Valorisation
Ratios de valorisation
Des ratios standardisés entre la valeur d'un actif et ce qu'il produit. Ils sont construits de la même manière pour chaque actif afin de permettre la comparaison — mais ce ne sont pas des multiples actions, et les différences ne sont pas cosmétiques.
Lisez ceci avant le tableau.
Un token n'est pas une action. Il n'existe pas d'entité consolidée, pas de comptes audités, et aucun droit exécutoire sur un flux de frais. La répartition des frais d'un protocole est un choix de gouvernance qui peut être modifié par un vote. La market cap dépend d'un chiffre d'offre en circulation qui est souvent autodéclaré. Chaque ratio ici est une vérification d'échelle entre deux chiffres publiés — rien de plus, et jamais une affirmation qu'un actif est bon marché ou cher.
La piste de valorisation explique chacun en détail →
Tout
Layer 1
Layer 2
DeFi
Stablecoins
Liquid staking
Exchange tokens
Real-world assets
Oracles
Privacy
Payments
AI & DePIN
Gaming & NFT
Meme
Wrapped
Infrastructure
Autre
| # | Actif | Market cap | MC / frais | MC / revenus | FDV / frais | FDV / revenus | MC / TVL | MC par adresse | Rendement des frais | Rendement des revenus | Rendement des détenteurs | Dilution à venir |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
 Ethena USDeUSDE
|
$4.24B | — | — | — | — | 1,298× | — | 0.00% | — | — | 0.0% |
| 2 |
 FrankencoinZCHF
|
$42.76M | 153.2× | 430.1× | 153.2× | 430.1× | 0.52× | — | 0.65% | 0.23% | — | 0.0% |
01
Ce qu'est chaque ratio, et où il atteint ses limites
Market Cap / Annualized Fees
Compares a token's market value with the fees users paid to the network over a year.
Providers disagree on what a fee is: priority tips and maximal extractable value are counted by some and excluded by others, and front-end interface fees taken by a separate company are usually invisible entirely. Assets that charge almost…
annualized from trailing 30 days
Market Cap / Annualized Revenue
Market value divided by the share of yearly fees the protocol keeps rather than paying out.
The split between fees and revenue is a modeling choice, not an observation, and providers draw it in different places for the same protocol, so two reputable sites can differ by a multiple on the same token. The cost of earning that…
annualized from trailing 30 days
FDV / Annualized Fees
Like the market cap version, but values every token that will ever exist at today's price.
There is no single definition of fully diluted supply: some providers use the coded maximum, some use current total supply, and some use supply after all published vesting completes, so the same token can carry three different FDVs. Assets…
annualized from trailing 30 days
FDV / Annualized Revenue
Fully diluted market value divided by the yearly fee income the protocol retains.
Both inputs are estimates, so the errors compound: a provider that defines fully diluted supply generously and revenue narrowly will report a multiple several times another provider's for the identical protocol. Projects still distributing…
annualized from trailing 30 days
Market Cap / TVL
Compares a token's market value with the value of assets currently deposited in its contracts.
Total value locked double-counts routinely: ether staked through a liquid staking provider produces a receipt token, which is deposited into a lending market, borrowed against, and redeposited, and each leg can be counted. Because it is…
point-in-time
FDV / TVL
Fully diluted market value divided by the value of assets deposited in the protocol.
It inherits every problem of both inputs at once: recursive double-counting in deposits and an undefined or provider-specific diluted supply. Protocols that attracted deposits with token emissions are the common case here, and those same…
point-in-time
Market Cap per Active Address
Market value divided by the number of addresses that sent or received anything recently.
Addresses are not users in either direction: one person can generate an unlimited number of addresses for free, while a single exchange deposit address can serve millions of customers whose trades never touch the chain. Rollups, batching…
point-in-time value over trailing 30 days of activity
Fee Yield
Total yearly fees paid by users, expressed as a percentage of the token's market value.
Gross fees include amounts that never accrue to the protocol or to token holders in any form, so a high figure can coexist with a protocol that retains nothing. Fees paid to validators or liquidity providers are compensation for a cost…
annualized from trailing 30 days
Network Revenue Yield
Yearly protocol revenue expressed as a percentage of the token's market value.
Nothing is distributed in the great majority of cases, so the figure describes revenue that stays with a treasury, with validators, or is destroyed by a burn mechanism rather than paid out. Where value does reach holders it arrives as…
annualized from trailing 30 days
Holder Revenue Yield
The share of fee income that actually reaches token holders, as a percentage of market value.
A burn reaches holders only as a proportional supply reduction, and it can be entirely offset by issuance elsewhere in the same protocol, which this figure does not net off. Fee distributions to stakers are received only by tokens that are…
annualized from trailing 30 days
Dilution overhang
How much larger fully diluted valuation is than market capitalization.
Fully diluted valuation prices tokens that do not yet trade at the price of tokens that do, which is an assumption, not a measurement. For assets with very long emission schedules the arithmetic is close to meaningless.
point-in-time
NVT (Network Value to Transactions)
Network value divided by the daily value moved on-chain, smoothed over about three months.
The denominator counts change outputs, self-transfers, and exchange rebalancing as settlement, and the adjustment heuristics used to remove them differ enough between providers that NVT values from two sites are not comparable. The measure…
point-in-time value over a smoothed 90-day denominator