[TL;DR]
- Web3 has distinct revenue models by layer: mainnets monetize through gas fees and staking, infrastructure through SaaS subscriptions, protocols through transaction fees, and applications through various usage-based fees.
- Value capture through token economics is key. Protocols distribute revenue to token holders, use buybacks and burns to increase token value, and increasingly combine governance rights with economic incentives.
- For sustainability, Web3 is converging with Web2 models. Rather than pure decentralization, practical hybrid approaches are rising, focusing on real yield, stable revenue structures, and better user experience.
1. Introduction
1.1 The unique nature of Web3 business models
Web3 services are built on an economic structure fundamentally different from traditional internet businesses. Whereas conventional platform companies run centralized servers and databases and maintain a clear boundary between service providers and users, in Web3 the protocol itself becomes the core of the business. This shift is not just a change in implementation detail; it means the entire mechanism of value creation and distribution has been redesigned.
The most distinctive feature of Web3 businesses is value capture via tokens. Traditional companies expressed ownership through shares; Web3 projects issue tokens and provide economic incentives to network participants. These tokens are not just proof of equity—they often combine governance rights, service access rights, and claims to revenue distribution in one asset. To understand Web3 business models, you must first understand how tokens are designed and circulated.
Web3 services also operate on the assumption of open source and composability. Smart contracts are public, and protocols can freely connect to each other. This changes how competitive moats are formed. In Web2, closed APIs and proprietary data built defensible moats; in Web3, network effects and community loyalty become more important competitive factors.
Because of these traits, many Web3 businesses prioritize long-term ecosystem growth over short-term profitability. In the early stages, they attract users through token incentives, then gradually shift toward sustainable revenue models as the network matures. In this sense, Web3 businesses resemble a venture capital growth-investment model.
1.2 How Web3 differs from Web2
In Web2, the typical revenue model for platforms is advertising and transaction fees. Google and Meta monetize via targeted ads based on user data; Amazon and Uber monetize via intermediary fees on transactions. These companies use platform dominance to extract value from both supply and demand. As more users join, more suppliers flock to the platform, which in turn attracts even more users—this network effect becomes a strong barrier to entry.
In Web3, however, protocols rather than platforms sit at the center. A decentralized exchange like Uniswap operates purely through smart contracts without a centralized operator, and trading fees are distributed directly to liquidity providers. Instead of a company monopolizing profits, value is shared among protocol participants. This reflects a fundamentally different philosophy of economic design.
Web2 companies accumulate and exploit user data as a core asset. Facebook’s social graph, Amazon’s purchase history, and Netflix’s viewing patterns are key competitive advantages and barriers that prevent users from switching platforms easily. In Web3, users own and manage their data and assets directly via their wallets. When they move to another service, they can bring their entire history and assets with them.
The timing of monetization is also different. Web2 startups typically prioritize user growth first and only later search for ways to monetize. Twitter generated losses for a long time while growing its user base, and YouTube only turned profitable long after being acquired by Google. Web3 projects, by contrast, raise capital from the start through token issuance, and project teams and early participants are rewarded via token price appreciation. This enables faster capital formation, but also introduces a new risk: token price volatility.
1.3 Why analyze Web3 by layers
The Web3 ecosystem is complex and deeply interconnected, but when broken down into layers, the roles and business models of each service become clear. Each layer of the technology stack comes with a different value proposition and revenue structure. Lower layers provide the foundation for upper layers, and upper layers create additional value on top of lower layers.
Approaching Web3 with a layered framework clarifies where different projects actually compete. Ethereum and Solana compete at the same layer-1 mainnet level, but they do not compete directly with an RPC service like Infura or a protocol like Uniswap. In fact, they depend on each other. Ethereum must operate reliably for Infura to provide services, and Infura must exist for developers to build dApps easily.
Each layer has developed its own monetization strategy. Mainnets charge gas fees, infrastructure services charge subscriptions, protocols charge transaction fees, and applications charge various usage fees. Even within the same layer, projects apply slightly different approaches. Layer-based analysis provides a structured way to understand these differences.
