Medical AI on Coins for Beginners: Lesson 16—Why a Project Having Revenue Doesn’t Mean the Token Is Valuable?

Medical AI on Coins for Beginners, Lesson 16｜18:50
Why does a project having revenue not mean the token is valuable?

Someone asked me: “The project has started making money—can buying its coin still be wrong?”

At first glance, that sounds reasonable. A project with real revenue is indeed one step stronger than a project that only talks about a vision and has nobody paying. But this evidence only proves that “someone might be buying into the business,” not that “this token will necessarily benefit because of it.”

Let’s switch to a more familiar scenario: if a restaurant in a mall has a line every day, will the mall’s souvenir card necessarily appreciate? Not necessarily. Unless the souvenir card can be used for consumption, to get perks, or the mall uses its profits to buy it back, the restaurant’s bustle and the card’s value may be two different things.

So when I see “the project has revenue,” I don’t stop at that number—I ask a few more steps.

First, look at who is paying. Are real users paying for the product, or is the project buying short-term activity with high rewards? If the rewards users receive are more than the costs paid, then on the surface there may be “revenue,” but in reality the project could be spending more money to manufacture prosperity. If the rewards stop, both the people and the revenue may leave with them.

Next, look at what the token is used for in this business. When the product grows, do users have to use the token? Does the revenue translate into real demand for the token? Does the project have a clear and sustainable way to pass value through? If users don’t need the token from start to finish, then the project’s revenue won’t automatically circle back to affect the token—so people buying the coin aren’t truly getting the project’s operating results by default.

Finally, check supply. Even if there’s already a link between the business and the token, if too many new tokens are added every year, and the reward recipients keep selling, then new demand may be overwhelmed by new supply. It’s like the faucet is adding water to the tank, but the drain is opened even wider—the water level may not rise.

My boundary for judging these kinds of projects is very clear: revenue only means it’s worth continuing to study, and it can’t, by itself, be the reason to buy the coin. Only if the revenue source is sustainable, the token can carry the business value, and the supply doesn’t keep diluting that value—can all three connect, and “having revenue” potentially become a meaningful signal for the token.

That’s exactly the break point that in-depth research is meant to solve: not just how much the project makes, but putting revenue quality, token use cases, and subsequent supply together to judge whether it’s a good business—and ultimately whether that business can become a good logic for the token.

If you’re researching a coin that “already has revenue,” comment the coin name and tell me how you think the revenue will flow through to the token. That missing step between the two is often more important than the revenue number itself.