Instead, the P/S ratio focuses on the usage of a protocol, by tracking the total fees paid (revenue) by the users of its service. More info: https://t.co/XlHI7XPTvI
1/ Why the price to sales ratio (P/S) is a useful tool for crypto investors 👇
The price to sales ratio compares a protocol’s market cap to its revenues. A low ratio could imply that the protocol is undervalued and vice versa.
Instead, the P/S ratio focuses on the usage of a protocol, by tracking the total fees paid (revenue) by the users of its service. More info: https://t.co/XlHI7XPTvI
This transparency makes it possible to find protocols with high usage relative to market cap.
Note: Maker has gone from a high P/S ratio to #3 in a matter of months after raising the stability fees for DAI.
Also, two currently similar AMMs (Uniswap & SushiSwap) have the lowest P/S ratios.
The P/S ratio is calculated by dividing a project’s fully-diluted market cap by its annualized revenues.
The metric itself does not tell us about the growth patterns in a protocol’s market cap or revenues.
There seems to be a pretty direct correlation between the (low) P/S ratio & market cap --> revenues have been consistently high since the launch of the $UNI token.
Uniswap’s daily revenues have been consistently high during Q3-Q4 --> fluctuations in market cap have been the primary driver for changes in the P/S ratio.
There does not seem to be a direct correlation between the (low) P/S ratio and market cap.
Surges in Sushiswap’s daily revenues have trended its P/S ratio lower both during its launch and also more recently.
Compound’s market cap has been stable since the launch of $COMP. Its P/S ratio trended quickly to a low double-digit figure --> revenues spiked after the launch of its token.
Compound’s daily revenues spiked up significantly with the launch of the $COMP token and associated liquidity mining.
There seems to have been a pretty direct correlation between the P/S ratio & market cap during the early days --> revenues were low initially, but have been on an upward trend since.
Kyber’s daily revenues were relatively low in the beginning but have been on an upward trend for the past two years.
After the launch of Synthetix v2, the protocol had a relatively low market cap & high P/S ratio --> revenues were low initially, but have trended upward during the past quarter.
Synthetix’s daily revenues have been been on an upward trend during Q3-Q4, after a slower start in Q2.
Market cap of Ethereum is a long way from the highs of 2017, yet its P/S ratio is on par with leading DeFi protocols --> significant growth in revenues during the past 6 months.
Ethereum’s daily revenues have been consistently high during Q2-Q4, while its market cap has yet to catch-up with the growth of the Ethereum ecosystem.
It’s one of the first fundamentals-based indexes in the crypto market.
Source: https://t.co/ZeVImRsVAa
It shows that Compound, Uniswap, and MakerDAO currently hold the largest weightings in the index portfolio.
https://t.co/JzYpuFE0yY
More from Crypto
I'm sure someone else has explained this, but it is just so cool and I want to explain how this works.
So Curve is awesome for swaps between similar assets, right? The fact that they trade very close to each other is a key part about how Curve works, using it's custom swap invariant function.
That's step 1
Step 2 is that Synthetix is awesome for creating "synthetic assets" (aka synths) which are assets that trade like other assets, that are backed by another, entirely different asset. Basically, a plastic banana that I can buy and sell like a real banana.
Synthetix has a feature that lets you swap between any two synths with zero slippage and a flat fee. That's because it is simply converting the sythentic asset into another synthetic asset, the backing for the synth doesn't change it just uses a different price oracle now.
This is important. Absolutely no slippage, at any size
Swap $1m sUSD for $1m sBTC? flat 0.3% fee
Swap $10m sUSD for $10m sBTC? flat 0.3% fee
swap $100m sUSD for $100m sBTC? Well, there isn't that many synths in Curve, yet but you get the point. The only limit is the pool depth
— Andre Cronje (@AndreCronjeTech) January 15, 2021
So Curve is awesome for swaps between similar assets, right? The fact that they trade very close to each other is a key part about how Curve works, using it's custom swap invariant function.
That's step 1
Step 2 is that Synthetix is awesome for creating "synthetic assets" (aka synths) which are assets that trade like other assets, that are backed by another, entirely different asset. Basically, a plastic banana that I can buy and sell like a real banana.
Synthetix has a feature that lets you swap between any two synths with zero slippage and a flat fee. That's because it is simply converting the sythentic asset into another synthetic asset, the backing for the synth doesn't change it just uses a different price oracle now.
