How Should Crypto Protocols Actually Return Value to Token Holders?

 

Crypto has never been great at answering a simple question: what do token holders actually get?

For a long time, the answer was basically “number go up.” You bought a token because you believed the protocol would matter someday, and if that happened, the token would be worth more. Sometimes much more. And you could sell those tokens to someone else who believed that same as you, just a bit later in the timeline. That was enough in a market driven by growth, hype, and reflexivity.

But, now the industry is older, and presumably more mature. DeFi protocols generate real revenue. Some of them generate a lot of it. And once real money starts flowing through systems, people start asking uncomfortable but reasonable questions. Who benefits from this? Where does the value go? And why should I hold the token instead of just trading it to the next guy?

There are answers that show up again and again: burns, buybacks, and dividend-style payouts.

Each one says something different about how a protocol thinks about ownership.

 

The Good Old Token Burn: Familiar, Clean, and a Little Hollow

Burning tokens is crypto’s comfort food. It is simple, emotionally satisfying, and easy to explain on social media. Fewer tokens, more scarcity, higher price. Well, in theory.

And to be fair, burns can work, especially in strong markets. They create a sense of discipline. They tell holders that supply is being managed, that inflation is not running wild.

But burns do not actually give anyone anything. No cash, no yield, no participation in revenue. You are still relying on the market to do the rest of the work.

That can be fine if demand is strong. It is much less convincing when demand is uncertain. Scarcity alone does not create value, it only amplifies it if something else is already there.

Burns feel like an answer from an earlier era of crypto, when optics mattered more than fundamentals.

 

Token Buybacks: More Serious, Still Indirect

Buybacks feel like crypto growing up and borrowing language from public markets.

Instead of destroying tokens automatically, protocols use revenue or treasury funds to buy their own tokens on the open market. The signal is clear: the protocol believes the token is undervalued and is willing to spend real money to prove it.

That matters. Buybacks introduce actual demand. They are less abstract than burns. They also force protocols to think more carefully about treasury management and sustainability.

But at the end of the day, buybacks still work through price. If the market reacts, holders benefit. If it does not, they do not. There is no guarantee, no direct transfer of value, no moment where a holder can say, “I received this because the protocol performed well.”

In traditional finance, buybacks are often paired with dividends. In crypto, they are usually positioned as the whole story. That gap is something worth paying attention to.

 

Dividends and Revenue Sharing: The Awkward but Honest Option

Dividend-style payouts in crypto tend to make people uncomfortable. They feel a bit too close to traditional finance. And the instinctive reaction is usually something like, aren’t we supposed to be reinventing all of this?

In some ways, yes. There are definitely parts of the financial system that deserve to be challenged or rebuilt entirely. But that does not automatically mean everything old is useless. Some mechanisms stuck around because they solved real problems. Dividends are one of those.

At its core, the idea is pretty simple. If a protocol makes money, some of that money goes back to the people holding the token. Maybe you have to stake. Maybe you have to lock tokens for a while. Maybe the payout changes over time. The specifics can vary, but the relationship is clear enough. When the protocol does well, holders benefit.

That alone changes the dynamic. You are no longer just holding a token and hoping it becomes more desirable later. You are actually participating in the economics of the thing you own.

It also forces a kind of honesty. If revenue drops, payouts drop. If the protocol grows, holders feel it directly. There is not much room to hide behind supply tweaks or clever treasury narratives.

The objections are predictable. Regulation. Complexity. Governance risk. And to be fair, those are not imaginary concerns. Once you start sharing revenue, it starts to look a lot like ownership, and ownership comes with responsibilities that crypto has historically tried to sidestep.

But pretending that reality does not exist does not really help. And once protocols manage capital and distribute value, they are already doing financial work, whether they want to admit it or not.

Dividends do not invent that reality. They just stop dancing around it.

 

This Is Really About Maturity

Burns, buybacks, and dividends are not just technical choices. They are statements about what a protocol wants to be.

Burns prioritize simplicity and narrative. Buybacks prioritize signaling and market mechanics. Dividends prioritize alignment and accountability.

None of them are universally right or wrong. Early-stage protocols probably should not be paying out revenue. Infrastructure layers may prefer reinvestment. Some tokens are governance tools first and economic assets second.

But as DeFi matures, it is becoming harder to justify tokens that never touch the value they help create.

At some point, holders stop asking how clever the tokenomics are and start asking a simpler question: what do I get if this works?

Crypto does not need to become traditional finance. But it probably does need to answer that question more directly. Whether that leads to dividends, something like them, or an entirely new model is still open.

 

But what is beginning to feel increasingly outdated is pretending that question does not matter.

