Want to figure out how much those perpetual contract products without tokens are really worth? Here's an interesting approach:
**Core idea**: The valuation of perpetual contract products should be linked to the fees they generate. In other words, the higher the fee revenue, the more reasonable the product's market cap(FDV).
**Analytical approach**: My method is to first take existing perpetual contract products with governance tokens as references, and examine the ratio between their FDV and daily/monthly fee income. Then, apply this ratio to those perpetual contract platforms that haven't issued tokens yet but are already generating fees. Theoretically, this can help derive a plausible valuation range for them.
**Underlying assumption**: The intrinsic value of a product comes from how much fee revenue it can collect from traders—higher fees indicate active trading volume, which in turn suggests user stickiness.
Based on this logic, reverse-engineering the potential FDV of tokenless products from fee data can help assess the early investment potential of such projects.
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
12 Likes
Reward
12
7
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
MerkleTreeHugger
· 20h ago
Cost model valuation? Sounds reasonable but also feels too simple. Are those platforms that haven't issued tokens really that valuable?
View OriginalReply0
blocksnark
· 21h ago
This logic is actually the multiple-of-fee valuation method, which has been around for a while. However, applying it to non-currency projects can indeed reveal some insights.
View OriginalReply0
ArbitrageBot
· 21h ago
Cost is the truth; everything else is just a story.
View OriginalReply0
TokenomicsTinfoilHat
· 21h ago
Cost model valuation, sounds good but depends on whether the trading volume can support it.
View OriginalReply0
GasFeeSobber
· 22h ago
Fee data reverse estimation of valuation, this set of logic is quite interesting... but it still depends on trading depth and slippage to be accurate.
View OriginalReply0
FOMOmonster
· 22h ago
Hmm, this logic seems reliable. Trying the method of reverse estimating valuation based on costs might be worth a shot.
View OriginalReply0
RadioShackKnight
· 22h ago
Cost model valuation? Sounds reliable, but it also depends on the data; otherwise, it's just armchair analysis.
The platform has officially launched ✅
Want to figure out how much those perpetual contract products without tokens are really worth? Here's an interesting approach:
**Core idea**: The valuation of perpetual contract products should be linked to the fees they generate. In other words, the higher the fee revenue, the more reasonable the product's market cap(FDV).
**Analytical approach**: My method is to first take existing perpetual contract products with governance tokens as references, and examine the ratio between their FDV and daily/monthly fee income. Then, apply this ratio to those perpetual contract platforms that haven't issued tokens yet but are already generating fees. Theoretically, this can help derive a plausible valuation range for them.
**Underlying assumption**: The intrinsic value of a product comes from how much fee revenue it can collect from traders—higher fees indicate active trading volume, which in turn suggests user stickiness.
Based on this logic, reverse-engineering the potential FDV of tokenless products from fee data can help assess the early investment potential of such projects.