These sources primarily examine Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Networks (DePINs) and the intrinsic value of their associated tokens, offering both optimistic and critical perspectives. They introduce the foundational concepts of DePINs, explaining how blockchain technology incentivizes the creation of physical infrastructure and the "flywheel effect" designed to bootstrap network growth. Critiques often center on unsustainable tokenomics, the lack of genuine demand for services, and potential regulatory challenges, while proponents highlight cost efficiencies, multi-faceted token utility, and emerging real-world adoption, particularly with the rise of AI. Case studies of projects like Helium and Filecoin illustrate the practical challenges and successes in transitioning from speculative growth to sustainable, revenue-driven economies.
What Are DePINs and Why Tokens?
Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Networks (DePINs) are blockchain-based projects that incentivize the deployment of real-world hardware (like hotspots, sensors, energy devices, etc.) by turning participants into stakeholders via tokensgate.com. Instead of a single company building and owning all infrastructure, DePIN participants (e.g. device operators, users) collectively own and operate the network, earning crypto tokens as rewards. In essence, the token serves as a coordination mechanism: it rewards those who supply resources (coverage, storage, energy, etc.) and can be used by those who consume the network’s services. This model aims to bootstrap physical networks that would be hard to grow without incentives, by using tokens to align interests and encourage early participationgate.com.
The “Flywheel Effect”: A hallmark of DePIN tokenomics is the positive feedback loop (flywheel) designed to accelerate network growth. In the early stages, generous token rewards attract suppliers (for example, people deploying wireless hotspots or running storage servers) even when user demand is low. As more infrastructure comes online, the network’s coverage or capacity improves, which should attract more end-users, generating real usage and revenue. That increased usage ideally drives token utility (e.g. tokens are spent or burned for services), supporting token value. A higher token price then further incentivizes new suppliers to join since their rewards are worth more, which again expands the network. In theory, this creates a self-reinforcing cycle: tokens subsidize growth, growth increases token value, which in turn drives more growthmulticoin.capitalcompound.vc.
Illustration of a DePIN “flywheel” using Helium’s model: token rewards spur hotspot deployment, expanding network coverage which then attracts usage and token demand, further boosting rewards and network growthmulticoin.capitalmulticoin.capital.
For example, the Helium network (a decentralized wireless project) demonstrated this flywheel in action. In Helium’s early days, a hotspot device (costing a few hundred dollars) could earn enough Helium Network Tokens (HNT) to “pay for itself” in just weeks or even daysmulticoin.capitalmulticoin.capital. This quick ROI, enabled by high token emission and a speculative HNT price, drove tens of thousands of people to buy and deploy Helium hotspots, rapidly expanding the network’s coveragemulticoin.capitalmulticoin.capital. The expectation (and goal) was that, once a critical mass of coverage existed, IoT sensor companies and other users would use the network, creating real demand (via Data Credits purchased by burning HNT). In Helium’s case, the token economics included a Burn-and-Mint Equilibrium (BME) – every time HNT is spent for actual network usage, it’s burned (destroyed), reducing supplypanewslab.com. New HNT is minted over time as rewards, but with a halving schedule, so supply growth slows. This design attempts to balance incentivizing network builders with long-term token sustainability (i.e. tying token issuance to usage and having deflationary pressure from burns)gate.companewslab.com. Many newer DePIN projects have adopted similar models – high early rewards that taper off, and mechanisms like token burning or staking to curb unsustainable inflationgate.com.
