115 posts tagged with "DeFi"

Ethereum captured over 40% of all on-chain fees in 2021. By 2025, that number collapsed to less than 3%. This isn't a story of Ethereum's decline—it's a story of where value actually flows when transaction fees drop to fractions of a penny.

The fat protocol thesis, introduced by Joel Monegro in 2016, promised that base layer blockchains would capture the lion's share of value as applications built on top of them. For years, this held true. But something fundamental shifted in 2024-2025: applications started generating more fees than the blockchains they run on, and the gap is widening every quarter.

The Numbers That Flipped the Script​

In H1 2025, $9.7 billion was paid to protocols across the crypto ecosystem. The breakdown tells the real story: 63% went to DeFi and finance applications—led by trading fees from DEXs and perpetual derivatives platforms. Only 22% went to blockchains themselves, primarily L1 transaction fees and MEV capture. L2 and L3 fees remained marginal.

The shift accelerated throughout the year. DeFi and finance applications are on track for $13.1 billion in fees for 2025, representing 66% of total on-chain fees. Meanwhile, blockchain valuations continue to command over 90% of total market cap among fee-generating protocols, despite their share of actual fees declining from over 60% in 2023 to just 12% in Q3 2025.

This creates a striking disconnect: blockchains are valued at Price-to-Fee ratios in the thousands, while applications trade at ratios between 10 and 100. The market still prices infrastructure as if it captures the majority of value—even as that value migrates upward.

The Fee Collapse That Changed Everything​

Transaction costs on major chains have plummeted to levels that would have seemed impossible three years ago. Solana processes transactions for $0.00025—less than one-tenth of a cent. Ethereum mainnet gas prices hit record lows of 0.067 gwei in November 2025, with sustained periods below 0.2 gwei. Layer 2 networks like Base and Arbitrum routinely process transactions for under $0.01.

The Dencun upgrade in March 2024 triggered a 95% drop in average gas fees on Ethereum mainnet. The effects compounded throughout 2025 as major rollups optimized their batching systems to take full advantage of blob-based data posting. Optimism cut DA costs by more than half by switching from call data to blobs.

This isn't just good for users—it fundamentally restructures where value accumulates. When transaction fees drop from dollars to fractions of pennies, the protocol layer can no longer capture meaningful economic value through gas alone. That value has to go somewhere, and increasingly, it flows to applications.

Pump.fun: The $724 Million Case Study​

No example illustrates the app-over-infrastructure shift more clearly than Pump.fun, the Solana-based memecoin launchpad. As of August 2025, Pump.fun generated over $724 million in cumulative revenue—more than many Layer 1 blockchains.

The platform's business model is simple: a 1% swap fee on all tokens traded and 1.5 SOL when a coin graduates after hitting a $90,000 market cap. This captured more value than Solana itself earned in network fees during many periods. In July 2025, Pump.fun raised $1.3 billion through a token offering—$600 million public, $700 million private.

Pump.fun wasn't alone. Seven Solana applications generated more than $100 million in revenue during 2025: Axiom Exchange, Meteora, Raydium, Jupiter, Photon, and Bullx joined the list. Total app revenue across Solana reached $2.39 billion, up 46% year over year.

Meanwhile, Solana's network REV (realized extractable value) climbed to $1.4 billion—impressive growth, but increasingly overshadowed by the applications running on top of it. The apps are eating the protocol's lunch.

The New Power Centers​

The concentration of value at the application layer has created new power dynamics. In DEXs, the landscape shifted dramatically: Uniswap's dominance fell from roughly 50% to around 18% in a single year. Raydium and Meteora captured share by riding Solana's surge, while Uniswap lagged on Ethereum.

In perpetual derivatives, the shift was even more dramatic. Jupiter grew its fee share from 5% to 45%. Hyperliquid, launched less than a year ago, now contributes 35% of subsector fees and became a top-three crypto asset by fee revenue. The decentralized perpetuals market exploded as these platforms captured value that might otherwise flow to centralized exchanges.

Lending remained the domain of Aave, holding 62% of DeFi lending market share with $39 billion in TVL by August 2025. But even here, challengers emerged: Morpho increased its share to 10% from nearly zero in H1 2024.