This is important. Absolutely no slippage, at any size
Swap $1m sUSD for $1m sBTC? flat 0.3% fee
Swap $10m sUSD for $10m sBTC? flat 0.3% fee
swap $100m sUSD for $100m sBTC? Well, there isn't that many synths in Curve, yet but you get the point. The only limit is the pool depth
1/ @MIT discussing the need for blockchain gateways to achieve interoperability across different blockchain networks, and to support the cross-blockchain mobility of virtual assets
https://t.co/PbjQkSlTT3
@quant_network are collaborating with MIT in the creation of ODAP
$QNT
2/ "In order for blockchain-based services to scale globally, blockchain networks must be able to interoperate with one another following a standardized protocol and interfaces (APIs)"
Gilbert founded ISO TC307 which 60 countries are working towards standardizing the interfaces
3/ "We believe that a blockchain gateway is needed for blockchain networks to interoperate in a manner similar
to border gateway routers in IP networks. Just as border gateway routers use the BGPv4 protocol to interact with one another in a peered fashion we believe that a...
4/ blockchain gateway protocol will be needed to permit the movement of virtual assets and related information across blockchain networks in a secure and privacy-preserving manner"
You can read more about the gateway protocol ODAP in this 21 tweet
5/
"We motivate the need for blockchain gateways and blockchain gateway protocols in the following summary:
âś…Enables blockchain interoperability:
Blockchain gateways provide an interface for the interoperability between blockchain/DLT systems that operate distinct consensus...
https://t.co/PbjQkSlTT3
@quant_network are collaborating with MIT in the creation of ODAP
$QNT
2/ "In order for blockchain-based services to scale globally, blockchain networks must be able to interoperate with one another following a standardized protocol and interfaces (APIs)"
Gilbert founded ISO TC307 which 60 countries are working towards standardizing the interfaces
3/ "We believe that a blockchain gateway is needed for blockchain networks to interoperate in a manner similar
to border gateway routers in IP networks. Just as border gateway routers use the BGPv4 protocol to interact with one another in a peered fashion we believe that a...
4/ blockchain gateway protocol will be needed to permit the movement of virtual assets and related information across blockchain networks in a secure and privacy-preserving manner"
You can read more about the gateway protocol ODAP in this 21 tweet
See this 21-tweet thread about the creation of an Internet scale protocol to move digital assets involving Quant, MIT, US Government, Intel, Juniper, Payment and Telecom companies \U0001f447https://t.co/n7VGIIlAvq pic.twitter.com/mTUEmCMFZM
— Seq (@CryptoSeq) December 22, 2020
5/
"We motivate the need for blockchain gateways and blockchain gateway protocols in the following summary:
âś…Enables blockchain interoperability:
Blockchain gateways provide an interface for the interoperability between blockchain/DLT systems that operate distinct consensus...
I've just read one of the most lucid, wide-ranging, cross-disciplinary critiques of cryptocurrency and blockchain I've yet to encounter. 1/
It comes from David "DSHR" Rosenthal, a distinguished technologist whose past achievements including helping to develop X11 and the core technologies for Nvidia.
https://t.co/tkAMShno4k 2/
Rosenthal's critique is a transcript of a lecture he gave to Stanford's EE380 class, adapted from a December 2021 talk for an investor conference. 3/
It is a bang-up-to-date synthesis of many of the critical writings on the subject, glued together with Rosenthal's own deep technical expertise. He calls it "Can We Mitigate Cryptocurrencies' Externalities?"
The presence of "externalities" in Rosenthal's title is key. 4/
Rosenthal identifies blockchainism's core ideology as emerging from "the libertarian culture of Silicon Valley and the cypherpunks," and states that "libertarianism's attraction is based on ignoring externalities."
This is an important critique of libertarianism. 5/
It comes from David "DSHR" Rosenthal, a distinguished technologist whose past achievements including helping to develop X11 and the core technologies for Nvidia.
https://t.co/tkAMShno4k 2/
Rosenthal's critique is a transcript of a lecture he gave to Stanford's EE380 class, adapted from a December 2021 talk for an investor conference. 3/
It is a bang-up-to-date synthesis of many of the critical writings on the subject, glued together with Rosenthal's own deep technical expertise. He calls it "Can We Mitigate Cryptocurrencies' Externalities?"
The presence of "externalities" in Rosenthal's title is key. 4/
Rosenthal identifies blockchainism's core ideology as emerging from "the libertarian culture of Silicon Valley and the cypherpunks," and states that "libertarianism's attraction is based on ignoring externalities."
This is an important critique of libertarianism. 5/
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
