The global crypto market is not a single, unified arena. A new analysis from 36Kr highlights how Chinese and American projects operate under fundamentally different economic rules, shaping where profits come from, how premiums are generated, and the order in which value is realized. Understanding this 'Sino-US token economics' split is essential for any investor navigating cross-border digital assets.

Divergent Profit Sources: Utility vs. Liquidity

In the United States, token projects tend to derive profits from utility and network effects. The value of a token is often tied to the actual usage of the underlying platform—think decentralized finance, gaming, or social protocols. Revenue streams are generated through transaction fees, protocol charges, and value accrual to token holders.

Chinese projects, by contrast, have historically leaned toward liquidity-driven models. Profits often come from trading volume, market-making spreads, and arbitrage opportunities. The token's price premium may be less about underlying utility and more about market positioning and capital flow dynamics.

  • US model: Token value linked to protocol usage and business revenue.
  • China model: Token value tied to market liquidity and trading dynamics.

Premium Flow: Where the Extra Value Goes

Premiums—the extra amount investors pay over a token's intrinsic value—flow in different directions in the two markets. In the US, premiums often funnel back into the ecosystem through buybacks, staking rewards, or protocol development. This creates a positive feedback loop that can sustain long-term value.

In China, premiums are more likely to be realized as exit liquidity for early investors or project teams. The flow of premium often moves from retail traders to insiders, especially during hot market phases. This can lead to sharp price swings and a higher risk of 'pump-and-dump' scenarios.

The Role of Community and Culture

Cultural factors also play a role. US communities tend to prioritize transparency and governance, while Chinese communities often value speed and momentum. These differences shape how premium is perceived and captured.

Realization Sequence: Who Gets Paid First?

The order in which different stakeholders realize value is a critical differentiator. In US-based projects, the sequence typically follows a founder → investor → community path, with a focus on long-term alignment. Founders are often locked up for a period, and investor tokens are subject to vesting schedules.

In many Chinese projects, the sequence is often insiders → early investors → community, with insiders having the ability to exit earlier. This can create a misalignment of incentives, where the team has less skin in the game over the long term.

The realization sequence is the 'who gets paid first' question that every investor should ask before entering a token.

Key Takeaways for Global Investors

No single model is 'better,' but each carries distinct risks and opportunities. US tokens may offer more sustainable value, but can be slower to appreciate. Chinese-style tokens can deliver rapid gains, but with higher volatility and a greater chance of abrupt losses.

For investors operating across both markets, it's crucial to understand the profit source, premium flow, and realization sequence of any project. These factors determine whether you are a long-term partner or just liquidity for someone else's exit.

As the crypto industry matures, these Sino-US differences may converge, but for now, they remain a key lens for evaluating token economics.

Conclusion

The 36Kr analysis provides a valuable framework for dissecting token models. Whether you focus on US utility tokens or China-style liquidity plays, the underlying economics dictate the risk-reward profile. By asking 'Where do profits come from?' and 'Who gets paid first?', investors can better navigate the complex web of global token markets.