Data Analysis of Six Major Crypto Protocols: Revenues Keep Growing, Why Aren’t Token Prices Rising?

Author: Castle Labs

Compiled by: TechFlow

TechFlow Introduction: In the first half of this year, crypto protocols generated a total revenue of $7.42 billion, but most tokens failed to reflect the fundamentals of their protocols. Investors are beginning to shift from gambling to genuinely examining product revenue distribution and token value capture mechanisms, rather than blindly chasing gains. This article breaks down the revenue sources, distribution methods, and token emission pressures of six major protocols, revealing why high revenue does not equal token price appreciation—and why this is a critical issue every token holder should understand today.

Since the beginning of the year, crypto protocols have collectively generated $7.42 billion in revenue.

Figure: Net token value flow for six major protocols in the first half of 2026 (holder revenue minus token emissions). Hyperliquid had a net inflow of $98.67 million, while Sky had a net outflow of $25.03 million. Source: Castle Labs.

Despite these staggering figures, most tokens in the crypto space still fail to reflect the success of their underlying protocols.

Not all revenue is created equal.

This is an issue that has plagued the industry from the start, but the situation is changing. The questions investors ask when evaluating tokens are evolving. They are now focusing on product revenue generation, expenditures, and value capture for token holders, marking a shift from speculative gambling to genuine investment.

Most of the time, token holders seek answers to the following questions:

How does the protocol generate revenue, and is it sustainable?

How do they distribute revenue? Can token holders derive value from it?

How much token value is used for emissions, including inflation, unlocks, and incentives?

Is there an equity distribution that grants greater rights to certain parties over existing holders?

Answering these four questions determines a project's standing in the eyes of investors, but most projects fail to provide clear answers. Each token has a different value capture mechanism, and some have none at all. Even when direct value sharing exists, token performance may fall short of expectations.

Take PumpFun as an example: Since its token launch, the protocol has generated approximately $450 million in revenue (over a one-year timeframe), but the token has been in a perpetual decline due to factors such as token unlock schedules and unmet airdrop expectations.

Figure: PumpFun's daily revenue (orange) and token price (cyan) trend since the launch of the PUMP token. Revenue and token price continue to diverge. Source: Castle Labs.

This article focuses on analyzing the different ways top-tier protocols generate and distribute revenue, considering emission and incentive factors to highlight the details investors should pay attention to when evaluating a protocol or token.

Crypto Revenue Sources and Distribution

Before discussing value capture for token holders, the foundational question is to quantify the revenue generated by major products and how it is distributed. This analysis examines six protocols (Aave, Aerodrome, Hyperliquid, Pump, Sky, Uniswap), which collectively generated $726 million in revenue in the first half of 2026.

While higher revenue can be a sign of a sustainable business, looking at this number in isolation is not sufficient. First, to account for short-term volatility, it is best to measure revenue over different timeframes to assess its sustainability. Therefore, we also compare revenue from Q1 and Q2 of 2026 and measure the change between them. For most protocols, the change is negative, reflecting weaker performance in Q2 due to overall market conditions.

Figure: Comparison of revenue for six major protocols between Q1 and Q2 of 2026. Only Uniswap achieved positive quarter-over-quarter growth (+26.94%), while overall revenue fell from $394 million to $332 million. Source: Castle Labs.

Turning to revenue sources, Hyperliquid generates revenue from trading fees on its perpetual exchange (native + HIP-3), spot market fees, code auctions, priority fees, and HyperEVM gas fees.

Aerodrome is a decentralized exchange (DEX) that generates revenue through trading fees and external voting incentives (bribes). Similarly, Uniswap charges fees on trades as its revenue source.

Sky generates revenue through various products: stability fees on minted DAI/USDS loans, liquidation penalties, Peg Stability Module (PSM) trading fees, and interest from Direct Deposit Modules (D3Ms) and Real-World Assets (RWAs).

