- MET generated $5.48M in 30-day protocol revenue on a $186M market cap, versus $4.82M/$983M for Jupiter and $4.64M/$507M for RAY; annualized revenue-to-market-cap is about 2.8x versus 17x and 9.1x.
- Meteora's DLMM, DAMM, and bonding-curve infrastructure could gain from another Solana trading wave; higher volume may lift fees without requiring frontend dominance.
- Token value capture is the weakness: MET produced $688K of holder revenue versus RAY's $2.77M, despite existing buyback and staking mechanisms. Improvement could support a rerating.
- The author prefers MET for 6–12 months, conditional on sustained revenue and better value capture; unlocks, higher FDV than circulating market cap, and Solana activity dependence remain risks.
Investment pitches
filter:
82 81 - AERO trades at ~9.8x annualized protocol revenue versus UNI at ~35.8x; the author accepts UNI’s premium for multi-chain reach, deeper liquidity, and token burns.
- The author would allocate 60% to UNI and 40% to AERO. UNI fees flow into TokenJar, with Firepit burning UNI to release those assets; wider chain and V4 adoption could expand fee capture.
- AERO generated $7.61M protocol revenue on $14.38B of 30D volume, but ~$11.8M of emissions exceeded revenue; the thesis depends on organic liquidity growth and Aero/MetaDEX03 expansion.
- Key watchpoints are revenue growth, net token supply, and usage scaling; protocol revenue does not equal token-holder net returns, while AERO’s emissions and lockups add risk.