Can a wallet generate $20M in annual revenue with just 1% market share? And what would this mean for its native token? Here's the case for $WALLET. DeFi protocol tokens like $UNI or $FLUID derive intrinsic value primarily from fee capture and revenue share. The more protocol revenue directed to holders (via distributions or buybacks), the more valuable the token becomes. Wallets are no different: - They offer users infrastructure to interact with the blockchain: swaps, trades, transactions. - They charge small fees on top. - More users = more tx volume = more revenue. - Token holders can vote to distribute revenue or buy back/burn tokens—introducing deflation. Let’s plug in some numbers, using @ambirewallet as a real-world case. We will have a look at the built-in swaps as main revenue stream for Ambire. Uniswap handles $87B monthly volume. Assuming 60% of the volume is bot traffic (and bots don't use wallets) and assuming Ambire captures 1% of the remaining volume with a 0.5% fee: $87B × 0.4 × 0.01 × 0.005 = $1.74M monthly revenue = $20.8M annually Not to mention wallets can drive even more revenue through: - Bundler fees - App catalog visibility and revenue share What does this mean for $WALLET, Ambire's governance token? Today, all revenue flows into WalletDAO. But long-term, the goal is alignment: if Ambire wins, its holders and supporters should too. Governance could direct revenue to: - Distribute to $WALLET holders - Buy back and burn $WALLET from the market Revenue-backed tokens aren’t hype—they’re utility with yield potential. $WALLET might just be one of them.