Application for the ($FEES) index

I am proposing the launch of a Index. All advice and suggestions welcome.

(I’ve re-used your layout for the $CRUSH proposal Tjeerd, I hope you don’t mind.)

The Crypto Fees Index ($FEES)

The unique purpose of the index is to enable investors to get exposure to the projects that people are actually paying to use, based on the amount of fees being paid.

The Index would consist of the top 10 projects according to the Crypto Fees 7 day rolling average the order and weighting would change daily, as this index is time-sensitive. The re-balancing of assets in the index based on fees paid would provide utility to investors that want to be continously exposed to assets based on the extent at which fees are generated.

Maybe the balancing can be based on the % of fees paid like this:

Rank Name 7 Day Avg. Fees % of total
1 Ethereum $15,831,599.62 57.5%
2 Bitcoin $5,995,653.72 21.8%
3 Uniswap V2 $2,684,872.04 9.8%
4 SushiSwap $1,288,457.07 4.7%
5 Compound $816,751.59 3.0%
6 Balancer $307,328.62 1.1%
7 Aave $251,276.07 0.9%
8 Bancor Network $150,082.48 0.5%
9 Binance Chain $108,646.48 0.4%
10 Synthetix Exchange $98,733.99 0.4%
total $27,533,401.68 100.0%


Please help me figure this out.

Initial value of $FEES

Please help me figure this out.

Token’s criteria

Redphonecrypto, 0xBay, please excuse me for using mainly your criteria from the DEGEN index proposal as I do not know enough about the technical side of things. Let’s say this index also has the following criteria for inclusion:

  1. The token has a market cap ranging from $10 million or more (as calcuated by a rolling 14-day TWAP on Uniswap).
  2. This token is at least a week old.
  3. No major vulnerabilities have been discovered in the token contract.
  4. The token’s supply can not be arbitrarily inflated or deflated maliciously.
  5. The control model should be considered if the supply can be modified through governance decisions.
  • The token does not have transfer fees or other non-standard balance updates.
  1. The token meets the requirements of the ERC20 standard.
  • Boolean return values are not required. If a token isn’t an ethereum token, then maybe we can use synths or wrapped tokens?
  1. Sufficient liquidity is locked in the Uniswap market pair between the token and WETH.
  • This does not apply to WETH.
  1. The token is one of:
  • Protocol token for an Ethereum-based project.
  • Governance token for a DeFi project.
  • Wrapper token for a blockchain’s native currency.


In general, I think this Index could get a lot of attention if David Mihal likes the idea and gets behind it. This will lead to exposure for all the other indices as well.

A link to the $FEES index page where people can see the performance of the index and go to to invest themselves, instead of continously rebalancing towards productive tokens.

I also assume this would be a reliably successful index reflecting real world usage.


This is a very cool idea. Another idea would use P/E ratios compiled by the TokenTerminal team!


I really like the TokenTerminal site. It’s the first time I’ve seen crypto P/S ratios laid out like this. Using the Sales over 12 months seems like too long a period for crypto - I wonder if a P/S ratio using the last 3 months (extrapolated to 12 months) might be helpful.

1 Like

Absolutely love both ideas, based on and also on low tokenterminal p/s…

Though i’d like a more equally weighted approach (like the current one, squaring mcaps) than 57% eth and only 0,4% for the last one

1 Like

Love this idea. I think fast-moving indices based on real-time data are a key differiator (investors simply can’t move that quick on their own) within the space and will attracks lots of investors.

1 Like

Sorry, can you explain what you mean with squaring mcaps and how this might adjust the weightings? I also liked the supplied weightings from the $CRUSH post, which could work with any kind of ranked top 10 list:

1 20%
2 17,5%
3 15%
4 12,5%
5 10%
6 7,5%
7 6%
8 5%
9 4%
10 2,5%