Token emissions are subsidies. Protocols like KlimaDAO and Toucan Protocol bootstrap liquidity by printing and distributing tokens, creating the illusion of demand. This is a capital-intensive user acquisition strategy, not a viable revenue model.
the-state-of-web3-education-and-onboarding
Blog
Why Current ReFi Models Are Financially Unsustainable
An autopsy of ReFi's flawed economics: how subsidized yields, grant dependency, and a lack of real demand create a house of cards, not a regenerative future.
introduction
THE SUBSIDY TRAP
Introduction: The ReFi Mirage
Current ReFi models rely on unsustainable subsidies, confusing token emissions for genuine economic activity.
Real yield is absent. The dominant activity in ReFi is circular: users farm tokens to sell for stablecoins, creating negative-sum games. This contrasts with DeFi protocols like Aave or Uniswap, which generate fees from external demand.
The data proves the drain. Analysis of on-chain treasuries for major ReFi projects shows runway measured in months, not years. The model depends on perpetual new investment to pay existing participants, a classic Ponzi structure.
key-trends
FINANCIAL REALITIES
The Three Pillars of ReFi's Unsustainability
Current ReFi models are built on shaky economic foundations, mistaking token incentives for sustainable value creation.
01
The Problem: Subsidy-Driven Liquidity
Protocols like KlimaDAO and Toucan rely on high-yield token incentives to bootstrap liquidity, creating a ponzinomic death spiral.\n- TVL collapses when emissions drop (e.g., -90%+ from ATH).\n- Real yield is replaced by inflationary token printing.\n- Creates mercenary capital, not sticky, mission-aligned liquidity.
-90%+
TVL Drawdown
>100% APY
Unsustainable Yield
02
The Problem: Off-Chain Cost Black Box
Verification of real-world impact (carbon credits, plastic recovery) is an expensive, centralized oracle problem.\n- Projects like Regen Network and Moss Earth incur high fixed operational costs for auditors and certifiers.\n- These costs are opaque and often exceed on-chain revenue.\n- Creates a fundamental mismatch between token price and verifiable underlying asset value.
30-70%
Off-Chain Opex
Centralized
Verification Risk
03
The Problem: The Demand-Side Illusion
There is minimal organic, utility-driven demand for ReFi assets. Current buying is driven by ESG narratives or compliance speculation.\n- Voluntary carbon market demand is ~$2B globally, a rounding error in DeFi.\n- Tokenized assets lack inherent composability or yield utility outside their narrow use case.\n- Without a real economic engine, the model relies on perpetual new investor inflow.
~$2B
Global VCM Size
Speculative
Primary Demand
deep-dive
THE FINANCIAL REALITY
Anatomy of a Subsidy Bubble: From Carbon to Celo
Current ReFi models rely on unsustainable subsidy mechanics that collapse when external funding stops.
Subsidized demand is artificial demand. Protocols like KlimaDAO and Toucan Protocol bootstraped liquidity by overpaying for carbon credits, creating a temporary price floor. This attracts speculators, not permanent users, and inflates a token's perceived utility.
The subsidy is the product. Platforms such as Celo and Regen Network often use native token emissions to pay users for eco-actions. This creates a circular economy where the primary incentive is the protocol's own inflation, not external revenue.
Subsidy removal triggers death spirals. When grant funding or token emissions slow, the artificial demand evaporates. The subsequent price collapse, seen in the carbon market crash of 2022, destroys the treasury value needed to fund the mission.
Evidence: KlimaDAO's treasury fell from ~$200M to under $10M. Its token price dropped >99% from its subsidized peak, demonstrating the model's fragility without perpetual new capital.
