Helium and Akash revenue continues to grow; why has the DePIN token value capture failed?

Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Networks (DePIN) have surpassed $800 million in annual external revenue in Q2 2026. Helium's 5G users are still growing, Akash's GPU leasing volume continues to rise, and Hivemapper's mapping data API is being integrated by more logistics companies—real paid usage from non-crypto users is flowing into these decentralized networks in a traceable manner.

However, when opening the Gate market page, the token prices of the same projects show a completely opposite picture. As of June 1, 2026, Helium is priced at $0.7277, down 78.55% over the past year. Akash Network is at $0.7529, down 42.02%. Filecoin is at $0.9205, down 64.12%. Render Network is at $2.0463, down 47.98%. Meanwhile, Hivemapper's token has fallen to $0.001804, evaporating 93.05% in a year.

Revenue is moving to the right, prices are moving to the left. The DePIN track is experiencing a rare narrative split: business model validation and token value destruction are happening simultaneously.

Where does the revenue come from, and where is it concentrated?

Breaking down the composition of this $800 million annualized revenue remains a highly concentrated structure. Helium, Akash Network, and Hivemapper contribute over 85% of external revenue, while the vast majority of the hundreds of other DePIN projects have almost negligible external paid revenue.

Helium provides 5G mobile plans to US users through Helium Mobile, continuously acquiring users at prices lower than Verizon and AT&T, with an annualized revenue exceeding $500 million, accounting for over 60% of the entire track. Akash Network entered the market during a window of rising AI inference demand, with GPU leasing, and has surpassed $100 million in annualized revenue. Hivemapper's mapping API service generates nearly $100 million annually, while Filecoin and Render Network contribute tens of millions of dollars each.

But the story of revenue growth has not translated into the token market. The current token prices of the top five projects are significantly discounted compared to a year ago, with some tokens falling more than 90% from their peaks. This raises a question that the DePIN track cannot avoid: if sustained growth in external revenue cannot support token value, then what is the long-term sustainability of the current token economic model?

| Project Name | Sub-Track | Estimated Annual External Revenue | Revenue Source | Token Price as of June 1, 2026 (USD) | Price Change in the Past Year | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Helium | Mobile Network | About $520 million | 5G data traffic fees | 0.7277 | -78.55% | | Akash Network | Cloud Computing | About $110 million | GPU/CPU leasing fees | 0.7529 | -42.02% | | Hivemapper | Map Data | About $90 million | API data call fees | 0.001804 | -93.05% | | Filecoin | Decentralized Storage | About $60 million | Storage service fees | 0.9205 | -64.12% | | Render Network | GPU Rendering | About $40 million | Rendering task fees | 2.0463 | -47.98% |

Data sources: project disclosures and third-party platform estimates; token prices based on Gate market data, as of June 1, 2026

Why do revenue growth and token prices diverge?

The root of this divergence needs to be traced back to the design of the token economic model.

In Helium's protocol design, increased network usage leads to more token burns, theoretically linking revenue and token demand. However, in reality, secondary market prices are influenced not only by burns but also by overall liquidity conditions, market risk appetite, and token unlock pressures. When market risk appetite shrinks, the positive supply-demand effects of revenue growth may be completely overwhelmed by macro liquidity contraction and token selling pressure.

A more critical aspect is the difference in stablecoin settlement ratios. Helium's network settles about 70% of fees in USD stablecoins, Akash's ratio is about 55%, while Hivemapper and Filecoin still mainly settle in native tokens. The higher the stablecoin settlement proportion, the closer the revenue is to traditional tech company cash flow logic; the higher the native token settlement proportion, the more tightly revenue quality is bound to token market volatility. This difference is insignificant in a bull market but becomes a key variable in a sustained downtrend.

Hivemapper's token has fallen 93% over a year, partly due to its high reliance on native token settlement. When revenue is denominated in tokens, and the tokens are in a long-term downtrend, the so-called external revenue growth is significantly eroded in real purchasing power. Filecoin faces a similar dilemma: storage demand is increasing, but the value of revenue denominated in FIL is shrinking.

Another factor behind the broad decline in token prices is ongoing inflation on the supply side. Many DePIN projects are still in the peak token release phase to incentivize hardware deployers maintaining the network. In projects where revenue growth has not kept pace with token inflation, holders suffer ongoing real dilution. Akash Network's token has risen 120.82% in the past 90 days, making it one of the few projects with positive performance in the table; its 30-day increase also reached 31.71%, reflecting some market recognition of its relatively healthy revenue quality and token economic model. However, this localized improvement appears isolated in the overall market downturn.

The fact remains: DePIN revenue is growing, but token prices are plunging. Both coexist, indicating a clear disconnection in the current phase of the DePIN track: the transmission chain from revenue validation to token value capture has broken. If this disconnection persists long-term, it will directly undermine the token-driven supply model—if hardware deployers see the value of their tokens continuously shrinking, their marginal motivation to continue providing network resources will diminish.

The true quality of the $800 million revenue and market divergence

Industry discussions on this pivotal data point are still oscillating between optimism and caution. The optimistic view does not become invalid because of falling token prices: non-crypto users are paying dollars for decentralized network services, which is a verifiable non-speculative demand and a bridge connecting the crypto industry to the real economy. If, after the adjustment period, revenue growth continues, token value may realign with income at a new supply-demand equilibrium.

But the cautious side has a strong argument: the continuous decline in token prices precisely indicates that current revenue growth has not generated enough token demand to offset systemic selling pressure. Some projects' cost advantages are built on indirect support from token subsidies to the supply side. If prolonged low token prices cause network participants to exit, this cost advantage will face contraction risks.

