A large part of crypto has no real underlying value

This is just my perspective, curious what others think.

Most cryptocurrencies don’t generate cash flow. They don’t produce revenue. They don’t return capital to holders.

So what is their value actually based on?

In many cases, it’s driven primarily by market sentiment – what someone else is willing to pay in the future. That’s not inherently wrong, but it’s very different from traditional assets.

With stocks, you’re buying ownership in a business that (at least in theory) generates earnings.
With real estate, you have a tangible asset that can produce rental income.
With royalties, there’s a direct link to cash flow.

A large portion of crypto doesn’t have that. No earnings, no assets, and often no clear or widely adopted utility.

There are exceptions, of course. Some projects are building real infrastructure or providing actual use cases. But they’re the minority, not the majority.

This doesn’t mean crypto can’t go up in price. Clearly it can. But price appreciation alone isn’t the same as underlying value.

Genuinely curious how people here think about this, what actually anchors value in most of these projects?

Personally, I think over time only projects with real underlying value (whether that’s actual utility, cash flow, or even clearer regulatory framing) will stick around.

That belief is also what led me to start building something myself that's based on it – a project tying real world digital performance and earnings (in this case, artist musical success) more directly to tradable digital assets, with the goal of creating a real investment/prediction protocol for music artists’ success.

Regulation in this space is tough, but I believe that if you’re actually creating real value for the public, there’s a way to make it work within the system.

Is this something you think about when deciding which projects or coins to invest in or buy?

Here's what I'm building if you're curious https://www.tonemusic.co/