the full scope of $HYPE’s value accrual.

Token holders could programmatically own revenue flows of a business. It's not just ERC20 for $HYPE $CRV $AERO $YB etc. There is a code, this code shares revenue with holders. For truly programmatic value accrual "disabling buybacks" (how it sounds, lol!) should be impossible.