Why does project revenue grow, but the token price doesn’t necessarily go up? When I first started researching on-chain projects, I was obsessed with impressive data: record-high fees, increasing transaction counts, skyrocketing user numbers. Seeing these, I’d think the token price would eventually catch up. Later, after some hard lessons, I realized there’s a whole value distribution system separating protocol earnings from token holder profits. Some revenue comes from short-term subsidies, wash trading, or market volatility, which quickly fades after the hype. Some protocols do see real revenue growth, but if TVL and net inflows keep dropping, it shows the funds are just passing through for transactions, not staying. More commonly, the revenue goes to the team or validators, while the token lacks mechanisms like buybacks, burns, or dividends to capture value. No matter how good the business is, it might not create sustained buying pressure. I once invested in a project with “explosive revenue growth,” focusing only on a single metric while ignoring high valuations, continuous unlocks, and concentrated holdings. The protocol kept running, but the token price kept falling—new revenue couldn’t offset the new selling pressure. When looking at data, don’t just pick the prettiest chart. Revenue should be viewed alongside costs, activity alongside retention, TVL alongside net inflows. And finally, ask yourself: how does this growth actually translate to the token? Remember: a good business doesn’t necessarily mean a good token. Data growth only becomes fuel for long-term price increases if it translates into value for token holders.