Token Distribution and Utility in DePIN Projects
A DePIN project’s tokenomics define how tokens are created, distributed, and used within its ecosystemrapidinnovation.iorapidinnovation.io. Typically, a large portion of the token supply is allocated to incentivize the supply side – the people providing the physical service. For instance, Helium’s miners (hotspot hosts) earned the majority of HNT issuance as rewards for providing wireless coveragepanewslab.com. Filecoin’s miners similarly earn FIL for provisioning storage space, and in return they must stake some FIL as collateral (aligning their interests with the network’s reliability). At the same time, tokens are usually allocated to founders, developers, and early investors, and possibly set aside for community grants or ecosystem development. Designing a fair distribution is crucial – if insiders hoard too many tokens or if distribution is too concentrated, it undermines the “decentralized” ethos and can erode community trust. (Helium, for example, faced criticism when it emerged that insiders and their friends mined a large share of HNT in the very early daysibtimes.comibtimes.com.) A healthy distribution should ensure that early contributors are rewarded without compromising the network’s long-term decentralization and trust.
On the utility side, DePIN tokens tend to be multi-faceted in their functionalityrapidinnovation.io. Unlike pure speculative crypto assets, their value is meant to derive from network usage and governance. Common use cases for DePIN tokens include:
* Payment for Services: Users spend tokens to access the network’s service (e.g. paying for storage space on Filecoin, or for IoT data transfers on Helium). Often this is abstracted – Helium users pay in “Data Credits” that are produced by burning HNT, for a stable pricing in USDmulticoin.capitalpanewslab.com. In any case, real demand for the service should translate into token demand or burns.
* Incentives/Rewards: The network rewards providers (miners, node operators) with tokens for contributing resources. This is the bootstrapping mechanism that kickstarts growth. For example, HNT is awarded to hotspot operators for contributing coverage and validating network datapanewslab.com, and projects like DIMO reward drivers for sharing vehicle data.
* Staking and Security: Some networks require participants to lock up tokens (stake) to assure honest behavior or quality of service. Filecoin storage providers, for instance, stake FIL as collateral which can be slashed for misbehavior. Staking can also secure the network or provide quality guarantees in bandwidth and compute networks.
* Governance: Tokens often confer voting rights in protocol decisions. Decentralized networks allow token holders to vote on upgrades, economic parameter changes, or grant allocations. This gives the community a say in the project’s direction, aligning with the decentralized ownership ethosrapidinnovation.iorapidinnovation.io.
* Access or Premium Features: In some cases, holding tokens might unlock certain capabilities or higher service tiers. For example, a token might be needed to deploy a node or use an advanced feature of the network.
Having multiple utilities can strengthen a token’s intrinsic value by ensuring there are various sources of demand for it (not just speculative trading). In an ideal scenario, as the network’s usage grows, token demand from service users and the need for staking/governance will support its value, even as supply-side emissions continue. For instance, Helium’s HNT is not only a reward token; it’s also required (indirectly via burning to create credits) to use the network’s data transfer services, and it grants influence in network governancepanewslab.companewslab.com. Such dual functionality – rewarding participants and powering the network’s economy – is seen as key to long-term sustainabilityrapidinnovation.io.
The Optimistic Case: Why DePIN Tokens Can Have Lasting Value
Proponents of DePINs argue that these projects could fundamentally improve cost-efficiency and unlock new markets in ways traditional models cannot. By decentralizing infrastructure provision, DePIN networks leverage idle resources and crowd-sourced capital, potentially offering services at lower cost to end-users. A clear example is in telecom: Helium’s decentralized model offloads the expensive task of building network coverage to thousands of individual hotspot owners. In return for token rewards, these individuals bear the hardware costs. Helium then can offer a competitive cellular service (via its new 5G “Helium Mobile” network) at a fraction of the price of traditional carriers. Indeed, Helium is advertising a $20/month unlimited data plan – far cheaper than typical $60–$90 plans – precisely because it doesn’t need to recoup massive infrastructure investments from customerscompound.vc. The token-incentive model bootstrapped a nationwide network at low capex for the company, which translates into cost savings for userscompound.vc. This kind of efficiency gain is a major selling point: DePIN can reduce overhead and middlemen, passing savings on to consumers and/or improving access where legacy economics wouldn’t justify it.
