Identifying ReFi Revenue Models

Over the years, we have witnessed the official wind-down and quiet disappearance of ReFi projects due to financial constraints. Although ReFi addresses issues related to people and the planet, many projects have struggled to translate their solutions into sustainable revenue streams, let alone profit generation. In many cases, they have relied on grants or one-off fundraising, which can provide short-term relief but rarely guarantee long-term viability.

Beyond the do-good narrative, ReFi projects must be built on workable revenue models. Altruism and irregular funding alone will not keep the lights on. Revenue is the fuel that ensures impact can scale and endure. A tree-planting initiative without a clear path to predictable income will struggle to nurture 100,000 trees to maturity, just as a social project offering UBI in rural communities cannot sustainably raise living standards without a steady revenue stream. To guide ReFi projects in developing their revenue models, this article explores the most foundational revenue models currently in use.

Note: All ETH/USD and SOL/USD conversions in this article are made at a rate of 1 ETH/$4,000.00 and 1 SOL/$180.00, respectively.

The models

I've identified the following revenue models and a few of the ReFi projects that use them:

Platform/protocol fees

Projects using this model generate revenue by charging users to access or use the platform, either through one-time fees or recurring transaction charges.

• Regen Network - Regen Network's primary source of revenue comes from embedding fees directly into the lifecycle of ecological credits. The network charges fees when ecological outcomes are issued as on-chain assets and whenever those credits are transferred, sold, or retired.
• Plastiks - Plastic recovery organisations pay Plastiks to verify and certify the plastic they’ve collected or recycled. Plastiks also takes a fee in $PLASTIK on every PRG transaction, like buying, selling, and retiring.
• DOVU - DOVU charges a 15% transaction fee on every purchase of ecological carbon credits. The payments for the credits go directly to the project creators, while the 15% fee is retained by the DOVU marketplace.
• Open Forest Protocol - Rather than charging upfront fees, Open Forest Protocol enables project developers to register and verify forestation projects at no initial cost. The protocol then takes a percentage cut from the proceeds after the carbon credits are issued and sold.

Subscription or membership fees

Projects using this model offer exclusive knowledge or services that can only be accessed through a subscription or paid membership.

• The JCR Club - The JCR Club is a community supporting regenerative agriculture at Jalama Canyon Ranch with White Buffalo Land Trust. Membership, purchased through a 0.55 ETH ($2,200) NFT, offers wine allocations, ranch products, event access, and opportunities to join experiences and ecological projects at JCR.
• Coral Tribe - Coral Tribe is a community of people dedicated to funding web3 climate finance. To join, prospective members purchase a Coral Tribe NFT, priced between 0.33 SOL and 10,948 SOL ($59.40 to $1,970,640). Holders can lock their NFTs to earn Tribe Points, which they can redeem for merchandise discounts, entry into raffles, and a share of yield generated by the Coral Tribe Community Fund, invested in impact projects through ReFi Hub.

Data monetization

Projects utilising this revenue model sell data they collect to entities interested in it.

• Shamba Network- Shamba Network provides ecological and climate-related data on-chain through its dMRV oracle, which supports applications such as parametric insurance. Projects can access this data by querying or subscribing to the oracle, with each query or data feed incurring a fee.
• Ambios Network - Ambios Network deploy sensors through its community to capture real-time environmental data. They generate revenue by selling their sensors to people interested in capturing the needed data and then sell the data collected through their distributed sensors to interested entities.
• WeatherXM - WeatherXM deploys weather stations through its community-owned network to capture local meteorological data. In addition to generating revenue from the sale of their proprietary weather stations, WeatherXM also monetises the weather data those stations collect.

Marketplace

The marketplace revenue model generates income by charging a commission on transactions conducted through the platform. In ReFi, it can also extend to investment or lending opportunities.

• ReFi Hub - ReFi Hub gives users the chance to invest fractionally in physical climate infrastructure. The platform generates revenue by taking a small percentage of the investment yield and by charging listed businesses a 2.5% structuring fee which is usually deducted from their raise.
• EthicHub - EthicHub provides smallholder farmers with loans pooled together by lenders on its platform. The platform makes money through a 4% commission on each loan.
• keenest - keenest offers pre-seed, seed, and series A round funding to climate projects through capital pooled from 2000+ investors. It generates revenue by charging a commission of 7% including tax, on the amount invested, and a commission of 10% on the realised capital gain.

Validator nodes

Projects using this model operate blockchain validators and channel the rewards into developing their core offerings.

• Somos Axolotl - Somos Axolotl runs a Solana validator and directs 100% of its staking rewards into protecting axolotl habitats in Xochimilco, supporting regenerative agriculture, and building sustainable economic opportunities for local farmers and tourism operators.
• Grassroots Economics - Grassroots Economics’ primary revenue comes from the rewards earned by running a validator on Celo, which fund their operational costs and sustain their community currency programs like Sarafu.
• Ekonavi - Ekonavi serves as a validator on the Regen blockchain and receives a 5% commission on the staking rewards generated by delegators to its node.

Expanding Our Research

Although having a viable revenue model could count as a positive indicator of a project that is likely to succeed, the reality is that it does not guarantee that a project is ready for funding, let alone sustainable over the long term. Other factors at play could be demand-side pull vs. supply-side, B2B vs. B2C market approach, and alignment with existing global markets. I go further to say that having a viable revenue model doesn't even address any of ReFi’s Unholy Trinity: low user adoption, undercapitalisation, and lack of attention.

As part of the Allo Research Quest Cohort 1, we aim to better understand the conditions that make a project sustainable. Our end goal is to develop a framework that articulates the concept of “funding readiness”, which we describe as the state in which a project is ready to take the leap to financial sustainability with the help of external capital. Follow our X and Farcaster accounts for updates on our progress.