Continuing the list, Aave generates revenue from interest rate spreads (paid by borrowers), flash loans, liquidation penalties, and stability fees on its native GHO stablecoin. PumpFun generates revenue from trading fees and graduation fees charged when newly created tokens reach a target market capitalization.

Having clarified the revenue sources of these protocols, we now compare them with token emissions to explore whether and how they balance out. While protocol holder revenue may be high, if token emissions are equally or more substantial, the significance of the value capture process diminishes. A protocol might have $100 million in revenue, but if it achieves this by minting $200 million worth of tokens annually, the implication is entirely different. Furthermore, token emissions are important because they show how much value flows to inflation, team or investor token unlocks, and, most importantly, incentives.

Figure: Comparison of token emissions (orange bars) and the proportion of revenue allocated to holders (cyan line) for six major protocols. Hyperliquid allocates 100% of its revenue to holders. Source: Castle Labs.

Revenue distribution for most protocols is typically split between token holders and the treasury. The specific details depend on the particular protocol mechanism and the governance handling such distribution.

To illustrate how emissions impact the token, we subtract emissions from holder revenue. For Aerodrome, Sky, and Uniswap, the net token flow turns negative after this calculation, even though revenue is distributed to holders. This indicates that these protocols are emitting more tokens than the value they return to sustain current revenue levels, reducing the net value flowing to holders.

Figure: Net token value flow for six major protocols over the past 180 days, calculated as holder revenue minus token emissions. Source: Castle Labs.

Currently, token holders capture value through two primary methods: buybacks and fee distribution.

Buybacks are one of the simplest ways for projects to distribute value to holders, albeit indirectly, by using revenue to purchase and burn tokens.

Buybacks often return tokens to the protocol treasury for future incentives or staking rewards; for example, Aave transfers purchased tokens to its treasury.

For greater consistency, most protocols burn these assets, reducing the supply. For instance, Lighter burned approximately 15.6 million LIT tokens (6.6% of the supply) worth $36 million, acquired through revenue.

Figure: On-chain record of Lighter transferring 15.6387 million LIT (approximately $36.125 million) from the treasury to a burn address. Source: Castle Labs.

Hyperliquid executes buybacks and burns programmatically, having already burned over 47 million HYPE tokens, approximately 4.72% of its supply. Uniswap executed a burn of 100 million UNI tokens in December 2025, and has cumulatively burned 107 million UNI tokens (about 11% of the total supply) from its enabled fees.

Burns are not universal across all tokens, and the execution method is quite nuanced. For example, BNB used to conduct quarterly burns in the past. However, these were often less effective than users anticipated because they burned non-circulating tokens, thus having no real impact on market dynamics. Users must examine the fine print of burns: from where are the tokens being burned? Circulating supply or non-circulating supply?

Each project implements buybacks differently. Holders of Maple Finance recently voted on a buyback plan that scales with revenue, allocating an increasing share to holders as revenue grows. This is an update to their MIP-019 proposal, which previously allocated 25% of revenue to buybacks. Based on the average revenue of $1.15 million in the first half of 2026, the buyback would be reduced to 10%, which might not be the best news for holders, but the proposal passed with 99.97% approval.

Figure: Maple Finance MIP-021 proposal outlining a tiered increase in the buyback ratio based on monthly revenue. The ratio rises to 30% when monthly revenue exceeds $2 million. Source: Castle Labs.

Additionally, holders can choose to stake their tokens into the protocol and earn a staking yield from the treasury. Following a recent tokenomics update, Lighter's target staking yield is 6%, which would distribute 7.5 million LIT tokens annually, based on the current staking level of 125 million tokens.

Similarly, over 430 million HYPE tokens are staked, earning a yield from a future emission reserve, estimated at 2.1%.

Buybacks and burns alone cannot save a project from poor tokenomics or declining revenue and should be considered within the broader framework of each protocol's supply and demand dynamics. However, they can be used to drive ecosystem growth and bootstrap liquidity while gradually decreasing over time, allowing room for organic growth. Burns have a similar mechanism, leveraging platform activity to counteract inflationary tokenomics.

