Foreign media outlet Delphi Digital recently pointed out in a discussion that some crypto projects have two structures: company equity and circulating tokens, but the economic rights associated with these two structures are not the same. If company profits, intellectual property, and business contracts mainly remain in the equity entity, but the token price is priced according to the overall business prospects, the valuation may be inflated.

Tokens do not necessarily correspond to profits

The article points out that the scope of rights associated with a token depends on the project documentation, contract design, and legal structure. It can be used for network access, staking, governance voting, fee discounts, or payments, but holding tokens does not automatically imply a legal claim to company revenue, assets, or proceeds from their sale.

Delphi analyst Ceteris believes that this difference limits the value that tokens can hold when projects also involve equity investors. If real cash profits ultimately flow primarily to shareholders, the token's market capitalization should generally be lower than that of the equity, unless the project establishes a clear and enforceable value return mechanism.

Grass and Venice were named.

The article argues that the problem often stems from the unclear boundaries between equity and tokens. Project teams may package the token as the core of their ecosystem, but retain revenue, intellectual property, customer contracts, and selling rights within the company entity. As a result, the market may price the token based on the assumption that it represents the entire business, but token holders do not have corresponding economic rights.

Delphi mentioned Grass and Venice in the discussion, not to assert that such structures are bound to fail, but to look at two questions: where does the revenue ultimately go, and whether token holders have executable, programmable economic rights.

Governance rights alone may not solve this problem. Token holders can vote on protocol proposals, but the scope of their votes is determined by the project itself. In many cases, token governance can only cover incentives or technical updates, and cannot control the corporate entities that control the core software and business protocols.

Buyback and destruction to reduce the gap

Delphi co-founder Yan Liberman stated that token prices can still rise when liquidity is ample. Traders may focus more on user growth, listing progress, or market narratives than on revenue distribution. Therefore, structural gaps may not be immediately apparent in a strong market.

However, the difference becomes more pronounced when revenue declines. Shareholders have formal rights within the corporate structure, while token value often relies on corporate decisions or governance votes. Project teams can reduce incentives, postpone buybacks, or adjust token usage unless the relevant rules are explicitly written and automatically enforced.

To bridge this gap, more and more projects are starting to directly link protocol revenue to token value. Common practices include using revenue to buy back tokens, burn tokens, or distribute a portion of transaction fees to eligible participants. These mechanisms do not turn tokens into equity, but they allow the market to more clearly measure the link between tokens and revenue.

• Hyperliquid bought HYPE through revenue.
• As of May 2026, over $1.16 billion in transaction fees had been used.
• Uniswap uses a portion of its protocol revenue for UNI destruction.

Delphi's core assessment is that the market needs to be more discerning in distinguishing "who takes the cash generated by the business." If profits are primarily borne by equity, while tokens rely more on market demand, then giving both similar valuations might overestimate the economic position of the token.