Pons ($PONS) ranked 13th among revenue-generating crypto tokens over the past 30 days, but posted the lowest fully diluted valuation-to-revenue multiple among the top 15 at 0.7x, according to data published on Aug. 23 by Blockworks Research analyst AJC (@AvgJoesCrypto).
Using annualized revenue from the past 30 days, with data sourced from CoinGecko and DefiLlama, AJC listed the following comparisons:
- $PONS: 0.7x
- $CARDS: 2.8x
- Pump.fun-related tokens: 7.7x
- $CC: 8.1x
- $CAKE: 9.6x
- $SKY: 9.8x
- $ETHFI: 17.3x
- $AERO: 19.6x
- $JUP: 27.4x
- $AAVE: 45.2x
- $WLFI: 47.5x
- $UNI: 49.3x
- $TRX: 102.3x
- $HYPE: 168.5x
- $LINK: 212.2x
On the numbers alone, PONS appears to trade at a sharp discount relative to its revenue ranking.
Pons is a token launch platform on Robinhood Chain
Pons, at pons.family, is a non-custodial token issuance platform deployed on Robinhood Chain. Users can create fixed-supply tokens quickly, and trading begins from the first block. The platform is often compared with a pump.fun-style product on that chain.
According to the report, Pons completed its V2 upgrade in July 2026. After that upgrade, it adopted bond-curve pricing, with tokens later graduating into permanently locked Uniswap V4 liquidity pools. Part of protocol fees goes to creators, while another portion is counted as protocol revenue. Public information cited in the article says about 80% of protocol revenue is used to buy back and burn $PONS.
Over the past month and more, the platform has generated cumulative trading volume in the multi-billion-dollar range, while the amount of PONS burned has approached 30% of total supply. That buyback-and-burn structure sits at the center of the project’s low-valuation argument.
High revenue ranking, conservative market pricing
AJC’s dataset placed $PONS inside the top 15 by 30-day revenue, yet assigned it the lowest FDV-to-revenue multiple in the group at 0.7x. In the framing used by the article, if current revenue is simply annualized, the market is assigning little to no premium to that earning power and may even be applying a steep discount.
For comparison, Pump.fun-related tokens were valued at about 7.7x on the same basis. More established DeFi names such as Aave and Uniswap stood at 45.2x and 49.3x, while Chainlink topped the group at 212.2x.
The article said this gap can be read in two ways. One is that the market doubts the sustainability of Pons revenue and therefore gives it a very low multiple. The other is that the supply contraction created by buybacks and burns has not yet been fully priced in.
Questions remain over revenue quality
Replies under the post quickly raised doubts. Some users argued that if possible volume inflation or wash trading were excluded, effective revenue could come in well below the headline figure and might even be less than half.
Those claims have not been cross-verified with further on-chain data so far, but they show that part of the market remains unconvinced by the “high revenue, low valuation” narrative.
The report also noted that since Pons launched, researchers including AJC have published multiple analyses of its revenue and buyback multiples. In earlier datasets, the token’s price-to-buyback multiple was once below 1x. That figure later changed as the token price rose and revenue fluctuated, but it has remained on the low end versus comparable projects.
What the market is watching next
The key variables now include whether protocol revenue can stay elevated, whether buybacks and burns will translate into a meaningful decline in circulating supply, and whether activity on Robinhood Chain itself can hold up.
Based on public data cited in the piece, PONS supply is continuing to shrink, and the protocol is converting most of its revenue into market buying of its own token. Even so, the current 0.7x valuation shows those factors have not yet been broadly accepted by the market as a durable moat.
The next focus, according to the article, will be on two points: the real quality and durability of protocol revenue, and whether the burn pace continues to accelerate. Only after revenue quality is backed by more data could the valuation multiple move closer to peers.
