Conversation

....is it time? can we finally admit that fees --> LPs aren't revenue??? Based on some of the decks going around, it's not time. In fact many non-token crypto businesses are doing the same nonsense (using made up terms like "gross revenue").

Quote Tweet

Lanre Ige

@LanrayIge

Apr 3, 2021

1/ I've been thinking about valuation techniques for DeFi tokens and I think most people are thinking about token revenues/fees incorrectly. @tokenterminal offers the best data on this. I've seen @mgnr_io talk about this and maybe @Fiskantes (???)

Show this thread

5:05 AM · Apr 6, 2021Twitter Web App

Replying to

and

$BCP 🥳🥳⛷🏂😍

Replying to

and

Ofc, but lets be honest here, 90% of crypto has nothing to do with discounted cash flow.

Replying to

and

If Fees are Cost & APY is Interest. Valuation would probably be best suited for an equity-esque DDM with some modification to account for fund flows, staked assets/pools and fees, to derive some sense of an EPS-like metric.

Replying to

and

It still baffles me that 95% of DeFi doesn’t see that. This is at the same level of all of those that compare stock prices face value without looking at EPS

Replying to

and

First let's agree that TVL is not revenue 😂 Volatile TVL at that Many projects are still there

Replying to

and

agreed, TVL is even more annoying to me. The worst is when the protocol has liquidity mining and they use TVL as an argument for valuation..

Replying to

and

That's why I hold $SUSHI, but not $UNI. Uniswap is a good protocol, but i can't see how it benefits to token holders. As so many Giga brains behind it, maybe there's some plans I can't imagine.

Replying to

and

IMO, it is same way amazon share holders did not receive dividends for years. Going for long term dominance VS bit of money to holders now. (i agree that metrics used nowadays to justify valuations of stuffs are silly though)

Show replies

Replying to

and

I think the narrative is "Yeah but UNI holders if they WANTED TO could redirect this LP fees to the tokens holders, it's only not happening because we are privileging liquidity growth right now, but in the future it'll happen". Which is still pretty non-sensical to me.

Replying to

and

isn't it similar to how ppl had been thinking about tech companies for past 2 decades though? "it is not making profits and giving dividends but in the future they could eventually, dominance is more important" etc, played out pretty well for some tech giants..