Another optimistic point is the breadth of token utility and the communities forming around these networks. A well-designed DePIN token aligns the interests of all participants – users, providers, and developers. For example, Filecoin’s FIL token creates a marketplace for storage: clients pay FIL for storing data, storage miners earn FIL for hosting data (and must stake FIL as a bond), and token holders can govern upgrades to the protocol. The token’s value, in theory, flows from the real demand to store and retrieve data on the network. Notably, Filecoin’s network has seen growing real usage: by late 2023, over 2 million terabytes of data were stored on Filecoin, as the network expanded beyond mere capacity provisioning to actual data storage dealsfilecoin.io. Projects like Filecoin and Arweave have facilitated storing NFT metadata, archival data (e.g. Internet Archive), and even large scientific datasets, demonstrating tangible utility backing their tokens. As the amount of useful data stored increased, Filecoin’s token economics started to hinge less on block rewards and more on clients’ demand for storagefilecoin.io. This transition from speculative to usage-driven value is a key milestone for any DePIN project’s token.
Importantly, DePIN advocates highlight that tokens can have multi-faceted roles that create diverse value streams. A token might simultaneously: fuel internal transactions, confer governance rights, be staked for passive yield or security, and serve as a digital asset that can integrate with other DeFi or Web3 systems. Such versatility means even if one aspect (say, speculative mining) wanes, another (like fee revenue or governance power) might sustain interest in the tokenrapidinnovation.io. Moreover, active communities have formed around DePIN projects – from Helium’s community of “People’s Network” hotspot hosts to Filecoin’s alliance of storage providers and app developers. This community buy-in can itself give tokens staying power, as many participants are long-term believers in the network’s mission (e.g. decentralized internet, democratized connectivity) and not merely profit-seekers.
Real-World Adoption and Emerging Trends: While many DePINs are still in early stages, we are beginning to see signs of real adoption which validate the model. Helium, after initially struggling with IoT usage, pivoted to 5G and struck deals with major telecom players: for instance, Telefónica is working with Helium to offload mobile data through Helium’s network in areas of patchy coveragecompound.vccompound.vc. This kind of partnership suggests that if a DePIN achieves sufficient scale, even incumbent industries will pay to utilize it (in Helium’s case, carriers paying ~$0.50 per GB to use community hotspots for extra capacitypanewslab.companewslab.com). Helium reports over 100,000 subscribers for its $20/mo service and is generating seven-figure annual revenue from subscriptions and carrier offload fees – a notable shift toward a revenue-driven economy rather than pure token miningpanewslab.com. Filecoin, for its part, has integrated with protocols that enable computing on stored data, and the rise of data-heavy applications gives it a path to become foundational Web3 infrastructure.
Crucially, the rise of AI and other compute-intensive technologies is seen as a huge opportunity for DePIN projects. Decentralized networks for GPU computation, edge computing, and data sourcing are emerging to meet the skyrocketing demand from AI model training and inference. Proponents argue that DePIN can democratize access to critical resources for AI, making them cheaper and more resilient by tapping globally distributed contributorsa16zcrypto.com. For example, Render Network (RNDR) connects artists and companies needing GPU rendering power with operators who have idle GPUs, using a token to facilitate and reward the exchange. Similar concepts are being applied to AI data (e.g. networks rewarding users for sharing data to train AI models) and AI compute (decentralized cloud platforms like Akash and Ankr that offer CPU/GPU power for AI tasks). As AI adoption grows, these decentralized infrastructures could see genuine demand – a startup or researcher might prefer a decentralized network if it’s more cost-effective or open than Big Tech cloud providers. A16z (Andreessen Horowitz) has noted that DePIN projects can help power the computational needs of AI in a more distributed way, preventing bottlenecks and high costs that come with centralized infrastructurea16zcrypto.com. If even a fraction of the AI boom’s infrastructure spend flows through DePIN networks, the utility – and intrinsic value – of their tokens could rise significantly.
