We examined star DeFi projects with "real yields"—Ethena (ENA), Pendle (PENDLE), and Hyperliquid (HYPE)—and raised a core question: As token prices fell, did their fundamentals remain strong, or is the yield itself under pressure? The answer is mixed: ENA generated huge fees, but almost all of these fees were recycled to subsidize TVL, resulting in negligible actual "surplus" for the protocol. Pendle's fundamentals deteriorated along with its price. With TVL plummeting to approximately $3.6 billion, the current sell-off is not a divergence between price and value, but rather a rational market reaction to shrinking business. HYPE is a massive money-printing machine, generating over $1.2 billion in annualized revenue, almost entirely from token buybacks—but its price already reflects winner-takes-all expectations, and it's currently sustaining growth through fee reductions. Looking at the bigger picture: the market does offer better entry points, but the "real yield" narrative needs careful scrutiny. ENA is over-subsidized, HYPE is cutting take-rates, and PENDLE is experiencing significant user churn. It's too early to declare it the time to "buy any real yield token on dips." The "real yield" framework: What should be measured? When filtering for "real-return tokens," it's easy to oversimplify and look for: "Fee increases + price drops = value entry point." On-chain data allows us to see deeper. For each protocol, we ask four key questions: Fees: Are users still paying, or has activity peaked and declined? Protocol Revenue: What percentage of these fees actually goes to the protocol? Earnings vs. Incentives: How much is left after deducting token incentives and subsidies? Valuation: What multiple of revenue/surplus are we paying at the current price? DefiLlama conveniently lists fees/protocol revenue/holder revenue/incentives for each protocol. Based on this, we will evaluate Ethena (ENA), Pendle (PENDLE), and Hyperliquid (HYPE)—not to find the “healthiest” one, but to show where there are true price-fundamental divergences and where “revenue” is being artificially inflated by fee reductions or incentives. Ethena (ENA): High Fees, Thin Profits, Heavy Subsidies. Ethena trades at approximately $0.28–0.29, with a market capitalization of $2.1 billion. Its total value locked (TVL) of $7.3 billion generates annualized fees of approximately $365 million. However, because the vast majority of fees are recycled to incentivize and maintain high yields, the protocol's actual annualized revenue is only about $600,000, leaving almost no net surplus for holders. Buying on this dip is not a value investment based on current profit/loss (P/L), but rather a structured bet that Ethena will eventually normalize subsidies without causing a collapse in its user base. Fee and Revenue Overview: Ethena's merged USDe contract on Ethereum currently holds approximately $7.3 billion in TVL. On DefiLlama's fee dashboard, Ethena looks like a machine: Annualized Fees: ≈ $365 million Cumulative Fees: ≈ $616 million But the key line is "Protocol Revenue": Annualized Revenue: Only about $600,000 30-Day Revenue: About $49,000 As for incentives? This is where the gap comes in: most of the fee stream is actually circulated into user rewards and incentives, leaving very little net benefit for ENA holders relative to the high fee header. Pendle (PENDLE): A Reasonable Sell-Off Pendle is trading at approximately $2.70, down about 64% from its all-time high (ATH) of $7.50. Its circulating market capitalization is approximately $450-460 million, and its fully diluted valuation (FDV) is approximately $770 million. Fees and Revenue Overview Pendle's core business is tokenizing revenue and allowing users to trade the PT/YT pair. According to DefiLlama's data today: Annualized Fees: ≈ $45.7 million Annualized Protocol Revenue: ≈ $44.9 million Annualized Holder Income (vePENDLE): ≈ $35.9 million Annualized Incentives: ≈ $10.8 million While the fee rate remains strong (almost all fees are converted into revenue), the absolute value is shrinking. The most critical data point regarding the collapse of TVL for Pendle is the rapid contraction of its asset size. Although the total TVL was previously high, recent data shows it has dropped significantly to approximately $3.6 billion. This represents a massive reduction in the capital base that generates protocol revenue-generating fees. This isn't a divergence of "price falling while business grows," but rather a convergence: the price crash is due to a drop in TVL. This is