Web3: the business models that work
Behind the “Web3” label live very different projects: some generate real and sustainable revenue, others survive only on token issuance and incentives. Distinguishing the models that work from those that burn capital is the first step towards building, or assessing, a serious project. The right question is not “how much is the token worth”, but “where does the revenue come from and who pays it”.
What changes compared with Web2
The structural difference is ownership: in Web3 users and contributors can own part of the value they help create, through tokens that represent economic, governance or usage rights. This enables models in which the network grows by distributing value to participants, but it also introduces the risk of doped incentives that vanish once issuance ends.
The models that generate real value
Some categories have proven they can hold up beyond speculative enthusiasm.
- Protocols with usage fees: infrastructure (decentralised exchanges, lending platforms, layer-two networks) that retains a fee on each transaction. Revenue is proportional to actual usage: it is the model closest to a traditional business.
- Infrastructure and “picks and shovels”: nodes, oracles, data indexing, wallets, custody, developer tooling. They sell a service needed by anyone who builds, often with recurring subscription or usage-based revenue.
- Marketplaces: platforms that connect supply and demand (digital assets, services, computing power) while retaining a fee. The perennial rule applies: liquidity and volumes matter more than the token.
- Services and applications: products aimed at a vertical audience (identity, asset tokenisation, creator-economy tools) with a clear revenue model, where the blockchain is a means and not an end.
The signs of a fragile model
- Revenue that depends almost solely on the issuance of new tokens and not on fees paid by users.
- Unsustainable returns promised to attract capital (“yields” in double or triple digits not justified by real economic activity).
- Absence of a reason to use the product net of the token incentive.
- Metrics inflated by non-organic wallets and volumes.
A simple test: if you remove the token, does an activity remain that someone would pay for? If so, the model has solid foundations.
The Swiss framing
Switzerland offers one of the most mature frameworks for blockchain projects, but the legal structure must be designed carefully. The classification of the token (payment, utility or investment) determines the regulatory and tax treatment, and some activities — for example the custody of values on behalf of third parties, intermediation or the issuance of certain instruments — may fall within areas subject to authorisation. In these cases the regulated activities are carried out through authorised partners, while the advisor’s role remains structuring and advisory: corporate form, project governance, contractual setup and tax consistency.
The AML framing must also be assessed: many Web3 models that move values require adequate anti-money-laundering safeguards from the design stage, not after the fact.
How we work
SIH ONE supports Web3 projects in corporate structuring, token classification and the setup of governance, tax aspects and AML safeguards, with the authorised activities handled through licensed partners. If you are building in Web3, let’s talk it over with our crypto desk.