Buying opportunity? In-depth analysis of "real yield" DeFi tokens

We examined DeFi star projects with "real yields"—Ethena (ENA), Pendle (PENDLE), and Hyperliquid (HYPE)—and posed a core question: Are their fundamentals still strong while token prices are falling, or is the yield itself under pressure?

The answer is mixed:

• ENA generates significant fees, but almost all of these fees are recycled to subsidize and maintain TVL, resulting in the protocol's actual "surplus" being minimal.
• PENDLE's fundamentals have deteriorated alongside its price. With TVL plummeting to around $3.6 billion, the current sell-off is not a divergence between price and value, but a rational market response to business contraction.
• HYPE is a massive cash printing machine, generating over $1.2 billion in annual revenue, with almost all of it used for token buybacks—but its price has already reflected winner expectations, and it is currently maintaining growth through fee reductions.

Overall: The market indeed offers better entry points, but the narrative of "real yields" requires careful scrutiny. ENA is in a state of excessive subsidization, HYPE is cutting take rates, and PENDLE is experiencing painful user attrition. It is still too early to declare this a moment to "buy the dip on any real yield token."

"Real Yield" Framework: What to Measure?

When filtering for "real yield tokens," it's easy to oversimplify and look for:

"Rising fees + Falling token prices = Value buying point."

On-chain data allows us to look deeper. For each protocol, we ask four key questions:

1. Fees: Are users still paying, or has activity peaked and declined?
2. Protocol Revenue: What proportion of these fees truly belongs to the protocol?
3. Earnings vs. Incentives: How much is left after deducting token incentives and subsidies?
4. Valuation: How many times of revenue/surplus are we paying at the current price?

DefiLlama conveniently lists fees / protocol revenue / holder income / incentives for each protocol.

Based on this, we will evaluate Ethena (ENA), Pendle (PENDLE), and Hyperliquid (HYPE)—the goal is not to find the "healthiest" one, but to show where there are real price-fundamental divergences and where "revenue" is glossed over by fee reductions or incentives.

Ethena (ENA): High Fees, Slim Profits, Severe Subsidization

Ethena's trading price is around $0.28–0.29, with a market cap of $2.1 billion, and its $7.3 billion total locked value (TVL) generates up to approximately $365 million in annual fees. However, since the vast majority of fees are recycled to incentivize high yields, the protocol's actual annual revenue is only about $600,000, leaving almost no net surplus for holders. Buying this dip is not based on value investing from current profit/loss (P/L), but rather a structural bet that Ethena can eventually normalize subsidies without causing a collapse in its user base.

Fees and Revenue Overview Ethena's merged USDe contract on Ethereum currently holds about $7.3 billion in TVL. On DefiLlama's fee dashboard, Ethena looks like a machine:

• Annual Fees: ≈ $365 million
• Cumulative Fees: ≈ $616 million

But the key line is to look at "protocol revenue":

• Annual Revenue: Only about $600,000
• 30-Day Revenue: Approximately $49,000

As for incentives? This is where the gap comes from: Most of the fee flow is actually recycled into user yields and incentives, leaving very little net profit for ENA holders relative to the high fee headline.

Pendle (PENDLE): Rational Sell-off

PENDLE's trading price is around $2.7, down about 64% from its all-time high (ATH) of $7.50. Its circulating market cap is about $450–460 million, with a fully diluted valuation (FDV) of around $770 million.

Fees and Revenue Overview Pendle's core business is tokenizing yields and allowing users to trade PT/YT pairs. According to today's data from DefiLlama:

• Annual Fees: ≈ $45.7 million
• Annual Protocol Revenue: ≈ $44.9 million
• Annual Holder Income (vePENDLE): ≈ $35.9 million
• Annual Incentives: ≈ $10.8 million

While the take rate remains strong (fees are almost entirely converted into revenue), the absolute numbers are shrinking.

Collapse of TVL The most critical data point for Pendle is the rapid contraction of asset scale. While the previous total TVL was high, recent data shows it has significantly dropped to around $3.6 billion.