 

Stay Connected

You can stay up to date on all News, Events, and Marketing of Rare Network, including Rare Evo: America’s Premier Blockchain Conference, happening  July 28th-31st, 2026 at The ARIA Resort & Casino, by following our socials on X, LinkedIn, and YouTube.

Optimism Weighs OP Token Buybacks Using Half of Superchain Revenue

 

Optimism is considering a significant shift in how value flows back to its native token holders.

A new governance proposal would allocate 50 percent of all Superchain revenue toward regular buybacks of the OP token, marking one of the clearest attempts yet by a major Layer 2 ecosystem to directly link token economics with real network revenue.

If approved, the buybacks would begin as early as February and would be funded through sequencer fees generated across the Superchain, Optimism’s growing network of OP Stack based chains. The remaining revenue would continue to support protocol development, public goods funding, and ecosystem operations.

The proposal reflects a broader debate playing out across crypto: how networks should balance reinvestment with returning value to token holders.

 

Tying OP Closer to Network Activity

Optimism’s Superchain model pools revenue from multiple Layer 2 networks that use the OP Stack. These chains contribute a portion of their sequencer fees into a shared system, creating a steady revenue stream tied directly to transaction activity.

Under the new plan, half of that revenue would be used to purchase OP tokens on the open market. Those tokens would then be held by the Optimism treasury, where governance could later decide whether to burn them, redistribute them, or use them for future incentives.

Supporters of the proposal argue that buybacks would strengthen the relationship between Superchain usage and demand for OP. As more chains join the ecosystem and activity grows, buyback volumes could rise alongside revenue.

It is a notable shift for a project that has historically emphasized governance participation and public goods funding over direct token value capture.

 

A Strategic Pivot for the Superchain

Optimism has spent the past year expanding the Superchain, with more networks adopting the OP Stack and contributing fees back to the collective. That growth has made revenue allocation a more pressing question. Optimism shared that it has collected 5,868 ETH in revenue from the Superchain, all of which has flowed into a token-governed treasury.

Rather than committing all proceeds to grants or long term development, the Foundation appears to be signaling that token holders should benefit more directly from the ecosystem’s success.

At the same time, the proposal stops short of mandating token burns or fixed distributions. By returning bought tokens to the treasury, Optimism preserves flexibility while still introducing a market facing mechanism tied to revenue.

 

Governance Decision Ahead

Under the proposal, which is expected to go to a governance vote on January 22, Optimism would begin monthly OP token buybacks as early as February. The purchases would be funded by sequencer fee revenue generated across OP Stack based networks, including Coinbase’s Base, Uniswap’s Unichain, World’s World Chain, Sony’s Soneium, and other Superchain members.

Approval would make Optimism one of the more prominent Ethereum scaling projects to formalize buybacks as part of its economic model.

Whether the plan passes or not, the discussion highlights a shift in tone across crypto infrastructure projects. As networks mature and generate meaningful revenue, questions around sustainability, incentives, and value capture are becoming harder to avoid.

 

For Optimism, the vote could shape how the Superchain evolves from a technical scaling solution into a fully self sustaining economic system.

 

Stay Connected

You can stay up to date on all News, Events, and Marketing of Rare Network, including Rare Evo: America’s Premier Blockchain Conference, happening  July 28th-31st, 2026 at The ARIA Resort & Casino, by following our socials on X, LinkedIn, and YouTube.

Aave Tries to Cool Governance Tensions as Revenue Debate Puts DAO Control in Focus

 

Aave is once again at the center of a familiar DeFi question. Who really controls the protocol, the DAO or the company that builds and maintains it?

 

This week, Aave Labs moved to ease growing tensions with the Aave DAO after backlash over how non-protocol revenue is handled. The dispute has exposed deeper cracks in the relationship between token holders and the development team, and raised uncomfortable questions about decentralization, ownership, and incentives in one of crypto’s largest lending platforms. In a governance post on Friday, Aave founder Stani Kulechov wrote that,

"Given the recent conversations in the community, at Aave Labs we are committed to sharing revenue generated outside the protocol with token holders, alignment is important for us and for AAVE holders, and we’ll follow up soon with a formal proposal that will include specific structures for how this works.”

At issue is revenue generated outside Aave’s core smart contracts. Specifically, fees tied to the protocol’s frontend and swap integrations. While these fees are not produced directly by the lending protocol itself, many DAO members argue they should still benefit token holders, especially when the interface is tightly associated with the Aave brand.

 

The disagreement came into focus after Aave Labs switched its frontend swap provider, a move that redirected fees away from the DAO treasury. Some delegates estimate the change could divert millions of dollars annually that previously flowed to token holders. That sparked immediate criticism, with governance participants accusing Aave Labs of unilaterally monetizing the ecosystem without sufficient community approval.