The layer model is also useful for predicting how the Web3 ecosystem will evolve. In general, lower layers tend to mature first, and upper layers then grow on top of them. After Ethereum stabilized, various DeFi protocols emerged; once DeFi matured, user-facing applications started to appear. By identifying which layer is currently the bottleneck and where opportunities lie, we can anticipate the next moves in the market.
2. Layer 0/1: Protocol Layer (Mainnets)
2.1 The role and position of mainnets
Mainnets are the foundational infrastructure at the very bottom of the Web3 ecosystem. They are the fundamental consensus layer where all transactions are recorded, all smart contracts are executed, and all assets exist. Without mainnets like Ethereum, Solana, or Polygon, no service built on top could function. They are more than just technical infrastructure—they are the core layer that guarantees security and trust for the entire ecosystem.
The most important role of a mainnet is to achieve consensus on state transitions. Who owns how many tokens, what state each smart contract is in—mainnets manage and verify all of this information. Thousands of nodes hold the same data in a distributed way, and every new block must be validated via a consensus algorithm. Only when this process is reliable can financial services, games, or social applications built on top operate safely.
Mainnets also provide censorship resistance. In a centralized server environment, the operator can arbitrarily block certain users or transactions. On a sufficiently decentralized mainnet, no single party can control the network. With tens of thousands of validators distributed worldwide, as in the case of Ethereum, it becomes practically impossible for any government or organization to halt or manipulate the network. This property is the foundation of true decentralization in Web3 services.
Mainnets also function as a shared data layer. All protocols and applications built on the same mainnet share the same state and can reference each other. A DeFi protocol can read Uniswap’s liquidity pool data, and multiple marketplaces can use the same NFT ownership records. This shared state enables the composability mentioned earlier and lets developers reuse existing infrastructure to quickly build new services.
2.2 Business model: gas fees, token economics, staking
The most direct revenue source for mainnets is gas fees. Whenever a user sends a transaction or executes a smart contract, they pay a network usage fee, i.e., gas. On Ethereum this is paid in ETH, on Solana in SOL, and gas fees rise when the network is congested. This structure naturally balances supply and demand for network resources.
How gas fees are distributed varies by mainnet. Since the EIP-1559 upgrade in 2021, Ethereum has adopted a mechanism that burns part of the base fee. The more the network is used, the more ETH is burned, reducing total supply and indirectly benefiting all ETH holders. Validators receive priority fees and MEV on top of that. Solana follows a simpler scheme: 50% of the gas fee is burned, and the rest goes to validators.
Another key economic mechanism for mainnets is staking. Since switching to PoS, Ethereum requires validators to stake 32 ETH to participate; in return for securing the network, they receive newly issued ETH and transaction fees. Staking locks tokens into the network, reducing circulating supply and aligning validator incentives with the network’s interests. Misbehavior is punished through slashing of staked tokens.
Staking yields are a critical parameter in mainnet economic design. If rewards are too high, token inflation becomes excessive; if too low, validator participation declines and network security suffers. Ethereum currently offers around 3–4% annual yield, with a dynamic system where individual rewards fall as more ETH is staked. Solana initially attracted validators with higher inflation and is gradually reducing inflation over time. Such token-economic design choices are critical to a mainnet’s long-term sustainability.
2.3 Revenue structure and sustainability
The revenue structure of mainnets is fundamentally different from that of traditional corporations. There is no centralized company, so we must distinguish between protocol revenue and value for token holders. Most gas fees go to validators, and some portion is burned, indirectly benefiting all token holders. Organizations like the Ethereum Foundation or Solana Labs received an initial token allocation, but once the network matures, they do not continuously collect fee revenue as a corporation would.
In Ethereum’s case, after EIP-1559, when network activity is high, token supply can actually decrease, creating a deflationary dynamic. Combined with the PoS transition in 2022, Ethereum temporarily became a deflationary asset. As more ETH was burned than issued, total ETH supply shrank, putting upward pressure on token value. However, when network usage falls, Ethereum can return to an inflationary state, so balancing fee revenues and token supply is crucial.
Mainnet sustainability ultimately depends on ecosystem activity. More dApps and more users mean more transactions and higher gas-fee revenue. This boosts validator rewards, increases token burns, and attracts more developers and investors. Conversely, if the ecosystem stagnates, fee revenue falls, validator participation declines, and network security weakens—triggering a downward spiral. This is why Ethereum invests in layer-2 solutions, Solana improves its developer tooling, and Polygon experiments with various scaling architectures.
In the long run, competition among mainnets will not be decided solely by technical performance. The winners will be those that build the healthiest ecosystems, offer the best experience to developers and users, and design the most sustainable token economics. Ethereum leans on network effects and proven security; Solana focuses on performance and UX; Polygon positions itself with Ethereum compatibility and flexible scaling. Ultimately, multiple mainnets will likely coexist in a multichain environment, each serving different needs.
3. Layer 2: Infrastructure Layer
3.1 Types of infrastructure services
To actually build and operate services on top of a mainnet, developers need a wide range of infrastructure tools. Running full nodes, parsing blockchain data, and implementing wallet interfaces directly is extremely time- and resource-intensive. The infrastructure layer abstracts away these technical complexities and lets developers focus on business logic. Just as AWS provides server infrastructure in Web2, Web3 infrastructure services provide access to blockchains.
The most basic infrastructure is RPC node services. To communicate with a blockchain, you must connect to a node, and services like Infura and Alchemy provide stable, high-performance RPC endpoints. Developers can access multiple mainnets with a single API key, avoiding the burden of running and maintaining nodes themselves. As with MetaMask using Infura by default, most Web3 applications rely on such RPC services.
To query blockchain data efficiently, indexing services are required. The Graph is a decentralized indexing protocol that structures blockchain data for easy querying. Developers define subgraphs and can then retrieve the data they need via GraphQL. Real-time tracking of Uniswap trading activity or NFT ownership changes, for example, depends on this indexing layer. Oracle services like Chainlink are also a critical part of the infrastructure stack. Since blockchains cannot directly access external data, they rely on oracles to fetch real-world information such as prices or weather into smart contracts.
Wallet infrastructure is another rapidly growing segment. WaaS providers such as Magic or Web3Auth enable users to access Web3 services without a separate wallet app, using social logins instead. They abstract away private key management, sponsor or batch gas fees, and support multiple chains under the hood. This is key infrastructure for lowering the entry barrier to Web3 for mainstream users. Beyond this, security audits, developer tools, and analytics platforms all play crucial roles in supporting the ecosystem.
3.2 Business model: SaaS and usage-based pricing
The business model for infrastructure services closely resembles that of Web2 SaaS companies. Most combine subscription-based pricing with usage-based billing. Infura offers up to a certain number of requests per month for free and charges beyond that based on usage. Alchemy uses a more generous free tier to attract developers and then nudges projects to upgrade to paid plans as they grow. This freemium model mirrors the standard playbook used by AWS and Google Cloud.
RPC services typically charge based on API request counts or compute units. A simple balance check consumes few resources, while complex smart contract simulations require more and thus cost more. Alchemy uses its own “compute units” instead of per-API-call billing to achieve more granular pricing. Service quality is also a differentiator: faster response times, higher availability, and access to archive nodes are often reserved for higher-tier plans.
The Graph uses a token-economic model that blends SaaS with decentralization. GRT tokens are used to incentivize indexers and curators, and query fees are paid in GRT. This sits somewhere between a centralized SaaS and a decentralized protocol. In reality, centralized alternatives like Alchemy’s hosted subgraph service also exist, allowing developers to choose between convenience and decentralization. Chainlink likewise uses LINK tokens as the payment medium for oracle services.