WHY CURRENT REFI MODELS ARE FINANCIALLY UNSUSTAINABLE
The Grant-to-TVL Ratio: A Sustainability Metric
Comparing the capital efficiency and subsidy dependence of major ReFi protocols. A high Grant-to-TVL ratio indicates a model reliant on grants, not organic yield.
| Metric / Protocol | Celo (cLabs Grants) | Regen Network (Verra Credits) | Toucan Protocol (BCT Pool) | KlimaDAO (sKLIMA Backing) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Grant-to-TVL Ratio |
| ~ 0.8 | ~ 0.3 | ~ 0.05 |
Primary Revenue Source | Grant Distributions | Project Development Fees | Bridge & Retirement Fees | Treasury Yield (POL) |
Protocol-Owned Liquidity | 5% | 15% | 62% | 92% |
Annualized Yield for LPs | 1.2% (from grants) | 4.5% (from fees) | 7.8% (from fees) | N/A (bonding model) |
Treasury Runway at Current Burn | < 18 months | ~ 36 months |
| Perpetual (algorithmic) |
On-Chain Fee Revenue (30d) | $12k | $45k | $280k | $1.2m |
Requires Continuous Grant Funding | ||||
Model Classification | Subsidy-Dependent | Hybrid (Grant-Fee) | Fee-Driven | Protocol-Owned Economy |
counter-argument
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
Steelman: "It's Early-Stage Bootstrapping"
Current ReFi models rely on unsustainable subsidies that misalign financial incentives with environmental outcomes.
Subsidies mask true costs. Protocols like KlimaDAO and Toucan use treasury emissions to pay users for carbon credits, creating artificial demand that collapses when incentives stop.
Real yield is non-existent. The revenue from carbon credit resale or staking fees fails to cover the inflationary token emissions required to bootstrap liquidity, creating a negative-sum game.
Compare to DeFi primitives. Successful models like Uniswap or Aave bootstrap with subsidies but transition to fee-based sustainability; ReFi lacks this clear path as its 'product' (environmental benefit) is a public good.
Evidence: KlimaDAO's treasury value fell from ~$1B to under $10M, demonstrating the unsustainable velocity of incentive-driven models without underlying utility.
takeaways
WHY CURRENT REFI MODELS FAIL
Takeaways: The Path to Real Sustainability
Most ReFi projects rely on unsustainable subsidies, confusing tokenomics with real-world impact. Here's how to build for longevity.
01
The Carbon Credit Trap
Projects like Toucan and KlimaDAO revealed the flaw: tokenizing low-quality, legacy carbon credits creates a financial instrument, not a climate solution. The on-chain asset becomes decoupled from real-world verification and additionality.
- Problem: Creates a secondary market for retired credits, enabling double-counting.
- Solution: Focus on ex-post, tokenized MRV (Measurement, Reporting, Verification) for new projects, as seen with Regen Network.
>90%
Price Decline
Zero
Additionality
02
The Grant Dependency Loop
Protocols like Gitcoin (for funding) and many DAOs survive on retroactive funding rounds and treasury grants. This is venture philanthropy, not a sustainable economic engine.
- Problem: No native revenue mechanism; impact is a cost center.
- Solution: Embed fees into verifiable impact outcomes. Think Hypercerts for funding specific outcomes or Proof of Impact bonds that pay out upon verified results.
$50M+
Grant Capital
<5%
Fee Revenue
03
Tokenomics as a Subsidy
High APY token incentives to bootstrap liquidity, as seen in early KlimaDAO or OlympusDAO forks, are a capital-intensive user acquisition strategy. The token price becomes the primary metric, not the underlying impact.
- Problem: Inflationary token emissions drain the treasury to pay for engagement.
- Solution: Align token utility with protocol usage and fee capture. Value accrual must be tied to transaction volume of real assets, not speculation.
-99%
Token Price
Ponzinomics
Model
04
The Real Solution: Impact = Cash Flow
Sustainable ReFi must generate native, demand-driven revenue from its core function. This means building infrastructure where proof of impact is a billable service.
- Key Shift: Move from funding impact to selling verifiable proof of it.
- Blueprint: Regen's carbon marketplace, dClimate's data oracles, and Green Proofs for Ethereum where stakers pay for verified clean energy attestations.
Fee-for-Service
Model
Real Yield
Goal
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall