Appreciate the review and comments, always open to collaborating and refining going forward.
Here are some responses:
-
Based on my understanding of Token Terminal definitions, fees and revenue in this regard are the same for Pocket at the moment. Fees are what the demand-side (i.e. users) of a protocol pay (excluding gas fees) and revenue is fees generated for tokenholders. In this instance, the fees are what has been outlined above and all of those fees have gone towards buy-side POKT demand. Similar to how fees = revenue with ENS - Ethereum Name Service (ENS) - Index | Dashboard | Token Terminal. Definitions: Fees & Revenue - Token Terminal Docs. As mentioned, open to refinement to ensure absolute clarity.
-
I strongly agree, and we have engaged with the Token Terminal team about interim workarounds until all of these demand-side fees/revenue are on-chain but they won’t make any exceptions. That is why I mentioned that Web3 Index doesn’t track demand side fees yet either, but will post V1. Ultimately, that is why we are publishing these for transparency in the interim. Ideally, this is all covered by these third-party data providers. CC: @jdaugherty
-
I think it is always important to understand performance relative to market comps. Additionally, one of the key metrics that is outlined in the Tokenterminal link you shared is P/F and P/S which is ultimately what this is showing. Overall, I agree this is not exactly apples to apples and there are many other factors to consider when assessing a protocol but I thought this was a quick high-level comp summary.