WaaS providers generally price based on monthly active users or transaction volume. Magic, for example, provides tiered pricing by MAU and offers custom enterprise plans for large clients. Gas sponsorship (paying gas on behalf of users) is often provided as an add-on service, incurring additional costs. Since WaaS is a clear B2B model, monetization is relatively straightforward—B2C services such as games or NFT platforms are willing to pay to remove friction for their users. Overall, infrastructure businesses tend to produce stable revenue and adopt business models that Web2 investors can easily understand.
3.3 Key segments: WaaS, RPC nodes, oracles, indexers
The RPC node market is largely dominated by Infura and Alchemy. Infura, operated by ConsenSys, established itself early as the default solution in the Ethereum ecosystem. Major services like MetaMask and OpenSea use Infura and collectively drive billions of requests per day. Alchemy, a later entrant, has grown rapidly by emphasizing a better developer experience—advanced debugging tools, alerting systems, and enhanced APIs tailored to developer needs. In 2021, Alchemy’s valuation surpassed $10 billion, backed by large venture investments.
QuickNode is another important player with strengths in multichain support. It supports over 20 chains, including Ethereum, Solana, Polygon, and Avalanche, and provides optimized node infrastructure for each of them. This allows developers building cross-chain services to rely on a single provider. The RPC market is evolving from simple node access into full-stack developer platforms, offering contract deployment, gas optimization, and monitoring tools as a package.
The oracle market is overwhelmingly led by Chainlink. Most major DeFi protocols rely on Chainlink price feeds, and tens of billions of dollars in on-chain value depend on its data. Chainlink has expanded from simple price oracles to VRF, automation, and CCIP. CCIP is a cross-chain messaging protocol that enables secure data transmission between different blockchains. While the business model is mediated by LINK tokens, in practice Chainlink operates more like a B2B provider with long-term contracts with major protocols.
The WaaS market is in a growth phase with many competing players. Some focus on frictionless onboarding via social login, widely adopted by games and NFT projects. Others offer more comprehensive wallet infrastructure, emphasizing multichain support and customizable UI. MPC-based key management providers target enterprise customers, and new entrants in the embedded wallet space are also growing quickly. The core challenge for WaaS is to minimize user friction while maintaining security. Unlike mainnets or base protocols, WaaS interfaces directly with end-users, so UX is the decisive factor for adoption.
4. Layer 3: Protocol / Middleware Layer
4.1 Business models of DeFi protocols
DeFi protocols are essentially traditional financial services reconstructed as smart contracts. Like banks that intermediate deposits and loans, DeFi protocols use automated code to handle financial transactions. The crucial difference is in who captures the value. Banks earn profits through interest spreads and distribute them to shareholders, whereas DeFi protocols distribute fees to liquidity providers and token holders. Instead of intermediaries monopolizing returns, the protocol’s participants share the revenue.
The primary revenue source for DeFi protocols is transaction fees. Decentralized exchanges like Uniswap charge a fee (e.g., 0.3%) on each token swap. This fee is automatically distributed to liquidity providers, and the more trading volume there is, the more these providers earn. Lending protocols like Aave or Compound take a share of the interest paid by borrowers as protocol fees. Most of the interest goes to depositors, while the remainder is accumulated in the protocol treasury or distributed to token holders.
How protocol revenue is distributed varies widely based on each project’s token-economic design. Uniswap, for a long time, kept the protocol fee switch off, returning all trading fees to liquidity providers and prioritizing ecosystem participants over token holders. Synthetix, by contrast, distributed trading fees directly to SNX stakers, providing explicit cash flow to token holders. Aave shares protocol revenue with those who stake AAVE into its safety module, simultaneously strengthening protocol security.
Recently, the concept of “real yield” has gained prominence. Early DeFi protocols offered high yields by emitting large amounts of tokens—an unsustainable model. Real yield focuses on revenue derived from actual trading fees or interest, sustained without relying on inflationary token issuance. GMX, for example, distributes a share of fee revenue to GLP holders in ETH or AVAX, providing stable, real-income-like returns. As protocols mature, they increasingly prioritize real yield over pure token incentives.