Finally, there’s an environmental and social angle in some DePIN sectors (like energy) that optimists highlight. In energy DePINs, tokens can incentivize adoption of renewables and battery storage by paying users for contributing to grid stability. For instance, projects like Sourceful Energy or Arkreen aim to reward participants for hooking up solar panels, EV chargers, or batteries to a decentralized grid coordination platform. By tokenizing energy flexibility and carbon credits, these networks hope to marry profit motives with sustainable practicespanewslab.comeu.vc. The potential “green” use case gives an added narrative for long-term value: if a token underpins an ecosystem that helps meet energy demand (including the massive demand from data centers and AI) in a cleaner, more efficient way, that token could be underpinned by real economic value (kilowatt-hours balanced or carbon offset paid) rather than hype. In short, the optimistic perspective is that DePIN tokens can capture the value of real-world services delivered more efficiently or innovatively via decentralization – from cheaper connectivity and storage to supporting the next generation of AI and energy systems.
The Critical Perspective: Pitfalls and Challenges
Despite the promise, many critics point out that DePIN tokenomics have often proven unsustainable in practice, especially during the initial hype cycle. A frequent criticism is that these networks achieved supply-side proliferation without matching demand, essentially subsidizing lots of hardware deployment that ended up grossly underutilized. Helium is a cautionary tale here: by mid-2022, after people spent millions of dollars on Helium hotspots globally, the actual usage of the IoT network was almost trivial – roughly $6,500 worth of data credits were used in a month for network traffictheverge.com. This was “shockingly low” relative to the huge token market cap and the investment in hardwaretheverge.com. It implied that real customers for Helium’s IoT service were scarce; most participants were there to mine tokens, not because they needed the network’s services. This lack of product-market fit is a fundamental challenge: a flywheel based on speculative supply can quickly stall out if organic demand never arrives. In Helium’s case, token emissions had to be redirected and the project had to find new markets (like 5G) to chase actual paying usage, a transition that is still ongoing. Many other DePIN projects were not able to make such pivots and simply collapsed once token rewards could no longer sustain the hype.
Another major issue has been flawed token models and “Ponzi-like” dynamics. Because early participants are rewarded primarily in tokens, there is constant sell pressure unless new buyers of those tokens emerge (either users or new speculators). If the only new buyers are more speculators (attracted by the narrative), the system starts to resemble a pyramid scheme where hardware sales and token emissions enrich early movers at the expense of latecomers. A 2024 analysis noted that “most DePIN projects prioritize hardware sales and narrative hype over solving real problems,” with many devolving into schemes that left token holders and device buyers with lossespanewslab.com. A striking statistic from the height of the craze: over 60% of DePIN hardware devices were sourced cheaply from manufacturers (e.g. in Shenzhen) and resold at 30–50x markups to eager miners, who were then stuck with overpriced gadgets once token prices crashedpanewslab.companewslab.com. In short, some project teams or middlemen profited by selling “miners” expensive devices and dreams of passive income, but those devices often failed to deliver adequate returns once the initial token issuance diluted the value. This hardware profiteering was seen in projects like:
* Hivemapper (HONEY token): This decentralized mapping project sold $549 dashcams to “map-to-earn” participants. While the concept (crowdsourced Street View) was innovative, critics point out the token’s value never supported the generous rewards promised. Hivemapper reportedly pulled in over $60 million from hardware sales, but this was one-time revenue from selling cameras, not sustainable fees from a mapping servicepanewslab.com. Meanwhile, the map data quality and usage remained questionable, and the HONEY token price stayed so low that drivers faced multi-year payback periods for the camera – if they ever break evenpanewslab.com. Essentially, the demand side (developers or companies using Hivemapper’s maps) hasn’t materialized at scale, so the whole model looks like a way to sell gadgets by dangling token rewards.
* Energy and Sensor Networks: Projects like PowerLedger (POWR) and PlanetWatch attempted to tokenize energy trading and air quality sensing, respectively. They generated excitement around green tech and IoT, but in practice they struggled to get real adoption from utilities or environmental buyers. PowerLedger’s token, for instance, soared on speculation but then crashed to near-zero as the platform’s use cases failed to gain tractionpanewslab.com. PlanetWatch, after selling many sensors to users expecting token rewards for air quality data, faced backlash when it changed its model and was ultimately acquired by another company (indicating it couldn’t stand on its own). The underlying problem was the same: no genuine market demand for the data or service to support the token’s value.
* Other “X-To-Earn” gimmicks: The DePIN wave also saw gimmicky products like Jambo (a $99 Web3 smartphone that gave tokens for using dApps) and Ordz Game (a handheld game console with play-to-earn tokens). These devices often sold reasonably well due to their low price or novelty, but the tokens had no clear utility or long-term value, and their prices reflected that (illiquid or near worthless)panewslab.com. These cases further fueled skepticism that some DePINs were just repackaged get-rich-quick schemes – a hardware twist on the failed play-to-earn and move-to-earn trends.
From the critical viewpoint, a key takeaway is that token incentives alone cannot create a sustainable economy. If a network’s only activity is people chasing token rewards, it’s a closed loop that will eventually collapse when rewards dry up or the token inflation outruns new demand. We’ve seen this with several DePIN tokens that skyrocketed during hype and then plummeted 90%+ once reality set in. A recent sector analysis by Franklin Templeton underscored the “critical lack of user interest” in many DePIN projects, even well-known ones, which “undermines [their] potential for success.” It noted that balancing supply and demand is essential for long-term viability, and currently many networks lean heavily toward over-supplied infrastructure with under-utilized servicescoinmarketcal.com. The DePIN sector as a whole saw token values and activity decline in 2023–2024 as these mismatches became apparentcoinmarketcal.comcoinmarketcal.com. Projects like Helium and Hivemapper that were once heralded as “real-world crypto” faced an uncomfortable question: now that you’ve bootstrapped all this infrastructure, who will actually use it?
Regulatory and Legal Challenges: Another critical perspective is that DePIN tokens might run afoul of regulators, especially when the tokenomics look like investment schemes. Many DePIN tokens could be interpreted as unregistered securities, since buyers might purchase them with the expectation of profit from the efforts of the network’s operators (the so-called Howey test in U.S. securities law). This concern moved from hypothetical to real in late 2024 when the U.S. SEC took aim at Helium’s project. The SEC filed a lawsuit against Helium’s founding company (Nova Labs), accusing it of issuing unregistered “cryptocurrency securities” and even of fraud in how it marketed its networkbinance.combinance.com. Specifically, the SEC alleged that Helium’s HNT and related tokens were sold as investment contracts, and it highlighted that Helium misled people by falsely implying big companies (Lime, Salesforce) were using its networkbinance.com. Helium’s team vigorously denied wrongdoing, but the case signaled a broader warning: if Helium’s token model is deemed a security, many other DePIN projects could be in the same boatbinance.com. Regulatory crackdowns can pose existential threats – not only could they limit token trading (hurting value and liquidity), but they might also impose compliance burdens on the networks’ operation (e.g. requiring miner registration or accredited status for participants). Beyond securities law, some DePINs have to consider industry-specific regulations: a decentralized wireless network still has to obey spectrum laws and telecom licensing in various countries; an energy DePIN might bump into electricity market regulations or smart metering rules. If authorities see a DePIN as skirting rules (for example, operating “grey market” infrastructure or enabling unlicensed services), they could intervene. Indeed, geopolitical/regulatory events have impacted DePIN projects – Helium had to blacklist its hotspots in China at one point due to legal concerns, which instantly wiped out a huge portion of its network and upset many minerspanewslab.com. This illustrates that deploying physical infrastructure is not just a software issue; it lives in the regulated, real world, and any misalignment with laws can cripple the model.
