Yesterday's article about the Venice token and equity mechanism design was written quite hastily, which is why there is a point that I believe deserves more attention that wasn’t elaborated on in detail.

Today's article will share in detail what I believe is a more noteworthy point about Venice, which is its actual revenue being generated now.

Why do I think this point is worth paying attention to?

Firstly, because I believe the prosperity of the crypto ecosystem needs to bloom in various areas rather than being concentrated solely in DeFi.

This prosperity refers to the real generation of practical value, producing business revenue, and not merely remaining in speculation.

When it comes to generating practical value and business revenue, most of the current projects in the crypto ecosystem are concentrated in the DeFi field.

However, I have grown weary of the aesthetic of the DeFi sector. Even if the revenue data of such projects looks appealing, it’s hard to spark my interest.

Why?

Because I have always believed that the highlights of the crypto ecosystem in the future should not be just one DeFi but should extend broadly to other fields and other ecosystems.

So I am now more focused on projects outside of DeFi that can actually generate revenue, and Venice is one of the few projects in this category.

Secondly, Venice has managed to secure financing in such a tough bear market, which is quite not easy.

Regarding why Dragonfly led the investment in Venice this round with 65 million dollars, the public statements online summarize it (in essence) as:

- Valuing its “privacy-first” differentiated AI platform;

- Impressive business data;

- And the founder's background and crypto investment philosophy match closely;

The first point pertains to the selection of the field, and the third point is an assessment of the project team.

I completely agree with both points, but these are just prerequisites to look at before selecting a project. In other words, if these two conditions aren’t met, then there’s no need to even consider the project further.

I like to use a standard: investing in a project is investing in people, which corresponds to the third point above.

But if there are only the first and third points, does that mean the investor will necessarily invest in a project?

I believe that if we were in the era a few years ago when “narrative” alone could dominate, the investor would likely have acted.

But nowadays, the situation has fundamentally changed.

In the context where AI has enough narrative ability to attract many quality teams, crypto ecosystem projects can no longer rely solely on “narrative” and teams; they must also have another, more crucial metric that can withstand market risks, which is:

verifiable revenue/cash flow.

Without this metric, Venice could not attract investment, let alone draw a significant amount of 65 million dollars during a bear market.

So what is the current revenue situation of Venice?

One comparison reveals some signs.

Currently, in the crypto ecosystem, the projects outside of DeFi that can generate significant cash flow are mostly concentrated in the AI + Crypto field; one is Virtual, which I have shared multiple times before, and the other is Venice.

Of course, there are other non-DeFi projects, but their cash flow currently cannot be compared to these two. Thus, comparing these two projects makes sense.

Let’s first look at Virtual.

- The protocol revenue for the entire year of 2024 is projected to reach 60 million dollars.

- The protocol revenue for the entire year of 2025 is projected to be 46.14 million dollars.

- The total revenue for the first two quarters of 2026 is approximately 4 million dollars.

From the data, it shows that Virtual’s revenue is decreasing year by year, peaking at 60 million dollars and possibly barely approaching (on an annualized basis) 10 million dollars this year.

If we assume that Virtual's token represents its entire equity, then as of the time of writing, its circulating market value is 520 million dollars.

Thus, its PE ratio is very roughly calculated to be 52 times.

Now, let’s look at Venice.

The project has achieved profitability to date, and if we annualize its revenue for this year, it’s around 70 million dollars.

Although this number is simply an estimated value obtained through linear extrapolation, achieving such revenue as a non-DeFi project in a bear market is already quite notable, especially when compared with Virtual, also in the AI + Crypto field, where this revenue seems more grounded and supported by actual demand.

Its VVV token’s current circulating market value is approximately 1.3 billion dollars.

Using token market value to roughly calculate its PE is about 20 times.

This PE value is significantly lower than Virtual, but its token does not represent total equity (which is also a point of criticism of the project), and its actual value is far less than equity.

Therefore, which project’s token better reflects the intrinsic value of the project cannot be determined solely based on these data.

However, Venice's impressive annualized revenue presents a glimmer of hope in the crypto ecosystem beyond the DeFi ecosystem, specifically in the AI + Crypto field.

I believe that focusing on the actual and real cash flow income will undoubtedly become a hard standard that must be included in measuring the investment value of application-related projects in the future.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。