A group of crypto tokens linked to some of the industry’s highest‑revenue applications could see a valuation uplift as Congress moves closer to establishing a federal regulatory framework for digital‑asset markets.
The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (CLARITY Act) would delineate regulatory responsibilities for crypto assets and the firms that trade them. Proponents argue that the bill could give banks, asset managers and other traditional financial institutions greater confidence to engage with public blockchains.
Asset‑management firm Grayscale anticipates that the shift will favor applications already generating fees, particularly those focused on trading, lending and other financial services.
The potential catalyst arrives after a prolonged market downturn left many of these tokens trading at modest multiples of the revenue their protocols generated over the past year.
The Senate Banking Committee advanced the legislation in May, following House approval of an earlier version in 2025. Grayscale expects the bill could move forward as early as next month, though its final wording remains subject to congressional negotiations.
Trading tokens lead the potential winners
Hyperliquid ranks at the top of the list because of the scale of its derivatives business.
Over the 12 months ending 24 June, the decentralized trading platform generated $871 million in protocol revenue—more than any other application in Grayscale’s ranking.
Its native token, HYPE, has a circulating market capitalization of roughly $13.46 billion, representing a trailing revenue multiple of about 15. While this valuation exceeds most tokens on the list, Hyperliquid also produced nearly twice the revenue of its nearest competitor.
Clearer U.S. market‑structure rules could enlarge the pool of assets and participants entering blockchain‑based trading venues. Greater certainty about whether digital assets fall under securities or commodities law would also make it easier for regulated institutions to connect with on‑chain markets.
The opportunity spans decentralized exchanges and trading aggregators.
PancakeSwap generated $322 million of revenue in the trailing 12 months, while its CAKE token carried a circulating value of $425 million—approximately a 1‑times revenue multiple, among the lowest in the ranking.
Jupiter, a Solana‑based trading aggregator, recorded $130 million of revenue and a $716 million circulating market cap, or about 6 times revenue. Aerodrome generated $124 million in revenue and traded at nearly 4 times revenue, while Meteora earned $62 million and was valued at $78 million.
Raydium’s $46 million in revenue compares with a $158 million circulating market value, giving the Solana exchange token a roughly 3‑times revenue multiple.
These platforms could benefit if the legislation encourages issuers to bring more regulated assets onto blockchains. Each new tokenized security, commodity or fund would need markets where investors can buy, sell and provide liquidity.
Uniswap presents a different valuation profile. The decentralized exchange generated $49 million in protocol revenue, yet its UNI token holds a circulating market value of about $1.78 billion—roughly 37 times revenue and the highest multiple among the 15 protocols.
This premium suggests investors already attribute substantial value to Uniswap’s brand, market position and future fee‑generation prospects. Consequently, the token may have less upside from a valuation‑driven rebound than competitors trading at lower multiples, unless regulatory clarity triggers a significant activity surge or strengthens the link between protocol fees and UNI holders.
Pump.fun, the Solana‑based memecoin launchpad, ranked second overall with $459 million in annual protocol revenue and a circulating market cap of $456 million.
Although the platform is less directly tied to institutional finance, clearer rules around digital‑asset issuance and trading could still affect its business. Its approximately 1‑times revenue multiple reflects both strong fee generation and investor uncertainty about the durability of speculative token‑launch activity.
Aave and Sky could gain from tokenized credit
Lending protocols may benefit as tokenized assets move beyond trading and become collateral for loans.
Aave generated $125 million in trailing protocol revenue. Its AAVE token has a circulating market cap of roughly $1.17 billion, yielding a multiple near 9.
The protocol enables users to borrow and lend digital assets through automated markets. An increase in regulated stablecoins, tokenized funds and blockchain‑based securities could broaden the pool of assets available as collateral, attracting more borrowers and lenders.
Institutional participation could be especially significant. Banks and asset managers entering public blockchains would require credit markets, collateral‑management systems and liquidity sources alongside trading venues.
Aave already provides much of that infrastructure, though the scale of its benefit will depend on whether institutions use open protocols directly or prefer permissioned systems and regulated intermediaries.
Sky, formerly known as Maker, could also profit from the expansion of tokenized credit and stablecoins.
The protocol generated $248 million over the past year—the fourth‑highest total in the ranking. Its SKY token boasts a circulating market cap of about $1.24 billion, roughly five times its revenue.
Sky’s exposure to stablecoins and tokenized real‑world assets ties it directly to the type of financial activity that Grayscale expects the legislation to encourage. Greater use of blockchain‑based Treasury products, credit instruments and cash‑like tokens could boost demand for the infrastructure used to issue, borrow and settle those assets.
Staking and infrastructure may benefit indirectly
An increase in on‑chain financial activity would also raise demand for the systems that secure blockchain networks and allow investors to earn yields on their assets.
Lido Finance generated $77 million in trailing protocol revenue, while its LDO token held a circulating value of $216 million—about a 3‑times revenue multiple, making it one of the cheaper assets on this metric.
Lido offers liquid‑staking services, letting users lock assets to secure blockchain networks while receiving tokens that can continue to circulate in DeFi applications.
Ether.fi operates in a related niche. The protocol earned $56 million over the period and carries a circulating market value of $314 million, giving its ETHFI token a multiple of roughly 6.
If the CLARITY Act spurs more assets and transactions onto public networks, staking providers could see higher demand for blockchain security and yield‑bearing products. Tokenized finance could also expand the use of liquid‑staking tokens as collateral across trading and lending platforms.
The impact would likely be less direct than for exchanges or lending markets. Staking faces separate legal questions, and the final legislation may not resolve every issue surrounding the treatment of staking services or rewards.
Nevertheless, the inclusion of Lido and Ether.fi among the industry’s top revenue generators shows that economic activity in crypto extends beyond trading. Financial applications rely on underlying networks, validators and liquidity systems that may also grow as transaction volumes rise.
Low multiples leave room for repricing
The broader investment case hinges on how modestly the market currently values the revenue generated by many of these applications.
Twelve of the 15 protocols in Grayscale’s ranking traded at single‑digit multiples of trailing revenue. Pump.fun, PancakeSwap, Meteora and Collector Crypt each valued at approximately 1 times revenue. Lido and Raydium traded near 3 times, while Aerodrome fetched about 4 times.
Sky, Jupiter and Ether.fi carried multiples between 5 and 6. Lighter, an on‑chain trading platform that generated $50 million in revenue, traded around 8 times, and Aave stood at 9 times.
Grayscale argues that these valuations appear even lower when viewed against potential earnings or cash flow, because many blockchain applications operate without the large staffing, property and administrative expenses typical of traditional companies.
The comparison has limits. Protocol revenue does not always flow to token holders in the same way corporate revenue supports shareholders. Fees may be distributed to validators, liquidity providers, developers, protocol treasuries or users. Some projects also issue tokens to attract activity, creating an economic cost that may not appear in headline revenue figures.
Circulating market capitalization can further underestimate a project’s eventual value when a substantial portion of its token supply remains locked or scheduled for future release.
For investors, the strongest potential winners will be protocols that combine revenue growth with clear mechanisms for directing economic value toward their tokens—such as fee distributions, token buybacks, staking demand or governance rights over protocol income.
The CLARITY Act would not guarantee higher prices for any asset, but it could reduce the regulatory discount that has limited institutional participation and complicated the valuation of U.S.‑facing crypto projects.
