Protocol Revenue

How Streamlock generates revenue, projected economics at scale, and how value flows to $LOCK holders.

---

Revenue Sources

Streamlock earns revenue from six on-chain streams. Every fee is programmatic — collected by smart contracts with no manual intervention.

Source	Fee Range	Collected From	Mechanism
Buy fees	1–20%	SOL input on every buy	Dynamic: scales with price progress + epoch pressure
Sell fees	1–25%	SOL output on every sell	Time-decay: high at start of unlock window, decays to floor
Settlement fee	1% flat	Stream owner's entitlement BPS	Flat protocol fee at settlement; same for all users
Gaming rake	2%	Player stakes in zero-sum games	Flat rake on every resolved game
LST yield	~6.5% APY	Idle SOL reserves staked as JitoSOL	Passive yield on pool reserves; zero cost to users
Token launches	1M $LOCK burn	Creator at launch time	Deflationary; reduces circulating $LOCK supply

Streamflow's 0.19% stream-creation fee goes to Streamflow, not to Streamlock. It is excluded from protocol revenue.

See Fee Structure for full rate tables and who pays what.

---

Revenue Model

Protocol revenue is a function of volume and effective fee rate:

Protocol Revenue = Trading Volume × Effective Fee Rate

Effective Fee Rates

Because fees are dynamic, the effective rate depends on user behavior. The table below estimates blended rates based on expected distribution of activity:

Fee Type	Low Estimate	Mid Estimate	High Estimate	Assumption
Buy fee (blended)	2%	4%	8%	Most buys happen at 0–80% progress; spikes near target
Sell fee (blended)	5%	12%	18%	Impatient sellers skew early-window; patient sellers pull average down
Weighted trade fee	3%	7%	12%	Assumes ~55% buy volume / ~45% sell volume

Gaming rake adds a flat 2% on top, but is modeled separately since gaming volume may differ from trading volume.

---

LST Yield — Passive Revenue from Idle Reserves

Streamlock stakes a portion of each pool's idle SOL reserves into JitoSOL (a liquid staking token on Solana), earning staking rewards + MEV tips. This generates passive protocol revenue with zero impact on users — no new fees, no price changes, no UX difference.

How It Works

1. Up to 70% of a pool's SOL reserves are staked into JitoSOL (configurable up to 90%)

2. A minimum of 0.01 SOL always stays liquid to cover trades and settlements

3. AMM pricing uses virtual reserves (liquid SOL + staked SOL) so the price is identical whether reserves are staked or not

4. Automated cranks handle staking and unstaking — no manual intervention required

5. When SOL is unstaked, 100% of yield flows to the protocol's fee_recipient

Yield Economics

Parameter	Value
LST used	JitoSOL (Jito MEV-sharing + staking rewards)
Expected APY	5.9–7.5% (~6.5% midpoint)
Max stake ratio	70% of pool reserves (default)
JitoSOL withdrawal fee	0.1% (paid from yield, not user funds)
New user fees	None
Price impact	None (virtual reserves)

Yield Projections by TVL

Assuming 70% staked at 6.5% APY, net of the 0.1% JitoSOL withdrawal fee:

Total Pool Reserves (TVL)	Staked (70%)	Gross Yield (annual)	Withdrawal Fee	Net Yield (annual)
100 SOL	70 SOL	4.55 SOL	0.07 SOL	4.48 SOL
1,000 SOL	700 SOL	45.5 SOL	0.7 SOL	44.8 SOL
10,000 SOL	7,000 SOL	455 SOL	7 SOL	448 SOL
100,000 SOL	70,000 SOL	4,550 SOL	70 SOL	4,480 SOL

Why This Matters

• Pure margin — Yield is earned on capital that would otherwise sit idle in pool vaults

• Scales with TVL — More pools and more reserves = more yield, independent of trading volume

• Complements trading fees — Revenue diversification: trading fees are volume-driven, LST yield is TVL-driven

• No user tradeoffs — Pricing, liquidity, and UX are identical; users don't even know SOL is staked

Safety Mechanisms

Mechanism	Purpose
Minimum 30% liquid reserves	Always enough SOL for trades and settlements
Automatic unstake triggers	Unstakes before freeze/unlock windows or when price nears target
Fresh-GRIND cooldown	Skips staking in the first 24h of a new milestone to avoid losses on short cycles
Liquidity check on settlement	On-chain guard rejects sells if liquid SOL is insufficient
Admin kill switch	staking_enabled flag can disable staking per pool instantly

---

Scenario Projections

Three scenarios based on daily trading volume. All figures in SOL; USD equivalent depends on SOL price.

Conservative — Early Traction

Metric	Daily	Monthly (30d)	Annually
Trading volume	500 SOL	15,000 SOL	180,000 SOL
Effective fee rate	3%	3%	3%
Trading revenue	15 SOL	450 SOL	5,400 SOL
Gaming volume	50 SOL	1,500 SOL	18,000 SOL
Gaming rake (2%)	1 SOL	30 SOL	360 SOL
Pool reserves (TVL)	—	500 SOL	—
LST yield (6.5% on 70%)	0.06 SOL	1.9 SOL	22.8 SOL
Total revenue	16 SOL	482 SOL	5,783 SOL

Base — Product-Market Fit

Metric	Daily	Monthly (30d)	Annually
Trading volume	5,000 SOL	150,000 SOL	1,800,000 SOL
Effective fee rate	7%	7%	7%
Trading revenue	350 SOL	10,500 SOL	126,000 SOL
Gaming volume	1,000 SOL	30,000 SOL	360,000 SOL
Gaming rake (2%)	20 SOL	600 SOL	7,200 SOL
Pool reserves (TVL)	—	10,000 SOL	—
LST yield (6.5% on 70%)	1.25 SOL	37.3 SOL	448 SOL
Total revenue	371 SOL	11,137 SOL	133,648 SOL