4.2 Trading fees and protocol revenue distribution
Trading fees are the most direct revenue source for DeFi protocols, but their structures differ per design. Uniswap V2 charged a flat 0.3% fee; V3 introduced multi-tier fee structures. Liquidity providers can choose among 0.01%, 0.05%, 0.3%, and 1% fee tiers, so stable pairs can operate with low fees while volatile pairs can sustain higher ones. This evolution improves capital efficiency and helps optimize LP returns.
Curve designed a fee structure tailored to stablecoin swaps. Because prices between stablecoins barely fluctuate, Curve can charge very low fees while still allowing LPs to earn. With a fee as low as 0.04%, Curve compensates via massive trading volumes. Additionally, LPs receive CRV token incentives. Curve is famous for its veTokenomics: by locking CRV, users obtain veCRV, which grants voting power over how CRV emissions are distributed across different pools.
Protocol revenue distribution is becoming more sophisticated. Instead of simply handing out tokens to holders, some protocols factor in governance participation, lockup duration, or specific contributions when distributing revenue. Pendle, for instance, tokenizes future yield, allowing users to trade principal and yield claims separately. This modularization of cash flows resembles complex structured products in traditional finance, but here it is implemented purely through protocol design.
Another widespread use of protocol revenue is token buybacks, similar to share repurchases in traditional markets. MakerDAO uses revenue from DAI stability fees to buy MKR on the market and burn it, reducing total supply and potentially increasing token value. Some protocols convert their revenue into stablecoins and keep them in the treasury instead of holding volatile native tokens, adopting a more conservative, corporate-style treasury management approach.
4.3 Token economics and governance
Token economics is the core factor that determines the long-term success of a DeFi protocol. Well-designed tokens align the interests of users, developers, and investors and fairly reward those who contribute to protocol growth. Poorly designed tokens, on the other hand, only fuel short-term speculation and ultimately destroy protocol value. The first priority is to define clear utility for the token.
Uniswap’s UNI started as a pure governance token. UNI holders can vote on protocol parameters, new features, and fee distribution. For a long time, though, it lacked direct economic incentives for holding, since fee-sharing was not enabled. Recently, the Uniswap Foundation has begun discussing activating protocol fees and sharing them with UNI stakers—an evolution that adds economic incentives on top of governance rights.
Aave’s AAVE token incorporates more complex utility. Beyond governance, those who stake AAVE into the safety module receive protocol revenue. The staked AAVE simultaneously plays the role of protocol insurance: in the event of a smart contract exploit, a portion of the staked AAVE can be slashed to compensate affected users. In this design, token holders receive returns but also bear part of the risk, directly linking their incentives to protocol stability.
Curve’s veCRV model is widely regarded as a major innovation in token economics. By locking CRV for up to four years, users receive veCRV, with longer locks earning more veCRV. veCRV determines voting power over how CRV incentives are allocated across pools—a form of political power. Large protocols accumulate veCRV to direct more incentives to their own pools, fueling the “Curve wars.” Meta-protocols like Convex aggregate users’ CRV, amass veCRV, and then monetize their voting power as a service.
Governance is central to token economics, but operational reality is messy. Most token holders do not vote, and in practice a small number of large holders dominate decisions. MakerDAO has tried to mitigate this by introducing delegated voting; smaller holders can delegate their votes to trusted delegates with domain expertise. Optimism goes further by experimenting with bicameral governance, adding a Citizens’ House alongside token holders to incorporate public-good perspectives beyond pure capital logic.
6. Cross-Layer: Horizontal Business Models
6.1 Bridges and cross-chain services
As blockchains have fragmented across multiple networks, the need to connect them has grown. To move assets from Ethereum to Solana, or trade Polygon NFTs on Ethereum, users need bridges. Bridges span multiple chains rather than fitting cleanly into any single layer, so they follow a distinct business model. Users deposit assets on one chain and receive equivalent value on another, and bridges earn small fees in the process.