Finally, critics question the intrinsic value of many DePIN tokens: if a network never achieves significant paying usage, the token is essentially play-money with no cash flows or clear utility. Unlike equity in a company, these tokens typically don’t confer ownership of assets or guaranteed dividends; their value is purely what the market thinks the future potential is. If that sentiment fades, the token can crash, leaving holders with nothing. We saw many DePIN-adjacent tokens (for storage, bandwidth, IoT, etc.) launched in the 2017–2021 era that are now virtually worthless because the underlying networks failed to capture a market. In summary, the skeptical view is that DePIN tokenomics have often been long on promises and short on sustainable execution. Without real demand, robust token sinks (ways for tokens to be taken out of circulation via usage), and prudent economic design, a DePIN token can quickly inflate and implode. And even with good design, these projects face the steep challenge of building two sides of a market (supply and demand) simultaneously – a task even non-crypto startups find difficult.
Lessons and Considerations for DePIN Founders (The Way Forward)
For teams building in the DePIN space – such as those of us at Sourceful Energy – the experiences of past projects yield several valuable lessons. First and foremost is product-market fit: a DePIN must be driven by solving a real problem where decentralization offers a clear benefit (cost, coverage, resilience, etc.), rather than by tokenomics alone. In our case (energy), the thesis is that the existing power grid cannot scale to modern needs (like millions of solar roofs, batteries, EVs, and the huge power demands of data centers), and a decentralized coordination mechanism could unlock new capacity and efficiencysourceful.energysourceful.energy. This real-world pain point should remain at the center of the project’s design. As founders, we need to continually ask: “If we take away the token rewards, would anyone still want to use this network?” If the answer is no, then the model is likely unsustainable. Tokens should enhance and accelerate a good product, not be a crutch for a non-existent one.
Design tokenomics for long-term sustainability: This means avoiding extreme inflation and making sure there are value sinks or anchors for the token. Mechanisms like Helium’s burn-and-mint (where usage burns tokens, creating real value feedback) or having a fixed reward pool that diminishes over time can help prevent runaway inflationgate.companewslab.com. It’s also wise to simulate different scenarios (bear markets, lower-than-expected demand) to see if the economics still hold. Many failed DePINs overestimated how quickly demand would grow and over-rewarded the supply side, which led to a glut of infrastructure and token sell pressure. A more conservative approach might be to tie token issuance to growth milestones or use dynamic rewards targeted at areas or times where they’re most needed (Helium started doing this by boosting rewards for hotspots in under-covered areas, for examplecompound.vc). Staged network growth can help: rather than going fully permissionless day one, some projects start with a smaller, controlled deployment to prove out usage and economics, then progressively decentralize. This can prevent a situation where 100x more hardware is deployed than the actual demand can support.
Consider using “points” or test credits before a Token Generation Event (TGE): Many teams, including Sourceful Energy, opt to delay launching a freely-tradable token until the network mechanics are validated. In the interim, they might use point systems or off-chain credits to reward early users (for example, giving “energy points” for contributing solar power data). These points can later be converted to tokens once the system is robust. This approach has two benefits: (1) it avoids speculative frenzy too early, keeping the focus on building the network instead of speculating on it; and (2) it helps navigate regulatory uncertainty by not immediately creating a token that could be deemed a security. We are “pre-TGE” and distributing points at Sourceful, which lets us gather data on user behavior and fine-tune our incentives scheme without the pressure of an exchange listing. Founders should ensure that, by the time the token is live, there’s a reasonably clear link between network usage and token value (or at least a roadmap to get there). If launching the token is the only way to drive interest, that’s a red flag.
Balance the ecosystem stakeholders: As the Gate research piece highlighted, DePIN involves multiple roles – hardware manufacturers, operators, service providers, end-users, and the miners themselvesgate.comgate.com. Tokenomics should account for each of these roles and their incentives. For instance, if hardware suppliers are crucial, consider programs to avoid price gouging (maybe approved hardware lists or even subsidies). Ensure miners (host operators) have skin in the game but also a path to profitability that isn’t purely predicated on recruiting more miners. Encourage actual operators (businesses or co-ops that use the raw network to offer services) through token incentives or revenue-sharing – they will help bring in end-users. And make it easy for end-users to participate, possibly even without needing to handle crypto (one strategy mentioned in the sector is abstracting the crypto under a familiar Web2 interface to attract users who don’t care about tokenscoinmarketcal.com). In energy, for example, homeowners using our app to sell flexibility might just see dollars or credits, while the blockchain and token work under the hood. The goal is to bootstrap supply and demand in tandem: find early adopters on the demand side (maybe niche markets or partnerships) to use the service so that not only miners are active. This might involve initially subsidizing usage (like giving some free credits to try the network), but that’s still better than zero usage.
