Conversation

SBF
@SBF_FTX
These are awesome! As always, they absolutely shouldn't include "supply side" revenue. If CEXes tried to claim that to investors, they'd get laughed out of the room, or sued. But when DEXes do that, everyone humors them because it's too sad to realize it's actually 0 for most.
Quote Tweet
Larry Cermak 🫡
@lawmaster
8/ A powerful feature of this chart is that you can only filter by the protocol revenue here. SushiSwap leads the way here with $92M, followed by Curve ($60M), Maker ($50M) and Compound ($45M). This revenue usually goes to the token holders.
Show this thread
Image
14
166
Larry Cermak 🫡
@lawmaster
Replying to
@SBF_FTX
and
@SBF_Alameda
I think the argument against this is that some projects are purely in the customer acquisition pre-revenue mode. And as long as there is an expectation of the fee being turned on at some point in the future, investors seem to not be worried based on the price action
5
18
Jeff Dorman, CFA
@jdorman81
Replying to
@lawmaster
and
@SBF_Alameda
Agree with
@lawmaster
The revenue is earned by the protocol. They have a choice to pay fees to LPs, lenders, etc The revenue market makers extract from a CEX is not controlled by the CEX. Apples to oranges.
Quote Tweet
Jeff Dorman, CFA
@jdorman81
Replying to @SBF_FTX and @SBF_Alameda
Incorrect. It’s not about “claiming”, it’s about metrics. Revenue is revenue. How it is distributed is cash flow / profit. Equities are valued on price / sales too even though 90% of that revenue may never make it to shareholders. Separating is great, but it’s not irrelevant
1
4
Show replies