There are two main ways bridges operate. Lock-and-mint bridges lock the original asset on the source chain and mint a wrapped version on the destination chain. This is simpler to implement but limits liquidity for wrapped tokens. Liquidity-pool-based bridges pre-provision liquidity on both chains; when a user deposits on one side, they can withdraw immediately on the other. This offers a smoother user experience but requires large liquidity reserves, which come with significant capital costs.
Bridges are also among the most vulnerable components in Web3. The 2022 Ronin bridge hack resulted in over $600 million in losses; Wormhole and Harmony bridges were also hit hard. Bridges are like giant vaults for cross-chain assets and therefore prime targets for attackers. If the validator set is small or multisig keys are not well distributed, an attacker can seize the bridge and drain assets on both sides. Security is thus the biggest challenge for bridge designs.
New bridge architectures aim to improve security. LayerZero uses lightweight client-based approaches so that each chain can directly verify the state of the other, minimizing reliance on a separate validator network. Axelar requires validators to stake tokens, imposing economic penalties for misbehavior. Bridge security is not just a technical problem; it is an incentive design problem as well. Correct, honest behavior must be economically superior for validators.
6.2 Wallets: the interface that spans all layers
Wallets occupy a uniquely central role in the Web3 ecosystem. They are the first touchpoint for users interacting with blockchains and the essential access layer for all dApps. If browsers enabled access to websites in Web2, wallets play that role in Web3. But wallets are more than simple access tools—they manage asset custody, identity, transaction signing, and dApp connectivity. For that reason, wallets are best understood as horizontal services that traverse all layers.
Wallets can be broadly divided into three types. Hardware wallets store private keys on dedicated offline devices and offer the highest level of security. Ledger, Trezor, and the D’CENT Wallet are notable examples, and their business model is straightforward: they sell hardware and recognize one-off revenue, typically in the USD 100–200 range. Their main customers are large holders and users with strong security preferences. Many now integrate swap and staking services in their companion apps as additional revenue sources.
Software wallets are the most widely used form. MetaMask has become the de facto standard in the Ethereum ecosystem, with tens of millions of monthly active users. Initially a free wallet, MetaMask has evolved into a platform business. When users swap tokens inside MetaMask, the wallet acts as an aggregator and takes a 0.875% fee. It also integrates bridge and staking features, charging small fees on those flows as well. Users benefit from the convenience of doing everything in one place, while MetaMask captures value from transaction flow.
New-generation wallets like Rainbow compete through superior UX. Rainbow emphasizes beautiful UI and multichain support, targeting younger user segments. Other wallets integrate social features so users can send tokens to friends, share NFTs, and browse collections together. Their monetization models are similar to MetaMask’s: fees on swaps, bridges, and other on-chain actions. The wallet market is increasingly turning into a super app race, with wallets vying to become the central hub of all Web3 activities. This is closer to a Web2-style platform play than a pure decentralization ethos, but users tend to prioritize convenience.
WaaS takes a completely different approach. These services treat developers, not end-users, as their customers. They offer SDKs that let dApp developers embed wallet functionality directly into their apps. Users don’t need to install a separate wallet; they can access Web3 services with a simple social login. Private keys are managed via MPC or smart contract wallets under the hood, but users never see this complexity.
WaaS business models are clear B2B SaaS. Pricing is based on MAUs or transaction volume, with enterprise plans for large clients. Magic and similar providers attract startups with a free tier, then upsell them as they grow. Gas sponsorship is typically a paid add-on. WaaS is now viewed as critical infrastructure for mainstream Web3 adoption. For NFT games or social platforms targeting non-crypto-native users, forcing them to install a separate wallet is a massive barrier.