Fee Distribution

Other protocols, such as Aerodrome and Curve Finance, use the veTokenomics (Ve) model to directly distribute fees. In this model, holders stake their tokens and convert them into voting-escrowed tokens (e.g., veAERO or veCRV).

This creates economic value for holders through different mechanisms:

Protocol Trading Fees: These protocols allocate 50-100% of fees to ve token holders.

Enhanced Yields: Holding these tokens also increases the yields for liquidity providers (LPs) in the exchange's pools.

Bribes: Protocols pay cash incentives to ve holders in exchange for their governance votes, directing future rewards to specific liquidity pools.

A defining characteristic of Ve protocols is that their inherent design drives strong emissions, which partly explains their high fee-distribution growth achieved through inflation.

Using these methods, these protocols have generated over $2.75 billion in holder revenue to date, primarily driven by Hyperliquid and Uniswap (due to the 100 million UNI burn in December 2025).

Figure: Cumulative revenue distributed to holders by six major protocols has exceeded $2.75 billion, with Hyperliquid and Uniswap contributing the majority share. Source: Castle Labs.

But as we mentioned, value capture alone is insufficient; emissions also need to be balanced.

In the next section, we explore other reasons, besides holder revenue and emissions, that may hinder token growth.

The Hidden Pitfalls of Tokens

Over time, crypto products have matured and generated substantial revenue, but revenue does not necessarily mean that the token will perform better.

Most revenue-generating tokens underperform for several reasons, including the following:

Revenue Does Not Flow to the Token: Even if a protocol generates meaningful revenue, this value often stays in the treasury instead of flowing to holders. The way buybacks are used matters. Treasury retention is discretionary and depends on the protocol. Without contractual obligations, protocols can pause, adjust, or cancel buybacks at any time. While governance is involved in these decisions, much of the voting power is controlled by the project team.

Equity-Token Divide, Making Holders Second-Class Citizens: An increasing number of companies now adopt dual equity and token structures. A classic example of such a token is XRP. Ripple Labs stock has performed well since 2025, rising 105%, while the XRP token has fallen 45% over the same period. They issue both tokens and equity, but since token holders have no specific rights to company revenue, there is no value capture. In contrast, equity holders receive this value and perform well.

Higher Unlock Speeds Increase Expected Selling Pressure: Even with revenue sharing, a faster rate of supply unlock schedule can depress the token, as explained in the discussion on token emissions. Another aspect is the low circulating supply and high FDV nature of many tokens, as a large amount of supply still needs to be unlocked and absorbed by the market. This can effectively lower the protocol's P/S ratio, making it appear "cheap," but the actual circulating supply shock is anticipated to be part of future emissions.

Figure: Proportion of circulating supply to fully diluted valuation (FDV) for six major tokens. HYPE stands at only 23.28%, while Sky is at 99.63%. Source: Castle Labs.

Taken together, these factors reflect the true nature of tokens and, in most cases, explain price action, although other factors may also influence their performance.

The PUMP token has fallen 60% since its launch, despite the project having completed over $315 million in buybacks. On the other hand, HYPE has risen 1400% since its launch and has returned $1.2 billion to shareholders through buybacks. Both have ongoing buyback programs, but PUMP's price performance has been disappointing due to a lack of team communication, no airdrops, rapid unlocks, and market selling pressure on the token.

The AAVE token has been struggling since the beginning of the year, having completed $45 million in buybacks since the initiation of its buyback program in April 2025 (currently paused due to the Kelp DAO incident). This is caused by multiple factors, including the departure of DAO service providers like BGD Labs and ACI, the impact of the Kelp DAO incident on Aave, and increased institutional competition from Morpho.

Figure: Relative price performance of HYPE, UNI, AERO, AAVE, PUMP, and SKY. HYPE significantly outperformed, while most others are near or below their launch levels. Source: Castle Labs.