Blockchain Partners: Crypto Assets Are Undergoing a Major Revaluation

Original Title: The Great Repricing

Original Author: Spencer Bogart

Original Compilation: Ken, ChainCatcher

The current state of the cryptocurrency industry is a paradox: as an industry, we have achieved success beyond our wildest imaginations, yet the prevailing sentiment is one of extreme frustration that we haven't seen in a long time.

Jonah (@jonah_b) and Spencer (@CremeDeLaCrypto) delve into the ongoing "great repricing" happening right now.

The Industry's Judgments Are Correct

The industry's judgment on on-chain payments and remittances is correct. In 2025, stablecoin transaction volume reached a record $33 trillion, a 72% year-over-year increase. In just 2025 alone, retail transaction volume surged from 314 million to 3.2 billion.

The industry's judgment that crypto-native applications will reach massive scale is correct. Polymarket has become a widely popular global event prediction tool. Phantom has become an essential wallet for millions of users—monthly active users reached 15 million and continues to grow.

The industry's judgment on the effectiveness of DeFi is correct. If we consider Aave as a bank, based on deposit base, it would rank among the largest banks in the world.

The industry's judgment that almost all major fintech companies and banks will implement on-chain strategies is correct. Stripe, BlackRock, SoFi, Goldman Sachs, Citibank, JPMorgan, Visa, PayPal, Revolut, Nubank. They have all entered the space.

It seems clearer than ever: we are building the right technology, yet the current sentiment is devoid of any celebratory tone.

The Disconnection Between Value and Price

Given our success, why is there no overwhelming joy? The simplest answer is price: it feels like token prices have been on a one-way decline for months.

But the crypto market has experienced multiple significant pullbacks since its inception; why does the market sentiment feel worse this time? Some point out that precious metals and stock markets are hitting new highs while tokens are declining. However, we believe this is merely an exacerbating factor; it is salt on the wound, not the wound itself.

The real reason may lie in the market forcing industry contributors to accept a harsher new reality: the divergence between business data and token prices may not automatically correct itself. The rules of the game have changed, and new data may overturn long-held investment logic.

This is different from previous cyclical downturns; it reflects a structural reassessment of "where value is most likely to accumulate."

During past downturns, teams could look inward, focus on product development, and believe that as long as they delivered a widely used network or protocol, it would translate into token appreciation. But now it seems that confidence is no longer valid. Protocols have launched, and adoption has reached scale, yet token prices have not followed suit.

For builders and investors expressing beliefs through token exposure, the ultimate outcome is: their logic was correct, but their asset exposure was wrong.

Where the Investment Logic Went Wrong

A simplified token investment logic is primarily based on three beliefs:

• People will build products that can create significant value.

• The product will capture a substantial portion of the value it creates.

• This captured value will flow to token holders.

For years, the question was simple: does it work? Can it scale? Now these big questions have been answered (yes, it works; yes, it can scale), and the market's focus has shifted to value capture. The situation has also become clear: people were right about the first point. Absolutely right, beyond dispute. But most of the value has not accumulated to token holders.

Value Shifting Up the Tech Stack

Most people's crypto asset exposure is achieved through tokens. And most tokens represent infrastructure: L1, L2, cross-chain bridges, oracles, middleware, protocols, DEXs, yield vaults, etc.

But now, the entities capturing the most value look entirely different: Phantom, Polymarket, Tether, Coinbase, Kraken, Circle, Yellow Card. These are all companies (currently) that have not issued tokens.

The reason is simple: the most valuable assets in crypto are user relationships.

If you control the user interface and transaction flow, you control the distribution channel. And if you control the distribution channel, you can profit from almost any on-chain product that users interact with (trading, lending, staking, minting, etc.). We have previously written about this dynamic.

On the other hand, the substitutability of infrastructure is increasing. When block space is abundant and switching costs are low, the only remaining competitive lever is price. Cross-chain bridges, L2s, DEXs, and even liquidity can be substituted. Pricing power is being eroded.

Ultimately, in this economic battle between the infrastructure layer and the distribution layer, we believe the distribution layer is achieving a decisive victory. Control over distribution channels creates routing rights. Routing rights commoditize infrastructure. And commoditized infrastructure pushes economic benefits toward marginal costs.