The top five protocols (Tron, Ethereum, Solana, Jito, Flashbots) captured approximately 80% of blockchain fees in H1 2025. But that concentration obscured the real trend: a market once dominated by two or three platforms capturing 80% of fees is now far more balanced, with ten protocols collectively accounting for that same 80%.

The Fat Protocol Thesis on Life Support​

Joel Monegro's 2016 theory proposed that base layer blockchains, like Bitcoin and Ethereum, would accrue more value than their application layers. This inverted the traditional internet model, where protocols like HTTP and SMTP captured no economic value while Google, Facebook, and Netflix extracted billions.

Two mechanisms were supposed to drive this: shared data layers that reduced barriers to entry, and cryptographic access tokens with speculative value. Both mechanisms worked—until they didn't.

The emergence of modular blockchains and the abundance of blockspace fundamentally changed the equation. Protocols are becoming "thinner" as they outsource data availability, execution, and settlement to specialized layers. Applications, meanwhile, focus on what makes them successful: user experience, liquidity, and network effects.

Transaction fees trending toward zero make it harder for protocols to capture value. The 180-day cumulative revenue data backs this argument: seven of the ten largest revenue generators are now applications, not protocols.

The Revenue Redistribution Revolution​

Major protocols that historically avoided explicit value distribution are changing course. While only around 5% of protocol revenue was redistributed to holders before 2025, that number has tripled to roughly 15%. Aave and Uniswap, which long resisted direct value sharing, are moving in this direction.

This creates an interesting tension. Applications can now share more revenue with token holders because they're capturing more value. But this also highlights the gap between L1 valuations and actual revenue generation.

Pump.fun's approach illustrates the complexity. The platform's value accrual mechanism relies on token buybacks rather than direct dividends. Community members increasingly call for mechanisms like fee burns, validator incentives, or revenue redistribution that translate network success more directly into tokenholder benefits.

What This Means for 2026​

Projections suggest 2026 on-chain fees could reach $32 billion or more—60% year-over-year growth from 2025's projected $19.8 billion. Nearly all of that growth is attributable to applications rather than infrastructure.

Infrastructure tokens face continued pressure despite regulatory clarity in key markets. High inflation schedules, insufficient demand for governance rights, and concentration of value at the base layer suggest further consolidation ahead.

For builders, the implications are clear: application-layer opportunities now rival or exceed infrastructure plays. The path to sustainable revenue runs through user-facing products rather than raw blockspace.

For investors, the valuation disconnect between infrastructure and applications presents both risk and opportunity. L1 tokens trading at Price-to-Fee ratios in the thousands while applications trade at 10-100x face potential repricing as the market recognizes where value actually flows.

The New Equilibrium​

The infrastructure-to-application shift doesn't mean blockchains become worthless. Ethereum, Solana, and other L1s remain critical infrastructure that applications depend on. But the relationship is inverting: applications increasingly choose chains based on cost and performance rather than ecosystem lock-in, while chains compete on being the cheapest and most reliable substrate.

This mirrors the traditional tech stack. AWS and Google Cloud are enormously valuable, but the applications built on top of them—Netflix, Spotify, Airbnb—capture outsized attention and, increasingly, outsized value relative to their infrastructure costs.

The $2.39 billion in Solana app revenue versus sub-penny transaction fees tells the story. The value is there. It's just not where the 2016 thesis predicted it would be.

---

The infrastructure-to-application shift creates new opportunities and challenges for builders. BlockEden.xyz provides enterprise-grade API services across 20+ blockchains, helping developers build the applications capturing value in this new landscape. Explore our API marketplace to access the infrastructure powering the next generation of revenue-generating applications.

Every second, AI systems worldwide harvest terabytes of publicly available blockchain data—transaction histories, smart contract interactions, wallet behaviors, DeFi protocol flows—and transform this raw information into billion-dollar intelligence products. The irony is striking: Web3's foundational commitment to transparency and open data has become the very mechanism enabling AI companies to extract massive value without paying a single gas fee in return.

This is the invisible tax that AI levies on the crypto ecosystem, and it's reshaping the economics of decentralization in ways most builders haven't yet recognized.