Bull — Category Leader

Metric	Daily	Monthly (30d)	Annually
Trading volume	50,000 SOL	1,500,000 SOL	18,000,000 SOL
Effective fee rate	7%	7%	7%
Trading revenue	3,500 SOL	105,000 SOL	1,260,000 SOL
Gaming volume	15,000 SOL	450,000 SOL	5,400,000 SOL
Gaming rake (2%)	300 SOL	9,000 SOL	108,000 SOL
Pool reserves (TVL)	—	100,000 SOL	—
LST yield (6.5% on 70%)	12.5 SOL	373 SOL	4,480 SOL
Total revenue	3,813 SOL	114,373 SOL	1,372,480 SOL

These are illustrative scenarios, not forecasts. Actual revenue depends on adoption, market conditions, staking APY fluctuations, and user behavior. LST yield assumes 6.5% APY on 70% of TVL, net of JitoSOL withdrawal fees.

---

Protocol Cost Structure

Streamlock's on-chain architecture keeps operating costs minimal:

Cost	Estimate	Notes
RouterAuthority tx fees (settlement, stream updates)	< 1 SOL/day at base volume	~0.000005–0.01 SOL per tx; protocol subsidizes these for UX
LST stake/unstake crank tx fees	< 0.01 SOL/day	Automated cranks; negligible Solana tx costs
JitoSOL withdrawal fee	0.1% of unstaked amount	Paid from yield, not user funds; net-positive above ~6 day staking periods
Referral revenue share payouts	40-50% of trading fee revenue from referred users	Customer acquisition cost; time-bounded (6 months per referral, 5 SOL cap)
Referred user settlement fee waivers	Up to 3 fee-free settlements per referred user	CAC — protocol absorbs the 1% fee
RPC infrastructure	Fixed monthly cost	Standard Solana RPC provider
Frontend hosting	Fixed monthly cost	Static site + API routes

Key insight: Protocol costs are largely fixed, while revenue scales linearly with volume. This creates improving margins as adoption grows.

Scenario	Revenue (monthly)	Est. Protocol Costs (monthly)	Gross Margin
Conservative	480 SOL	~30 SOL	~94%
Base	11,100 SOL	~50 SOL	~99%
Bull	114,000 SOL	~200 SOL	~99%+

---

Deflationary Pressure from Launches

Every token launch burns 1,000,000 $LOCK permanently. This creates a separate value driver independent of trading fees:

Launches / Month	$LOCK Burned / Month	Annual Burn	% of Total Supply (1B)
5	5,000,000	60,000,000	6%
20	20,000,000	240,000,000	24%
50	50,000,000	600,000,000	60%

At sustained launch activity, circulating supply contracts meaningfully over time.

---

Value Flow to $LOCK Holders

Protocol revenue connects to $LOCK holders through the revenue share mechanism (see Tokenomics & Utility):

Trading Fees ──→ Protocol Treasury ──→ Revenue Share ──→ $LOCK Holders (≥1M $LOCK)
                                                          ├── Locked holders: higher share
LST Yield ──────→ Protocol Treasury ──┘                   └── Unlocked holders: base share

Token Launches ──→ $LOCK Burn ──→ Reduced Supply ──→ Scarcity Pressure

Four-sided value accrual:

1. Direct income — Revenue share distributes trading fees + settlement fees + LST yield to qualifying $LOCK holders

2. Passive yield — LST staking earns on idle reserves regardless of trading activity

3. Supply reduction — Launch burns permanently reduce circulating $LOCK

4. Growth flywheel — Referral revenue share drives user acquisition, increasing volume and TVL, which increases all other revenue streams

All three mechanisms strengthen as platform adoption grows.

---

Comparison to Peers

Platform	Primary Revenue	Fee Range	Revenue Model
pump.fun	Trading fees	1% flat	Volume-driven, no lock mechanics
Jupiter	Swap fees	0.1–0.5%	Aggregator routing fees
Raydium	LP fees + protocol fee	0.25%	AMM trading fees
Streamlock	Dynamic trading fees + gaming rake + LST yield	1–25% + ~6.5% APY on TVL	Behavioral fees + passive yield on idle reserves

Streamlock's effective fee rate is structurally higher than flat-fee platforms because fees are tied to behavior, not just volume. Believers pay low fees; flippers subsidize the protocol. Additionally, LST yield earns on idle reserves — a revenue stream most launchpads leave on the table.

---

Key Takeaways for Investors

1. Six revenue streams — Trading fees + settlement fees + gaming rake + LST yield + deflationary burns + launch fees

2. Two growth vectors — Trading fees scale with volume; LST yield scales with TVL — independent drivers that compound

3. High gross margins — On-chain execution with minimal infrastructure costs (~94–99%+)

4. Passive yield on idle capital — ~6.5% APY on pool reserves via JitoSOL, with zero user impact

5. Aligned fee mechanics — Dynamic fees mean revenue scales with both volume and speculative activity

6. Deflationary tokenomics — Every launch permanently reduces $LOCK supply

7. Revenue share — Direct value distribution to committed $LOCK holders

8. Low fixed costs — Solana's low tx fees mean protocol costs stay negligible at scale

---

Related

• Fee Structure — Complete fee rates and who pays what

• Referral & Rewards — Referral program and points system

• Tokenomics & Utility — $LOCK allocation, vesting, and revenue share

• Launching a Token — Launch flow and costs