The success of the dual-token model in GameFi-like projects has been thoroughly analyzed before, and we’ve already discussed the advantages of RiverPts. Everyone’s hopping on the free ride @River4fun http://app.river.inc/?ref=maid_crypto So, what’s the real profitability and revenue structure of @RiverdotInc? The conclusion is shocking—River is actually btcfi??? Let’s take a look: 1. TVL: $670M (0.67B) 2. Institutional TVL share: $320M (0.32B) 3. Stablecoin satUSD issuance: $300M (0.3B) 4. Total protocol revenue: only $600K 4.1: Based on the formula: Daily Revenue ≈ (APY / 365) * Total Staking Supply Reverse calculation shows daily protocol revenue is only around $16K, which aligns with the conclusion in point 4. Collateral composition: HEMI chain > ETH > BASE > BNB > BNB > @arbitrum Stablecoin issuance composition: BNB > ETH > HEMI > BASE > ARB > BOB Protocol revenue composition: HEMI > ARB > BASE > BSQUARE > BVEM > BOB Additional note: HEMI, BOB, BVEM, and BSQUARE are all BTC Layer 2s. Summary: If our data is accurate, it’s clear that River’s protocol revenue performance is solid but not outstanding. Its standout success comes from its market strategy and capital operations. The project’s foundation is essentially a rebranded btcfi project originating from Satoshi. Therefore, the majority of the protocol’s main revenue sources come from the BTC ecosystem. The primary beneficiaries of protocol revenue are on the BSC chain. So, the key question is whether the project can change its btcfi essence. Effectively utilizing TVL and expanding the project’s yield-generating methods will be a critical bottleneck in the next phase. For now, it seems that btcfi’s self-sustaining ability is still relatively weak. On the bright side, there’s still a lot of room for improvement. Breaking out of btcfi’s deadlock and rising to the top would truly make this project exceptional. Data source: https://(dune.com)/river_inc/river