Who Really Captures Crypto Revenues?

Revenues Remain Largely Concentrated Off-Chain

The debate over the distribution of revenues between on-chain actors and centralized companies continues. Citing figures from ARK Invest, which estimate that approximately $8 billion in annual revenues are generated on-chain compared to nearly $70 billion for centralized crypto companies, Lorenzo Valente, a researcher at ARK, highlights the magnitude of the gap that persists between the two realms.

Investor Santiago R. Santos builds on this data to push the analysis further. According to him, this gap of about nine to one shows that the theory that open-source protocols would eventually capture most of the value has, so far, not been validated.

This concentration of revenues is also explained by the evolution of blockchain infrastructures. The proliferation of Layer 2 solutions and low-fee blockchains increases available capacity and reduces transaction costs. This is a favorable development for users, but it puts pressure on revenues directly derived from the block space.

Circle and the Stablecoin Paradox

Stablecoins also illustrate this issue of value capture. In the second quarter, $14.8 trillion of USDC circulated on-chain, representing a 151% increase year-on-year.

However, this explosion in volume has only led to a limited increase in Circle's revenues. The group recorded $701 million in revenues and reserve income, up 7%. Of this total, $668 million came from interest generated by reserves, whose average yield has fallen to 3.5%.

Thus, trillions of dollars can circulate on blockchains without them capturing a proportional share of the activity. A significant portion of the value goes to the companies that control the issuance of stablecoins and their connection to the traditional financial system.

Hyperliquid and the "Fat App Thesis"

This debate brings back the "Fat App Thesis," which counters the famous "Fat Protocol Thesis." The latter assumed that blockchains like Ethereum would capture more value than the applications built on top of them.

However, the decline in fees and the proliferation of blockchains now tend to commoditize the infrastructure. Value can then shift towards applications that control the interface, liquidity, and especially the relationship with the user.

Hyperliquid is one of the most advanced examples of this logic. The platform controls its blockchain, trading engine, and interface, allowing it to retain a significant share of the generated value. It currently reports $47 million in fees over 30 days, with $32.65 million in revenues for the protocol. Over twelve months, DefiLlama estimates its annualized rate at about $1 billion in fees and $755 million in revenues.

An Increasingly Blurred Line

Recent developments in the sector ultimately allow for a nuanced view of both theses. Financial activity can indeed migrate to blockchains, as ARK anticipates, without the blockchains themselves necessarily recovering most of the revenues.

The central question then becomes less about where value is generated and more about who manages to capture it. By 2026, the advantage seems to lie with actors capable of bringing together infrastructure, liquidity, distribution, and especially the relationship with the user.