Crypto venture capital doesn't just fund companies—it telegraphs where the industry is headed. In 2025, that signal was unmistakable: $49.75 billion poured into blockchain projects, a 433% surge from 2024's depressed levels. The money wasn't distributed evenly. DeFi captured 30.4% of all funding. Infrastructure projects absorbed $2.2 billion. And a handful of mega-deals—Binance's $2 billion raise, Kraken's $800 million equity round—reshaped the competitive landscape.

But behind the headline numbers lies a more nuanced story. While total funding exploded, many projects faced down rounds and valuation compression. The days of raising at 100x revenue multiples are over. VCs are demanding profitability paths, real user metrics, and regulatory clarity before writing checks.

This is the state of crypto venture capital in 2026—who's funding what, which narratives attracted capital, and what builders need to know to raise in this environment.

Jump Crypto spent three years building Firedancer, a validator client capable of processing over one million transactions per second. Instead of waiting for Solana to fully deploy it, a team of former Jump engineers, Goldman Sachs quants, and Pyth Network builders decided to launch their own chain running Firedancer in its purest form.

The result is Fogo—a Layer 1 blockchain with sub-40ms block times, ~46,000 TPS in devnet, and validators strategically clustered in Tokyo to minimize latency for global markets. On January 13, 2026, Fogo launched mainnet, positioning itself as the infrastructure layer for institutional DeFi and real-world asset tokenization.

The pitch is simple: traditional finance demands execution speeds that existing blockchains cannot deliver. Fogo claims it can match them.

2025 became the year L2s went from blockchain's great hope to its greatest embarrassment. Most new rollups launched to fanfare, attracted millions in TVL during airdrop farming cycles, then collapsed into ghost towns within weeks of their token generation events. The mercenary capital moved on. The genuine users never arrived.

Yet amid this L2 fatigue, Initia launched its mainnet in April 2025 with a radically different proposition: what if instead of building yet another isolated L2, you built an entire network of interconnected rollups from the ground up—with native interoperability, shared liquidity, and VM flexibility baked into the architecture?

The market took notice. Initia raised $24 million from Delphi Ventures, Hack VC, Binance Labs, and Nascent—reaching a $350 million valuation before mainnet. Their token hit $1.44 within weeks of launch. More than a dozen L2s are already building on their infrastructure.

This is the story of Initia's bet that the L2 problem isn't too many chains—it's that those chains were never designed to work together.

The tokenized real-world asset market just crossed $33 billion. But if you look beneath the headline number, a striking imbalance emerges: private credit commands 58% of all tokenized RWA flows, treasuries take 34%, and equities—the asset class most people would expect to lead—barely registers at 2%.

This isn't a random distribution. It's the market telling us exactly which assets are ready for tokenization and which face structural barriers that no amount of blockchain innovation can immediately solve.

Tether made $10 billion in profit during the first three quarters of 2025. With fewer than 200 employees, that's over $65 million in gross profit per person—making it one of the most profitable companies per employee on Earth.

Circle isn't far behind. Despite sharing 50% of its reserve revenue with Coinbase, the USDC issuer generated $740 million in Q3 2025 alone, keeping 38% margins after distribution costs.

Now platforms are asking an obvious question: why are we sending this money to Circle and Tether?

Hyperliquid holds nearly $6 billion in USDC deposits—about 7.5% of all USDC in circulation. Until September 2025, every dollar of interest on those deposits flowed to Circle. Then Hyperliquid launched USDH, its own native stablecoin, with 50% of reserve yields flowing back to the protocol.

They're not alone. SoFi became the first U.S. national bank to issue a stablecoin on a public blockchain. Coinbase launched white-label stablecoin infrastructure. WSPN rolled out turnkey solutions letting enterprises deploy branded stablecoins in weeks. The great stablecoin margin recapture has begun.

Hyperliquid holds $5.97 billion in USDC deposits—nearly 10% of Circle's total circulating supply. At a conservative 4% Treasury yield, that represents $240 million in annual revenue flowing to Circle. Hyperliquid sees none of it.

So Hyperliquid launched USDH.

This isn't an isolated move. Across DeFi, the same calculation is playing out: why surrender hundreds of millions in yield to third-party stablecoin issuers when you can capture it yourself? MetaMask launched mUSD. Aave is building around GHO. A new class of white-label infrastructure from M0 and Agora is making protocol-native stablecoins viable for any platform with scale.

The stablecoin duopoly—Tether and Circle's 80%+ market share—is fracturing. And the $314 billion stablecoin market is about to get much more competitive.

In early 2024, yield-bearing stablecoins held about $1.5 billion in total supply. By mid-2025, that figure had exploded past $11 billion—a 7x increase that represents the fastest-growing segment of the entire stablecoin market.

The appeal is obvious: why hold dollars that earn nothing when you could hold dollars that earn 7%, or 15%, or even 20%? But the mechanisms generating these yields are anything but simple. They involve derivatives strategies, perpetual futures funding rates, Treasury bills, and complex smart contract systems that even experienced DeFi users struggle to fully understand.

And just as this new category gained momentum, regulators stepped in. The GENIUS Act, signed into law in July 2025, explicitly prohibits stablecoin issuers from offering yield to retail customers. Yet instead of killing yield-bearing stablecoins, the regulation triggered a flood of capital into protocols that found ways to stay compliant—or operate outside U.S. jurisdiction entirely.

This is the story of how stablecoins evolved from simple dollar pegs into sophisticated yield-generating instruments, who's winning the battle for $310 billion in stablecoin capital, and what risks investors face in this new paradigm.

The Market Landscape: $33 Trillion in Motion​

Before diving into yield mechanisms, the scale of the stablecoin market deserves attention.

Stablecoin transaction volumes soared 72% to hit $33 trillion in 2025, according to Artemis Analytics. Total supply reached nearly $310 billion by mid-December—up more than 50% from $205 billion at the start of the year. Bloomberg Intelligence projects stablecoin payment flows could reach $56.6 trillion by 2030.

The market remains dominated by two giants. Tether's USDT holds about 60% market share with $186.6 billion in circulation. Circle's USDC commands roughly 25% with $75.12 billion. Together they control 85% of the market.

But here's the interesting twist: USDC led transaction volume with $18.3 trillion, beating USDT's $13.3 trillion despite having a smaller market cap. This higher velocity reflects USDC's deeper DeFi integration and regulatory compliance positioning.

Neither USDT nor USDC offers yield. They're the stable, boring bedrock of the ecosystem. The action—and the risk—lives in the next generation of stablecoins.

How Ethena's USDe Actually Works​

Ethena's USDe emerged as the dominant yield-bearing stablecoin, reaching over $9.5 billion in circulation by mid-2025. Understanding how it generates yield requires understanding a concept called delta-neutral hedging.

The Delta-Neutral Strategy​

When you mint USDe, Ethena doesn't just hold your collateral. The protocol takes your ETH or BTC, holds it as the "long" position, and simultaneously opens a short perpetual futures position of the same size.

If ETH rises 10%, the spot holdings gain value, but the short futures position loses an equivalent amount. If ETH falls 10%, the spot holdings lose value, but the short futures position gains. The result is delta-neutral—price movements in either direction cancel out, maintaining the dollar peg.

This is clever, but it raises an obvious question: if price movements net to zero, where does the yield come from?

The Funding Rate Engine​

Perpetual futures contracts use a mechanism called funding rates to keep their prices aligned with spot markets. When the market is bullish and more traders are long than short, longs pay shorts a funding fee. When the market is bearish, shorts pay longs.

Historically, crypto markets trend bullish, meaning funding rates are positive more often than negative. Ethena's strategy collects these funding payments continuously. In 2024, sUSDe—the staked version of USDe—delivered an average APY of 18%, with peaks touching 55.9% during the March 2024 rally.

The protocol adds additional yield from staking a portion of its ETH collateral (earning Ethereum's native staking yield) and from interest on liquid stablecoin reserves held in instruments like BlackRock's BUIDL tokenized Treasury fund.

The Risks Nobody Wants to Discuss​

The delta-neutral strategy sounds elegant, but it carries specific risks.

Funding Rate Reversal: During sustained bear markets, funding rates can turn negative for extended periods. When this happens, Ethena's short positions pay longs instead of receiving payments. The protocol maintains a reserve fund to cover these periods, but a prolonged downturn could drain reserves and force yield rates to zero—or worse.

Exchange Risk: Ethena holds its futures positions on centralized exchanges like Binance, Bybit, and OKX. While collateral is held with off-exchange custodians, the counterparty risk of exchange insolvency remains. An exchange failure during volatile markets could leave the protocol unable to close positions or access funds.

Liquidity and Depeg Risk: If confidence in USDe falters, a wave of redemptions could force the protocol to unwind positions rapidly in illiquid markets, potentially breaking the peg.

During August 2024, when funding rates compressed, sUSDe yields dropped to about 4.3%—still positive, but far from the double-digit returns that attracted initial capital. Recent yields have ranged between 7% and 30% depending on market conditions.

Sky's USDS: The MakerDAO Evolution​

While Ethena bet on derivatives, MakerDAO (now rebranded as Sky) took a different path for its yield-bearing stablecoin.

From DAI to USDS​

In May 2025, MakerDAO completed its "Endgame" transformation, retiring the MKR governance token, launching SKY at a 24,000:1 conversion ratio, and introducing USDS as the successor to DAI.

USDS supply surged from 98.5 million to 2.32 billion in just five months—a 135% increase. The Sky Savings Rate platform reached $4 billion in TVL, growing 60% in 30 days.

Unlike Ethena's derivatives strategy, Sky generates yield through more traditional means: lending revenue from the protocol's credit facilities, fees from the stablecoin operations, and interest from real-world asset investments.

The Sky Savings Rate​

When you hold sUSDS (the yield-bearing wrapped version), you automatically earn the Sky Savings Rate—currently around 4.5% APY. Your balance increases over time without needing to lock, stake, or take any action.

This is lower than Ethena's typical yields, but it's also more predictable. Sky's yield comes from lending activity and Treasury exposure rather than volatile funding rates.

Sky activated USDS rewards for SKY stakers in May 2025, distributing over $1.6 million in the first week. The protocol now allocates 50% of revenue to stakers, and spent $96 million in 2025 on buybacks that reduced SKY's circulating supply by 5.55%.

The $2.5 Billion Institutional Bet​

In a significant move, Sky approved a $2.5 billion USDS allocation to Obex, an incubator led by Framework Ventures targeting institutional-grade DeFi yield projects. This signals Sky's ambition to compete for institutional capital—the largest untapped pool of potential stablecoin demand.

The Frax Alternative: Chasing the Fed​

Frax Finance represents perhaps the most ambitious regulatory strategy in yield-bearing stablecoins.

Treasury-Backed Yield​

Frax's sFRAX and sfrxUSD stablecoins are backed by short-term U.S. Treasuries, purchased through a lead bank brokerage relationship with a Kansas City bank. The yield tracks the Federal Reserve's rates, currently delivering around 4.8% APY.

Over 60 million sFRAX are currently staked. While yields are lower than Ethena's peaks, they're backed by the U.S. government's credit rather than crypto derivatives—a fundamentally different risk profile.

The Fed Master Account Gambit​

Frax is actively pursuing a Federal Reserve master account—the same type of account that banks use for direct access to Fed payment systems. If successful, this would represent unprecedented integration between DeFi and traditional banking infrastructure.

The strategy positions Frax as the most regulation-compliant yield-bearing stablecoin, potentially appealing to institutional investors who can't touch Ethena's derivatives exposure.

The GENIUS Act: Regulation Arrives​

The Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins Act (GENIUS Act), signed in July 2025, brought the first comprehensive federal framework for stablecoins—and immediate controversy.

The Yield Prohibition​

The act explicitly prohibits stablecoin issuers from paying interest or yield to holders. The intent is clear: prevent stablecoins from competing with bank deposits and FDIC-insured accounts.

Banks lobbied hard for this provision, warning that yield-bearing stablecoins could drain $6.6 trillion from the traditional banking system. The concern isn't abstract: when you can earn 7% on a stablecoin versus 0.5% in a savings account, the incentive to move money is overwhelming.

The Loophole Problem​

However, the act doesn't explicitly prohibit affiliated third parties or exchanges from offering yield-bearing products. This loophole allows protocols to restructure so that the stablecoin issuer doesn't directly pay yield, but an affiliated entity does.

Banking groups are now lobbying to close this loophole before implementation deadlines in January 2027. The Bank Policy Institute and 52 state banking associations sent a letter to Congress arguing that exchange-offered yield programs create "high-yield shadow banks" without consumer protections.