Smart contract wallets are another fast-growing area. Safe (formerly Gnosis Safe) started as a multisig wallet but has evolved into a modular account abstraction platform. Organizations can set up rules requiring multiple approvals for large transactions, define spending limits, and program automated workflows. Safe collectively secures tens of billions of dollars and has become the de facto standard for DAO and protocol treasuries. With the launch of the SAFE token, governance structures are now in place and protocol fee discussions have begun.
The future of wallets lies in account abstraction. Today, most wallets rely on EOAs, where losing a private key means permanent loss. Smart contract wallets, by contrast, can support social recovery, multisig, spending limits, and automation. With the spread of ERC-4337, account abstraction is becoming much easier. Users will be able to pay gas in arbitrary tokens, or let dApps cover gas fees transparently. This flexibility will bring Web3 UX much closer to Web2. Wallets are evolving from simple tools into complete user account systems.
6.3 Aggregators and meta services
It is cumbersome for users to compare every protocol manually. Aggregators address this by consolidating multiple services into a single interface. 1inch compares prices across multiple DEXes and finds the best execution path. Instead of swapping on Uniswap alone, users can let 1inch route through Uniswap, SushiSwap, Curve, and others to achieve better outcomes. Users see only the final result, not the complexity behind it.
Aggregator revenue models are subtle. 1inch does not charge a direct fee in many cases; instead, it captures MEV or extracts value from order flow. It also issues the 1INCH token to support governance and align incentives. ParaSwap operates similarly, offering optimal routing and rewarding users with PSP tokens. For aggregators, volume is more important than direct margin. Scale improves routing quality, which in turn attracts more users, creating a positive feedback loop.
Lending aggregators also play an important role. They compare yields across Aave, Compound, and other lending markets and allocate capital to the best options automatically. Vault products go one step further by implementing multi-protocol strategies. Yearn Finance, for instance, allows users to deposit stablecoins and then automatically deploys them across a variety of DeFi strategies to optimize yield. Users can earn expert-level returns without mastering complex DeFi strategies themselves.
Wallets are increasingly acting as aggregators too. MetaMask now offers swap, bridge, and staking features in a unified interface, taking a small fee on each transaction. Rainbow shows assets across multiple chains in a single view and streamlines cross-chain transfers within the app. This super-app approach keeps users inside a single environment and monetizes every transaction flow—very much in line with Web2 platform strategies. While it diverges from strict decentralization ideals, it is winning in practice because users value convenience.
7. Conclusion
Web3 business models are moving beyond the early experimental phase and gradually maturing. The era when mere token issuance could create value is over; now only projects that generate real revenue are likely to survive. The link between protocol revenue and token value is strengthening, and convergence with Web2 business models is accelerating. MakerDAO’s buybacks, GMX’s revenue-sharing, Alchemy’s SaaS model, and WaaS subscription plans are all attempts to build sustainable revenue structures. As regulation becomes clearer, projects must factor legal risk into their designs and prioritize building services that actually work over ideological purity.
The Web3 ecosystem is organically interconnected across layers. Mainnets must run reliably for infrastructure services to provide trustworthy data; infrastructure must be in place for protocol developers to build quickly; and rich protocol layers are needed for end-user applications to offer differentiated features. Value also flows across layers, with each layer capturing revenue corresponding to its role. Today, mainnets and infrastructure tend to enjoy relatively stable revenues, while the application layer still struggles with user acquisition. Over the long term, sustainable revenue models at the application layer will be essential for the health of the entire ecosystem.
Ultimately, the success of Web3 business models will be judged by their ability to solve real problems. Simply “using blockchain” is not a competitive advantage. Web3 services must be clearly cheaper, faster, safer, or more fair than existing alternatives. Mass adoption is the key to the next growth phase, and this requires completely hiding technical complexity and delivering UX indistinguishable from Web2. The spread of stablecoins, advances in payment infrastructure, and the convergence of AI and blockchain will demand entirely new business models. Projects that move beyond speculation and hype to deliver real utility will lead the next cycle—and over the next decade, Web3 business models will continue to evolve and take on new forms.
[WEPIN Wallet SNS Channels]