perfectly normal market behavior. The trap: cyclical yield realization. Pendle relies on on-chain yield monetization. We are now seeing a downward cycle in this pattern. As LSD/LRT yields compress and stablecoin arbitrage profits flatten, the demand for locking in yield and trading is rapidly shrinking. The massive drop in TVL indicates that capital is fleeing yield trading. Given that revenue is a function of TVL, a 64% drop in token price is rational. With the business metric (TVL) falling by nearly two-thirds from its peak, going long on Pendle is strongly discouraged in the current environment. The market has correctly identified that the growth phase has temporarily ended. Hyperliquid (HYPE): A machine with over $1 billion in revenue, now cutting fees. Hyperliquid is trading at around $35–36, with a market capitalization of approximately $9 billion–$10 billion. Its massive engine generates approximately $1.21 billion in annualized revenue with zero incentive emissions. However, the investment logic is shifting from "pure cash flow" to "aggressive growth" as the team cuts taker fees by up to 90% in new markets to dominate the long tail market. Therefore, HYPE's pricing is already a winner's valuation (approximately 8–10 times price-to-sales ratio), and future returns will depend on whether these cost cuts can successfully drive a large-scale expansion of trading volume. Hyperliquid is now the largest perpetual contract trading platform among on-chain metrics: Annualized fees: ≈ $1.34 billion Annualized revenue: ≈ $1.21 billion Annualized holder revenue: ≈ $1.20 billion Annualized incentives: $0 (airdrop not yet confirmed) We believe: The revenue is real. There's no clear incentive for emissions to erode the profit and loss statement; users' primary focus is on using the product, not simply on farming airdrops. Almost all revenue is earmarked for HYPE buybacks and burns through an aid fund. Based on DefiLlama's current data, compared to its market capitalization of approximately $9 billion–$10 billion, this represents a P/S ratio of roughly 8–10—not absurd for a rapidly growing exchange, but certainly not undervalued. New Growth Areas: The key nuance of this cycle is that Hyperliquid is no longer simply about "making revenue soar and then buying back." It is now taking proactive steps:
Opening a permissionless market through HIP-3, allowing market deployers to share in fee revenue; and
For new HIP-3 markets, reducing taker fees by up to ~90% to drive trading volume in long-tail perpetual contracts (equities, niche assets, etc.). HIP-3's public posts and trading documents outline the fee arrangements for this "growth model."
Summary: What's Being Mispriced?
After reviewing the facts, we've drawn some initial conclusions:
1. "Real profits" alone are not enough. ENA proves that fees ≠ surplus.
The agreement showed annualized fees of hundreds of millions of dollars, but after paying TVL costs and user revenue, almost nothing was left for token holders. HYPE demonstrates that revenue is endogenous: as teams compete for market share by lowering fees, revenue and its multiples change with decisions made, not just with user demand. Any "bottom-fishing" screening that stops at "fee increases" will systematically misjudge these projects. 2. PENDLE is a "value trap," not a value buy. Data shows a clear collapse in fundamentals. TVL has collapsed to approximately $3.6 billion. Revenue has shrunk along with the asset base. The token has fallen significantly, but core business usage has also declined sharply. This is not mispricing; it's repricing. The market has correctly discounted the token because the protocol is facing a severe contraction in demand. 3. Even Winners Face Pressure: The Most Important Insight on Timing: HYPE Reduces Fees to Grow New Markets ENA Maintains Extremely High Subsidy Levels to Keep USDe Attractive These two signals indicate that even leading protocols are feeling the pressure of the current environment. If the leaders are adjusting their fee rates and incentives, and former darlings like Pendle are facing massive capital outflows, then we may not be in a period where we can blindly buy any fee-revenue token. Conclusion Yes, there are indeed divergences, but not all of them are bullish. PENDLE appears to be a project whose business is rapidly shrinking, validating the bearish price trend. HYPE and ENA's revenues are still holding up well—but their own decisions (fee reductions, subsidies) indicate that the environment remains fragile.
JinseFinance
Kikyo