Why should crypto projects share revenue with token holders? At first glance, revenue sharing seems like a value extraction from the project. Instead of reinvesting the revenue into further development, projects try to add utility to the token without a clear understanding and reason to do so. Does it even make sense? Sharing revenue with token holders should be seen as an investment in the community. In crypto, there may be no stronger investment. Since most projects depend on networks of contributors, fee-sharing creates direct incentives for those contributors to support, promote, and build around the project. In other words: sharing revenue = investing in your network. We’ve already seen this play out. • A few years ago, GMX was #1 perps DEX, and it didn’t win users through perfect design or UX. It had a very powerful community driven by fee-sharing incentives (and referral links). This led to a situation where every second Twitter account was promoting GMX as the best place for trading. • CRV holders were made to believe the cashflow-for-life meme was real, which helped Curve to build the biggest ecosystem in DeFi with dozens of protocols built on top of it and thousands of users becoming holders and visionaries. • Not sure if I need to say something in particular about Hyperliquid, but it made dozens of people millionaires (btw guess who did not accept T&C in time), and they continue to reinvest into the token growth. Revenue sharing isn’t just about distributing profits. It is about building an army of aligned stakeholders who push your project forward.