 

Aave Labs has pushed back on that framing. The team says the frontend is a separate product that requires ongoing development, maintenance, and legal responsibility. From its perspective, monetizing the interface is a reasonable way to fund operations, and not a violation of DAO governance. The protocol itself, they argue, remains fully controlled by token holders.

 

Still, the explanation did little to calm concerns. For many in the DAO, the issue is less about the money and more about precedent. If revenue connected to the Aave user experience can be captured outside governance, it raises questions about how much power token holders actually have.

 

The situation escalated when a proposal surfaced that would move control of Aave’s brand assets into a DAO-controlled legal structure. The vote was rushed to Snapshot, drawing criticism over process and transparency. Some contributors said the proposal appeared without proper consultation, further eroding trust at an already sensitive moment.

 

Market reaction was swift. AAVE’s price slid as traders weighed the uncertainty, adding financial pressure to an already tense governance environment. Longtime delegates warned that unresolved conflicts between Labs and the DAO could weaken Aave’s standing as a leading DeFi protocol.

 

In response, Aave Labs has now signaled a willingness to compromise. The team proposed sharing portions of non-protocol revenue with the DAO, framing it as a goodwill gesture rather than an obligation. The move is intended to reset the conversation and bring governance discussions back to alignment rather than escalation.

 

Whether that will be enough remains unclear. Some DAO members see the offer as a step in the right direction. Others worry it avoids the core issue, which is defining where the DAO’s authority begins and ends.

 

The broader implications stretch well beyond Aave. As DeFi matures, protocols are increasingly forced to reconcile decentralization ideals with the realities of product development, regulation, and sustainable funding. Aave’s governance clash is becoming a case study in what happens when those lines are left blurry.

 

 

For now, both sides appear to be stepping back from the brink. But the debate has made one thing clear. In crypto, decentralization is not a destination, it’s an ongoing negotiation.

Uniswap (UNIfication) Plan: UNI Burn, Fee Overhaul and Ecosystem Reset

 

A New Chapter for Uniswap and UNI

The protocol behind the leading decentralized exchange, Uniswap Labs, has introduced a sweeping governance proposal named “UNIfication”. The plan would activate protocol fees, burn large volumes of its native governance token UNI, and consolidate the protocol’s leadership and development teams.

At its heart the proposal is designed to align incentives, sharpen focus on growth and position Uniswap as the default exchange for tokenized assets. It marks a significant evolution for a protocol that has been dominant in DeFi but long-standing questions have remained about its tokenomics and monetization model.

 

Key Elements of the Proposal

 

UNI Token Burn

A major feature of the proposal is the retroactive burn of 100 million UNI tokens from the treasury. The team has stated that this amount represents what might have been burned had protocol fees been active since launch.
Additionally a portion of future trading fees—including fees from Uniswap’s new layer-2 network, Unichain—would be redirected into the burn process. This creates deflationary pressure on the token supply and promises enhanced value capture for long-term holders.

Protocol Fee Activation and Discount Auctions

Under the proposal trading fees on the protocol would be switched on. A new mechanism called Protocol Fee Discount Auctions (PFDA) would allow traders to bid for fee discounts while also internalizing MEV (maximal extractable value) capture. The revenue generated through these mechanisms would further fuel the UNI token burn.

Team and Governance Restructuring

Uniswap Labs and the separate entity Uniswap Foundation would merge their ecosystem and product teams under a unified leadership structure. A five-member board, including founders like Hayden Adams and others, would oversee growth strategy. Product offerings such as the Uniswap interface, wallet and API would pivot from independent monetization to zero-fee access so that future monetization aligns directly with holders of the UNI token.

Expansion of Uniswap v4 and Aggregator Model

Uniswap v4 is envisioned to function as an on-chain aggregator that hooks into external liquidity sources via new “hooks” architecture. The proposal emphasizes that Uniswap will capture trading fees from external protocols, not just its own AMM pools. This broadened revenue base underpins the fee and burn mechanics.

 

Why This Matters for UNI Holders and DeFi

For UNI token holders this proposal offers a clearer path to value capture. The token had long been perceived primarily as a governance token with limited economic upside. By activating fees and burning tokens, Uniswap is offering a mechanism for UNI holders to benefit from protocol performance.

From a market perspective the plan signals that the protocol is moving beyond being a pure AMM to becoming comprehensive infrastructure for tokenized assets, multi-chain liquidity and on-chain aggregators. In an ecosystem where protocol revenue and tokenomics matter more than ever, the timing appears aligned with broader DeFi maturation.