A more serious indicator being scrutinized by the market is the stablecoin settlement ratio. The more the settlement structure favors stablecoins, the less affected revenue is by crypto market volatility, and the more independent and predictable the business model becomes. Helium and Akash are relatively advantaged in this regard, which is also the core reason why their revenues continue to grow despite their tokens being halved—because their paying users do not care about token prices, only about buying cheaper mobile plans and computing power.

The significance of the $800 million annualized revenue is not to prove that DePIN has succeeded, but to provide a sufficiently concrete discussion object. The market can stop debating “whether decentralized networks are useful” and instead ask precisely: at the current cost structure and token prices, at what price level can this network’s unit economics stand independently?

How DePIN affects the valuation framework of the crypto market

The simultaneous existence of revenue growth and token decline in top DePIN projects is forcing the market to revise its valuation framework for infrastructure-based crypto assets.

In the past, valuations of crypto infrastructure projects were almost entirely driven by narrative strength and token price expectations. The emergence of external revenue was originally seen as an opportunity to anchor financial fundamentals. But the sharp decline in token prices shows that revenue growth alone does not automatically translate into token value—the conversion efficiency depends on the robustness of value capture mechanisms in the token economic model.

For long-term investors, this divergence provides an effective screening tool. Projects with revenue settled mainly in stablecoins, token inflation aligned with revenue growth, and network usage growth directly triggering token burns may demonstrate stronger value support across cycles. Conversely, projects with revenue settled in native tokens, token inflation far exceeding revenue growth, and fuzzy value capture chains may look promising on revenue data but remain under supply-side pressure.

The current situation of the DePIN track reflects a broader question in crypto: when the narrative recedes, which on-chain economic activities can truly solidify into token value? Without a clear answer, crypto asset pricing will forever be locked in liquidity cycles and risk appetite frameworks, unable to establish independent valuation anchors beyond macro fluctuations.

Three possible paths: repair, divergence, and regulatory variables

Based on current data and market environment, the evolution of the DePIN track over the next 12 to 18 months can roughly follow three paths. This is not a prediction but a logical extension based on existing signals.

The first path is that revenue growth ultimately drives token value recovery. This requires stablecoin settlement ratios of leading projects to continue rising, token issuance to slow down, and the market to find a supply-side equilibrium at a certain price range. Helium and Akash have some conditions but still need time for validation.

The second path is further divergence within the track. Projects with high revenue quality and healthier token economic models may lead the way in value recovery, while projects with revenue denominated in native tokens and persistent supply inflation may face negative spirals of supply-side exit. This divergence will reshape the competitive landscape of DePIN, further concentrating resources in top projects.

The third path involves regulatory intervention changing the rules of competition. Decentralized mobile networks and distributed computing involve regulated industries like telecom and data privacy. If regulators require DePIN networks to meet the same compliance obligations as traditional operators, some projects’ cost structures will need to be reconstructed, and low-revenue, low-price strategies may become unsustainable.

It’s important to note these paths are not mutually exclusive. Different verticals within DePIN may evolve along different trajectories, deepening sector segmentation.

The market’s valuation logic for DePIN is shifting from “whose revenue figures are bigger” to “whose revenue more genuinely translates into token value.” This process will eliminate some projects and may allow a few to establish real moats amid the shakeout. $800 million in annualized revenue is an important starting point but not the end.

Conclusion

The current picture of the DePIN track presents a rare dual reality in crypto history: on one side, continuous growth in dollar-denominated revenue proves that decentralized networks can indeed provide real, replaceable services at lower costs; on the other side, the sharp discount in token prices reveals that the transmission chain from protocol income to token value is far more fragile than imagined. Whether these two curves can reconverge depends on a still-unanswered question—after slowing token inflation, mainstream stablecoin settlement, and network effects crossing a critical threshold, can these decentralized infrastructure tokens establish a valuation basis independent of macro liquidity cycles? Until that day arrives, $800 million in annualized revenue is more like a ticket to entry than a victory declaration.

FAQ

What does surpassing $800 million in annualized DePIN revenue mean?

DePIN surpassing $800 million in annualized revenue means that decentralized physical infrastructure networks have, for the first time, proven at scale that non-crypto users are willing to pay for services. The track has moved from narrative-driven to revenue-validated phase.

Why does DePIN revenue grow while token prices keep falling?

DePIN token prices continue to decline mainly due to overall liquidity contraction, supply-side inflation from token releases, and structural factors like revenue settling in native tokens, which lead to low value capture efficiency.

Which DePIN projects have the highest real revenue?

Helium, Akash Network, and Hivemapper are currently the top three in external revenue, collectively contributing over 85% of the track’s annualized revenue.

What is Helium’s revenue model?

Helium provides 5G mobile plans to US users via Helium Mobile, with users paying monthly in USD. The protocol distributes this income to network participants, creating a link between external revenue and token economics.

Can revenue growth in DePIN ultimately support token value?

Whether revenue growth can support token value depends on whether stablecoin settlement ratios can be sustained, if token inflation can match revenue growth, and whether value capture mechanisms effectively drive token demand.

Why is there a difference in token value capture efficiency among DePIN projects?

Differences mainly stem from protocol design factors such as token burn mechanisms, settlement currencies, and governance weights. Projects settling in stablecoins and directly linked to network usage tend to have stronger value support.

What are the main risks facing DePIN?

Major risks include persistent divergence between revenue and token value, reliance on native token settlement leading to actual income erosion, ongoing token inflation diluting holders, and potential regulatory and price competition from centralized providers.

Why has Akash Network’s token performed relatively well recently?

Akash’s token has risen over 120% in the past 90 days, mainly due to sustained growth in GPU leasing driven by AI compute demand and market recognition of its relatively healthy token economic model and revenue settlement structure.