Transparency and community governance: One way to build trust (and avoid the fate of projects accused of insider enrichment) is to be transparent from the start about token distribution, emissions, and usage metrics. If you publish how many tokens are going to various groups and release periodic stats (e.g. how much real activity is happening, how many tokens burned), the community can verify the health of the network. Open governance – giving your community votes on important changes – also strengthens stakeholder alignment. However, founders should be careful to educate the community; a token holder vote is only useful if those holders understand the economics. In practice, a strong foundation or core team guiding the early stages, with a path to decentralize governance as the project matures, might be optimal.
Navigate regulatory compliance proactively: It’s far better to build with regulations in mind than to scramble after a lawsuit. Founders should consult legal experts on whether their token might be seen as a security or if there are licensing requirements in their industry. Sometimes tweaking the model (for example, not emphasizing token profit potential in marketing, or integrating an on-chain proof of use that shows the token is a utility) can help. In energy, working with utility regulators or in sandboxes, or structuring tokens as rewards for environmental credits (which might be treated differently legally), could be strategies to stay on the right side of the law. Additionally, geo-fencing certain jurisdictions at launch (as much as it goes against decentralization ideals) might be prudent if laws are unclear – for instance, not selling tokens to U.S. investors until there’s clarity. The Helium SEC case shows that being a pioneer is risky, but it will likely also yield guidelines that others can follow. A founder should keep an eye on regulatory developments and be ready to adapt token mechanics if needed (e.g. disabling features or adding KYC for participants if authorities require it).
In conclusion, Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Networks represent a bold experiment in aligning economic incentives with building real-world services. The intrinsic value of their tokens will ultimately depend on whether these networks can transition from growth-by-subsidy to growth-by-demand. The optimistic vision is a fleet of community-powered networks – be it for connectivity, storage, energy, or compute – that achieve the scale and usage to generate sustainable revenues (value which is then reflected in the token). We have seen hints of this in cases like Filecoin and Helium’s recent moves, and the continued interest in DePIN (with new projects and funding in 2024–2025) suggests the concept is far from deadcoinmarketcal.comeu.vc. However, the critical lessons from early missteps are clear: avoid unsustainable tokenomics, don’t inflate expectations beyond real utility, and never lose sight of the actual service being provided. As founders in the DePIN space, if we keep those lessons in mind and focus on genuine value creation (while harnessing the community-building power of tokens), we stand a much better chance of spinning the flywheel toward a truly decentralized and profitable physical infrastructure network – rather than a short-lived crypto carousel.
Sources: Valuable insights and data were gathered from analyses and case studies by industry researchers and publications, including Gate.io Researchgate.comgate.com, CoinMarketCal’s crypto market reportcoinmarketcal.comcoinmarketcal.com, Panewslab’s in-depth DePIN investigationspanewslab.companewslab.com, Multicoin Capital’s essay on Helium’s growthmulticoin.capitalmulticoin.capital, and the Compound/Franklin Templeton deep dive on DePIN’s futurecompound.vccoinmarketcal.com, among others. These sources discuss both the achievements (e.g. Helium’s 100k+ mobile users, Filecoin’s 2EiB storage deals) and the challenges (e.g. Hivemapper’s $60M device sales with little map usage, regulatory actions) that inform a balanced perspective on DePIN tokenomics. The experiences of earlier projects – from the heights of speculative exuberance to the reality check of utility – provide a roadmap for new entrants like Sourceful Energy to build more robust and valuable decentralized networks.
This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit frahlg.substack.com