This is a massive reduction in the capital base that generates protocol revenue-type fees. This is not a divergence of "price drop while business grows," but rather a "convergence": the price crash is due to the TVL plummeting. This is completely normal market behavior.

Pitfall: The cyclical realization of yields Pendle relies on on-chain yield monetization. We are now seeing the downturn of this pattern. As LSD/LRT yields compress and stablecoin arbitrage yields flatten, the demand for locking yields and trading is rapidly shrinking.

The massive drop in TVL indicates capital is fleeing yield trading. Given that revenue is a function of this TVL, a 64% drop in token price is rational. With business metrics (TVL) falling nearly two-thirds from their peak, it is entirely inadvisable to go long on Pendle in the current environment. The market has correctly identified that the growth phase has temporarily ended.

Hyperliquid (HYPE): A $1 Billion Revenue Machine Now Cutting Fees

Hyperliquid's trading price is around $35–36, with a market cap of about $9–10 billion, and its massive engine generates approximately $1.21 billion in annual revenue, with zero incentive emissions. However, the investment logic is shifting from "pure cash flow" to "aggressive growth," as the team is cutting taker fees by up to 90% in new markets to capture dominance in the long-tail market. Thus, HYPE's pricing reflects winner valuations (around 8–10 times P/S), and future returns will depend on whether these fee cuts can successfully drive massive trading volume expansion.

Hyperliquid has now become the largest perpetual contract trading venue in on-chain metrics:

• Annual Fees: ≈ $1.34 billion
• Annual Revenue: ≈ $1.21 billion
• Annual Holder Income: ≈ $1.20 billion
• Annual Incentives: $0 (airdrop not yet confirmed)

We believe:

• Revenue is real,
• There are no significant incentive emissions eroding the profit and loss statement, and users' primary focus is on using the product, not just for farming airdrops.
• Almost all revenue is earmarked for HYPE buybacks and burns through the aid fund.

According to current data from DefiLlama, compared to its approximately $9–10 billion market cap, this is roughly 8–10 times P/S—not absurd for a rapidly growing exchange, but certainly not in an undervalued "halved" state.

New Growth Areas

The key nuance of this cycle is that Hyperliquid is no longer just about "letting revenue soar and then buy back." It is now actively taking action:

• By opening permissionless markets through HIP-3, market deployers can share fee revenue; and
• For new HIP-3 markets, taker fees are reduced by up to ~90% to guide trading volume in long-tail perpetual contracts (stocks, niche assets, etc.). The public posts and trading documents for HIP-3 outline the fee arrangements for this "growth model."

Conclusion: What is Mispriced?

After reviewing the facts, we draw some preliminary conclusions:

1. Just having "real yields" is not enough ENA proves that fees ≠ surplus. The protocol shows hundreds of millions in annual fees, but after paying for TVL costs and user yields, there is almost nothing left for token holders. HYPE indicates that revenue is endogenous: as the team competes for market share through fee reductions, revenue and its multiples change with decisions, not just user demand. Any "bottom-fishing" screening that stops at "rising fees" will systematically misjudge these projects.

2. PENDLE is a "value trap," not a value buy Data shows that fundamentals have clearly collapsed.

• TVL has collapsed to around $3.6 billion.
• Revenue has shrunk alongside the asset base.
• Token prices have dropped significantly, but core business usage is also declining sharply. This is not mispricing; it is repricing. The market has correctly discounted the token because the protocol is facing severe demand contraction.

3. Even winners are under pressure The most important insight about timing:

• HYPE is cutting fees to grow new markets
• ENA is maintaining extremely high subsidy levels to keep USDe attractive These two signals indicate that even leading protocols are feeling the pressure of the current environment. If the leaders are adjusting take rates and incentives, while former darlings like Pendle are facing massive capital outflows, then we may not be in a period where one can blindly buy any token with fee income.

Final Thoughts

Yes, there are divergences, but not all are bullish. PENDLE appears to be a project with rapidly contracting business, validating the bearish price trend. HYPE and ENA are still performing well in terms of revenue—but their own decisions (fee cuts, subsidies) indicate that this environment remains fragile.