 

What to Watch Next

• The Snapshot-vote timeline in the Uniswap DAO for the UNIfication proposal.

• Detailed specifications of fee activation, discount auction parameters and burn schedule.

• Metrics on swap volume, fees generated and UNI token burn rate once changes are enacted.

• How Uniswap v4 and Unichain adoption evolve across chains and whether liquidity aggregation materializes.

• Price action of the UNI token as markets digests the economic redesign and tokenomics shift.

 

Final Thoughts

The UNIfication proposal from Uniswap marks a pivotal moment for the protocol and its governance token. By activating fees, deploying a structured burn mechanism and consolidating leadership, Uniswap is offering UNI holders a more direct link between protocol growth and value capture.

If successful, the changes could redefine how decentralized exchanges monetize and distribute value in the DeFi era. UNI could shift from a governance play to a value-bearing asset aligned with ecosystem growth. For DeFi at large it suggests that leading protocols are evolving from infrastructure into autonomous economic engines.

 

That said, execution is key. Merging teams, introducing fees and reorganizing tokenomics demand precision. Unlocking the full potential of UNIfication will require discipline, community support and sustained trading activity. If Uniswap pulls it off, UNI’s role and value proposition could be significantly elevated.

 

Stay Connected

You can stay up to date on all News, Events, and Marketing of Rare Network, including Rare Evo: America’s Premier Blockchain Conference, happening  July 28th-31st, 2026 at The ARIA Resort & Casino, by following our socials on X, LinkedIn, and YouTube.

Trump-Backed World Liberty Financial to Distribute Tokens in USD1 Stablecoin Initiative

 

World Liberty Financial (WLFI), the crypto venture affiliated with U.S. President Donald Trump, has announced plans to distribute 8.4 million WLFI tokens, valued at roughly 1.2 million dollars, to early participants in its USD1 stablecoin loyalty program.

 

This airdrop is tied to the USD1 Points Program, which launched approximately two months ago to promote adoption of the company’s U.S.-dollar backed stablecoin, USD1. Participants earn points by trading USD1 pairs across partner exchanges and maintaining qualifying balances.

According to WLFI, distribution criteria will vary by exchange: “The criteria and eligibility for earning points and rewards and distribution details may vary based on each exchange’s rules,” the company said in a post on X.

The token distribution is scheduled to take place on six platforms, including Gate.io, KuCoin, LBank, HTX Global, Flipster and MEXC, with each exchange determining eligibility and award amounts under the terms agreed with WLFI.

 

Strategic Context

The initiative serves several purposes. First, it acts as both a reward for early ecosystem supporters and a mechanism to stimulate USD1-stablecoin usage. Second, it tests the underlying infrastructure for token and stablecoin distribution in a real-world environment. Recognizing the scale, the governance vote preceding the proposal registered overwhelming support from holders.

For WLFI the move is also a visibility play. In a stablecoin market dominated by other major issuers, offering a loyalty-driven token distribution tied to a dollar-backed coin helps position USD1 as more than just another entry. It underscores WLFI’s ambition of building a full Web3 payments ecosystem around USD1, with WLFI governance tokens acting as connective tissue.

The company said the loyalty campaign has driven over $500 million in trading activity since its introduction two months ago, positioning USD1 as the sixth-largest stablecoin by market value, according to CoinGecko data.

 

Operational and Market Considerations

From a technical standpoint the execution is noteworthy. Eligible wallets do not need to claim their drop; the tokens are sent automatically once eligibility is confirmed. That reduces friction and enhances user experience, which is crucial for adoption at scale.

However several factors warrant attention. While the WLFI airdrop rewards early adopters, the eventual utility of the WLFI token remains tied to governance rights and ecosystem participation. Trading status for the token is still subject to internal decision-making and regulatory alignment. Market watchers also note the importance of transparency around USD1 reserves—its backing by U.S. dollar deposits, Treasury securities and equivalents is central to trust.

Regulatory scrutiny is a further dimension. Given WLFI’s connection to high-profile political figures, the project sits at the intersection of innovation and public interest. Lawmakers and watchdogs have flagged potential conflicts of interest in cases where stablecoins are linked to politically exposed persons. That context raises the importance of governance and disclosure for WLFI and USD1 alike.

 

What to Watch Next

Key metrics and upcoming milestones will influence perception and adoption of the program:

• Ecosystem Integration: Monitoring how USD1 becomes usable in real payments, treasury functions or DeFi contexts will matter.

• Token Tradability: The transition of WLFI tokens from governance-only to tradable status could unlock liquidity and broader market participation.

