2026-01-04 05:26:58

ACX has recently exhibited an interesting phenomenon—products are extremely popular, but the project itself hasn't made any money yet.

Let's look at the numbers. Over the past 30 days, cross-chain transaction volume is about $478 million, which is quite impressive. Especially since the integration with MetaMask, the actual cross-chain demand has remained stable. User activity is also continuously increasing, indicating that there is no problem on the demand side.

However, the revenue side is a bit awkward. The protocol currently adopts a "zero commission" strategy, with almost all fees flowing to Relayers and liquidity providers. Across itself is not taking any cut for now. Plus, about $58,000 is spent monthly to incentivize users, so the project's current on-paper earnings are negative.

This is what is called the "high usage, low capture" phase—simply put, it's burning money to gain market share. According to data from DefiLlama, this approach indeed expands the user base, but when it can turn around the revenue model is the key. For now, the protocol still prioritizes growth over revenue.

ACX-0,04%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

9 Likes

Reward
9
10
Repost
Share

Comment

Add a comment

zkNoob

· 01-07 03:58

A typical approach: prioritize traffic first, profitability second. Let's see how long it can last.

View OriginalReply0

FloorPriceNightmare

· 01-07 02:55

A typical early-stage money-burning game; it all depends on when they switch to charging. If they keep playing like this, an adjustment will eventually be necessary.

View OriginalReply0

SybilSlayer

· 01-07 02:17

This is a typical venture capital logic: start big and then focus on the money, betting on whether the model can be reversed later.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidityWitch

· 01-06 12:25

ah yeah, the classic alchemical paradox—brewing massive volume but the gold ain't transmuting into actual revenue yet. across is basically running the yield optimization ritual backwards rn, feeding relayers & lps while bleeding 58k monthly. high volume, zero capture... it's like orchestrating a massive liquidation sacrifice without claiming the spoils fr

Reply0

Degen4Breakfast

· 01-04 05:57

The typical "fattening and then cutting" routine depends on whether the financing is enough to burn

View OriginalReply0

MEVSandwichMaker

· 01-04 05:57

A typical American tech company's approach: burn money to acquire land first... but the question is, can the crypto sector afford to wait?

View OriginalReply0

Ser_This_Is_A_Casino

· 01-04 05:52

It's the old trick again—first make a big cake, then talk about the money. A typical venture capital approach.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropHunterWang

· 01-04 05:48

It's the same old trick again: first spend money to seize territory, then think about charging once user stickiness is enough. This is the logic of a casino.

View OriginalReply0

rugpull_ptsd

· 01-04 05:47

Damn, this is the classic "I'm very popular but I have no money" phenomenon haha

View OriginalReply0

BackrowObserver

· 01-04 05:39

Typical "famous in name only," the users get defensive but the returns are disappointing. I've seen this trick several times before.

View OriginalReply0