Table of Contents
Open Table of Contents
The Status Quo: dApps and Fees
If you’ve used a dApp, you’ve paid a fee. Whether it’s a swap fee, mint fee, or just the good old gas fee, there’s always a cost to interact with the blockchain. Even when a dApp is designed as a public good with no fees, the gas fee is there. This is the current state of play, but it’s time to think bigger.
The Power of the Time Value of Money
Anyone working in crypto should be tuned into the various economic incentives driving this space. Among these, the time value of money is a fundamental principle. At its core, this concept is simple: someone, somewhere, is always willing to pay to borrow your assets, be it ETH, BONK, or whatever else you hold.
So here’s a question: if your dApp holds onto users’ funds, even temporarily, why aren’t you monetising this? Some projects are thinking in the right direction. Take Drip Finance — they reward users with points or tokens for parking their ETH, which they can withdraw later. A bit like lending so still not the full picture.
Untapped Revenue: Stablecoin Issuers
Now, let’s talk about a concept that tends to make fiat-backed stablecoin issuers cringe: revenue share, or NIM-share (net interest margin share). This is the idea of sharing the profits generated from the assets under custody (AUC) that your dApp attracts.
Let’s paint a picture: Suppose your dApp increases the supply of a stablecoin by €1M. The issuer of that stablecoin might earn around 1.8%, or €18k per year on those deposits. And here’s the kicker — these earnings come with virtually no marginal cost, assuming deposit stickiness and low redemption rates. In other words, that €18k is almost pure profit, with some caveats for capital charges and regulatory costs.
Account Abstraction × Time Value of Money
Now, let’s layer in account abstraction (AA), which is the next big thing™ giving users a web2-like experience with seamless wallet integration. As this trend continues, successful apps implementing AA will bring millions in AUC to stablecoins or other assets. So why shouldn’t these apps receive a slice of the pie?
Imagine a user has €100 in your dApp. That user could be worth anywhere from two to five euros per year based solely on their holdings. Think about how many Uniswap swaps or Lens interactions that could fund.
For example, let’s say a “like” on Lens costs one-hundredth of a cent, and a user likes 10 posts a day for 300 days a year. That’s €0.30 in costs. Add hosting and other overhead, and you’re at €1. But even after all that, a user with €100 in their account should still generate a net profit for your app.
This is where dApp monetisation is heading.
Uniswap could provision wallets and earn yield on users’ assets. Phaver might add a feature for peer-to-peer payments, encouraging users to deposit funds. Pump.fun’s wallet could cover gas fees, making life easier for users while boosting the developer’s bottom line.
The Infrastructure Gap
But before we can fully realise this vision of dApp monetisation through revenue sharing, we need the right infrastructure. Blast (L2) is an early example of what’s needed — they’re already passing ETH and USD(B) yields to developers.
However, this isn’t yet a widely understood or adopted model. Decentralised stablecoins like Angle, which are already exploring yield-sharing, still need to build out the infrastructure to support this new wave of monetisation. App developers need a way to capture the yield from stablecoins and other assets deposited on their platforms.
Right now, the landscape lacks the necessary tools to redirect yield to third-party addresses. This needs to change before dApp developers can truly start monetising through revenue sharing.
Call to Action
If you are
a) trying to monetise your dApp with revenue-share, or
b) building tools for revenue-share distribution,
get in touch. I’d love to help.
Disclaimer: I hold positions in both $BLAST and $ANGLE.