• Reserve Audits and Transparency: Regular reports confirming USD1 backing, asset custody and redemption mechanisms will build confidence.

• Regulatory Progress: U.S. stablecoin legislation and oversight developments will affect how projects like WLFI position themselves globally.

• Exchange Listings and Adoption: The number and quality of partner exchanges supporting USD1 and WLFI will drive network effects and utility.

 

Conclusion

The forthcoming airdrop by World Liberty Financial signals a strategic push: leveraging token rewards tied to a stablecoin launch to drive engagement and adoption. It reflects an evolving model in crypto where loyalty programs and token economics interplay with payments infrastructure.

 

If executed well, this program could strengthen USD1’s role in the stablecoin landscape and reinforce WLFI’s ecosystem narrative. If not, trust issues around reserves, governance or politicised affiliations may overshadow potential gains. For now, the project stands as a significant experiment at the nexus of finance, blockchain and public-figure influence.

 

Stay Connected

You can stay up to date on all News, Events, and Marketing of Rare Network, including Rare Evo: America’s Premier Blockchain Conference, happening  July 28th-31st, 2026 at The ARIA Resort & Casino, by following our socials on X, LinkedIn, and YouTube.

In a major moment for Cardano governance, the Stablecoin DeFi Liquidity Proposal has cleared the critical 67% approval threshold, signaling that the community is ready to back a bold step: using treasury resources to seed deep liquidity for native stablecoins and DeFi infrastructure. This isn’t just a good sign — it could be the catalyst that pushes Cardano’s DeFi ecosystem into its next chapter of growth.

Below, we break down what this means, why it's so positive, and what to watch as things roll out.

---

What Passed & Why It Matters

The Proposal & the 67% Threshold

The proposal called for allocating 50 million ADA from the treasury toward liquidity pools supporting stablecoins and DeFi activity. Reaching 67% is not a trivial feat — it reflects broad consensus among stake delegates and governance participants.

With that level of community backing, the proposal gains legitimacy. It means that those voting believe deeply in the idea that liquidity is the bottleneck holding back growth on Cardano.

Liquidity Is the Missing Link

One frequent critique of DeFi on Cardano has been that stablecoin and trading liquidity is relatively shallow, leading to high slippage, poor UX, and that large trades simply don’t make sense on-chain yet. By seeding liquidity, the proposal aims to reduce slippage, improve price stability, and attract larger capital flows into the ecosystem.

Think of it like providing highways instead of dirt roads: you need good roads before heavy traffic can arrive.

---

The Bright Horizon: Positive Impacts for Cardano DeFi & Ecosystem

1. Deepened Liquidity, Better UX

More ADA backing in stablecoin pools means that users swapping, lending, or borrowing stablecoins will enjoy smoother prices, lower slippage, and more trust in the on-chain experience. That’s a major upgrade to user confidence.

2. Stronger TVL & Capital Attraction

As liquidity grows, Total Value Locked (TVL) can scale more aggressively. This supports interest from institutional capital, cross-chain bridges, and larger-scale DeFi players who typically avoid chains with shallow markets.

3. Stablecoin Ecosystem Boost

Native stablecoins (like USDA, USDM, DJED) stand to gain immensely. As liquidity improves, they become more credible, more usable, and more integrated. That helps reduce reliance on external stablecoins and strengthens Cardano’s self-sovereign financial stack.

4. Positive Feedback Loop for Projects

DeFi protocols will be more willing to build — knowing liquidity support exists. This leads to new primitives, tools, yield strategies, lending/borrowing markets, and richer composability. Projects that were waiting on infrastructure may now accelerate deployment.

5. Treasury Utility & Sustainability

If structured well, the liquidity deployment can generate returns (via trading fees, yield, protocol incentives) that feed back into the treasury or ecosystem funds. In that sense, it’s not just a subsidy — it’s an investment in the network’s future.

6. Signaling & Confidence

Clearing such a threshold sends a strong message to outside markets: Cardano is serious about competing in DeFi. It may attract developer attention, new capital, and partnerships that might’ve sidelined Cardano in the past due to lack of liquidity confidence.

---

Final Thoughts

With the Stablecoin DeFi Liquidity Proposal passing at 67%, Cardano has cleared a psychological and technical hurdle. This is a moment of lean forward, not cautious hesitation. The stage is set for improved liquidity, deeper markets, more vibrant DeFi activity, and fresh confidence from developers, users, and capital.

 

If implemented well, this move could prove one of the defining turning points in Cardano’s journey toward being a powerhouse in DeFi. The positive effects may ripple beyond just Cardano — it becomes a signal to the rest of crypto that thoughtful, community-backed infrastructure investment matters.