7) So, ok, the numbers look pretty good--they all pretty strongly support explosive growth.
So what's the counterargument?
Conversation
10) But ask , and you'll hear a different set of things. Among them: a strong aversion to substance-free volume. Bitfinex fees are relatively high and they're proud of that because it means their volume is real and their trades really wanted their trades.
1
48
12) Sure, Bitfinex only traded $35m today. But it probably made around $50k on that (leo.bitfinex.com). DeFi exchanges traded $100m and had a revenue of..... $0.
FTX also had similar stablecoin trading volume today to DeFi. But we also didn't count it.
6
5
56
Disagree that revenue was zero. For example, curve charges 4 bp / swap that goes to liquidity providers, so it generated the same order of magnitude of fees as bitfinex, ~$30k on $75mm volume.
1
4
I don't super count it if it goes to LPs--a fee from takers to makers is the same as just changing the prices of trades by that amount.
Net fees to a third party (exchange) not participating would represent actual gains from trade.
2
5
Though either way it's only really interesting if the revenue is greater than the liquidity incentives, which it definitely isn't.
1
1
Also very much disagree with the fact that it goes to Stakers / LPs means that it not real. It’s still value capture - even if it’s not what you are used to in traditional world / your CEX. The fact fees is not more than liquidity mining TODAY also doesn’t mean much.
1
1
Agree if it goes to Stakers. Disagree with LPs--they might just be MMing at a loss without that fee, so really it's just changing the trade price.