This Was Not Obvious in the Past

This inversion of value capture is shaking the entire industry because it contradicts many long-held investment logics and architectural assumptions—that underlying networks and protocols would capture most of the value.

But this uncertainty is not a peculiar anomaly of the crypto industry; it is a common theme throughout technology cycles. History shows that the most important questions about value capture and profit retention are rarely answered early on.

In the early days of the internet, some believed that telecom companies would be the biggest winners because they owned the pipes that transmitted every byte of data. The bullish rationale was that telecom companies could charge proportionally based on the value of the data transmitted—which was not without merit. However, fierce competition drove data prices to marginal costs, completely commoditizing telecom companies, while value flowed up the tech stack.

However, not every technology cycle rewards the application layer. For semiconductors and cloud computing, infrastructure providers ultimately captured significant value. In these examples, it was scarcity, capital intensity, and high switching costs that concentrated economic power at the bottom of the tech stack.

AI currently faces the same question: will foundational models capture value? Or will open-source models commoditize them and push value up the tech stack?

In the crypto industry's version, the original assumption was that liquidity and network effects would create lasting infrastructure winners and achieve meaningful value capture. Now, applications and aggregators stand between users and underlying infrastructure, rationally routing transaction volume to the lowest fee locations. The result is a structural decoupling: the "pipes" are more congested than ever, but value capture has shifted upward to the level that controls user relationships.

What Happens Next

This is not a eulogy for tokens, nor is it the end of infrastructure investment.

The crypto industry has now gone through three distinctly different phases: first speculation, then validation, and now we are establishing where value capture will occur. The current discomfort stems from this final paradigm shift.

Infrastructure and applications exist in a continuous feedback loop: as applications reach new scales, they will eventually encounter bottlenecks that require the next generation of infrastructure to resolve, thus opening a new cycle of opportunity. Moreover, there are indeed excellent infrastructure products that possess genuine pricing power, but this pricing power must be earned and proven through effort, not taken for granted.

Tokens will also make a comeback, but they may look different: they are gradually moving away from an overemphasis on governance rights, shifting toward direct participation in application layer economics, and even becoming tokenized equity tools with direct claims on cash flow.

Hyperliquid is an example of an on-chain application with a real distribution strategy, and its economic model is unified around a single asset. A broader evolution in this direction is already underway: Morpho, Uniswap, and now Aave all seem to be moving toward unifying protocol layer and application layer economics around their respective tokens.

Currently, the rules of the game have changed, and the market has sent a clear signal: mere utility is not enough. Mere scale is also not enough. The market demands a direct and demonstrable link between usage, revenue, and asset value.

The industry is right in its technological direction. Now the market is deciding who will be rewarded. Those builders who not only solve value creation but also address value capture will define the next era of the industry.

Disclaimer: The content provided here may include information about historical or current portfolio companies/investments managed by Blockchain Capital or its affiliates for illustrative purposes only. The views expressed in each blog post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Blockchain Capital or its affiliates. Neither Blockchain Capital nor the author guarantees the accuracy, adequacy, or completeness of the information provided in the blog post. Blockchain Capital, the author, or any other person makes no express or implied representations or warranties regarding the accuracy, completeness, or fairness of the information in the blog post and assumes no responsibility or liability for any such information. Any content contained in the blog post does not constitute investment, regulatory, legal, compliance, tax, or other advice and should not be relied upon as a basis for making investment decisions. The blog post should not be construed as current or past advice or solicitation to buy or sell any securities or to adopt any investment strategy. The blog post may contain forward-looking statements or projections based on beliefs, assumptions, and expectations, which may change due to many unforeseen events or factors. If changes occur, actual results may differ significantly from those expressed in the forward-looking statements. All forward-looking statements represent only the situation as of the date of publication, and Blockchain Capital and the author assume no obligation to update such statements except as required by law. When referencing any documents, presentations, or other materials produced, published, or otherwise distributed by Blockchain Capital in any blog post, please carefully read any disclaimers provided therein.