Ethena's Response: USDtb​

Rather than fight regulators, Ethena launched USDtb—a U.S.-regulated variant backed by tokenized money-market funds rather than crypto derivatives. This makes USDtb compliant with GENIUS Act requirements while preserving Ethena's infrastructure for institutional customers.

The strategy reflects a broader pattern: yield-bearing protocols are forking into compliant (lower yield) and non-compliant (higher yield) versions, with the latter increasingly serving non-U.S. markets.

Comparing the Options​

For investors navigating this landscape, here's how the major yield-bearing stablecoins stack up:

sUSDe (Ethena): Highest potential yields (7-30% depending on market conditions), but exposed to funding rate reversals and exchange counterparty risk. Largest market cap among yield-bearing options. Best for crypto-native users comfortable with derivatives exposure.

sUSDS (Sky): Lower but more stable yields (~4.5%), backed by lending revenue and RWAs. Strong institutional positioning with the $2.5B Obex allocation. Best for users seeking predictable returns with lower volatility.

sFRAX/sfrxUSD (Frax): Treasury-backed yields (~4.8%), most regulatory compliant approach. Pursuing Fed master account. Best for users prioritizing regulatory safety and traditional finance integration.

sDAI (Sky/Maker): The original yield-bearing stablecoin, still functional alongside USDS with 4-8% yields through the Dynamic Savings Rate. Best for users already in the Maker ecosystem.

The Risks That Keep Me Up at Night​

Every yield-bearing stablecoin carries risks beyond what their marketing materials suggest.

Smart Contract Risk: Every yield mechanism involves complex smart contracts that could contain undiscovered vulnerabilities. The more sophisticated the strategy, the larger the attack surface.

Regulatory Risk: The GENIUS Act loophole may close. International regulators may follow the U.S. lead. Protocols may be forced to restructure or cease operations entirely.

Systemic Risk: If multiple yield-bearing stablecoins face redemption pressure simultaneously—during a market crash, regulatory crackdown, or confidence crisis—the resulting liquidations could cascade across DeFi.

Yield Sustainability: High yields attract capital until competition compresses returns. What happens to USDe's TVL when yields drop to 3% and stay there?

Where This Goes Next​

The yield-bearing stablecoin category has grown from novelty to $11 billion in assets remarkably quickly. Several trends will shape its evolution.

Institutional Entry: As Sky's Obex allocation demonstrates, protocols are positioning for institutional capital. This will likely drive more conservative, Treasury-backed products rather than derivatives-based high yields.

Regulatory Arbitrage: Expect continued geographic fragmentation, with higher-yield products serving non-U.S. markets while compliant versions target regulated institutions.

Competition Compression: As more protocols enter the yield-bearing space, yields will compress toward traditional money market rates plus a DeFi risk premium. The 20%+ yields of early 2024 are unlikely to return sustainably.

Infrastructure Integration: Yield-bearing stablecoins will increasingly become the default settlement layer for DeFi, replacing traditional stablecoins in lending protocols, DEX pairs, and collateral systems.

The Bottom Line​

Yield-bearing stablecoins represent a genuine innovation in how digital dollars work. Instead of idle capital, stablecoin holdings can now earn returns that range from Treasury-rate equivalents to double-digit yields.

But these yields come from somewhere. Ethena's returns come from derivatives funding rates that can reverse. Sky's yields come from lending activity that carries credit risk. Frax's yields come from Treasuries, but require trusting the protocol's banking relationships.

The GENIUS Act's yield prohibition reflects regulators' understanding that yield-bearing stablecoins compete directly with bank deposits. Whether current loopholes survive through 2027 implementation remains uncertain.

For users, the calculus is straightforward: higher yields mean higher risks. sUSDe's 15%+ returns during bull markets require accepting exchange counterparty risk and funding rate volatility. sUSDS's 4.5% offers more stability but less upside. Treasury-backed options like sFRAX provide government-backed yield but minimal premium over traditional finance.

The yield stablecoin wars have just begun. With $310 billion in stablecoin capital up for grabs, protocols that find the right balance of yield, risk, and regulatory compliance will capture enormous value. Those that miscalculate will join the crypto graveyard.

Choose your risks accordingly.

---

This article is for educational purposes only and should not be considered financial advice. Yield-bearing stablecoins carry risks including but not limited to smart contract vulnerabilities, regulatory changes, and collateral devaluation.