If you had to pick one Solana DEX token for the next 6–12 months — $JUP, $RAY, or $MET — I'd go with $MET.
I've been comparing their on-chain data, valuations, and revenue models. At current levels, $MET offers a risk/reward setup that stands out.
Here's the 30D breakdown:
$JUP
• MC: ~$983M
• Revenue: $4.82M
• Holder revenue: $2.41M
• Aggregator vol: $12.76B
$RAY
• MC: ~$507M
• Revenue: $4.64M
• Holder revenue: $2.77M
• DEX vol: $7.32B
$MET
• MC: ~$186M
• Revenue: $5.48M
• Holder revenue: $688K
• DEX vol: $5.58B
Meteora generated more protocol revenue than both Jupiter and Raydium over the past 30 days. Yet its market cap is 5.3x smaller than $JUP and 2.7x smaller than $RAY.
Compare MC / annualized 30D revenue:
• $JUP: ~17x
• $RAY: ~9.1x
• $MET: ~2.8x
These aren't earnings multiples, and revenue doesn't flow directly to token value. But at these valuations, $MET deserves attention.
Meteora built liquidity infrastructure around DLMM, DAMM, and dynamic bonding curves. These products support trading, liquidity provision, and token launches.
If Solana sees another on-chain season — memecoin trading, volume surges — demand for liquidity infrastructure could spike. Meteora doesn't need to own the trading frontend to benefit. More volume means higher fees and protocol revenue.
Token value capture still lags. $RAY distributed ~$2.77M to holders in 30D. $MET distributed ~$688K. Meteora has buyback and staking mechanisms, but the revenue flowing back to holders is small. If this improves, it's another catalyst.
Risks:
• Future token unlocks could create selling pressure
• FDV is higher than circulating MC
• Revenue depends on Solana on-chain activity
• Token value capture weaker than $RAY
I wouldn't call $MET undervalued on revenue alone. But for the next 6–12 months, I think it has room for a valuation re-rating if revenue holds and token capture improves.
$JUP has a broader ecosystem. $RAY has a stronger buyback model. But $MET has the setup for a re-rating.
That's why I'd choose $MET.
NFA.
I've been comparing their on-chain data, valuations, and revenue models. At current levels, $MET offers a risk/reward setup that stands out.
Here's the 30D breakdown:
$JUP
• MC: ~$983M
• Revenue: $4.82M
• Holder revenue: $2.41M
• Aggregator vol: $12.76B
$RAY
• MC: ~$507M
• Revenue: $4.64M
• Holder revenue: $2.77M
• DEX vol: $7.32B
$MET
• MC: ~$186M
• Revenue: $5.48M
• Holder revenue: $688K
• DEX vol: $5.58B
Meteora generated more protocol revenue than both Jupiter and Raydium over the past 30 days. Yet its market cap is 5.3x smaller than $JUP and 2.7x smaller than $RAY.
Compare MC / annualized 30D revenue:
• $JUP: ~17x
• $RAY: ~9.1x
• $MET: ~2.8x
These aren't earnings multiples, and revenue doesn't flow directly to token value. But at these valuations, $MET deserves attention.
Meteora built liquidity infrastructure around DLMM, DAMM, and dynamic bonding curves. These products support trading, liquidity provision, and token launches.
If Solana sees another on-chain season — memecoin trading, volume surges — demand for liquidity infrastructure could spike. Meteora doesn't need to own the trading frontend to benefit. More volume means higher fees and protocol revenue.
Token value capture still lags. $RAY distributed ~$2.77M to holders in 30D. $MET distributed ~$688K. Meteora has buyback and staking mechanisms, but the revenue flowing back to holders is small. If this improves, it's another catalyst.
Risks:
• Future token unlocks could create selling pressure
• FDV is higher than circulating MC
• Revenue depends on Solana on-chain activity
• Token value capture weaker than $RAY
I wouldn't call $MET undervalued on revenue alone. But for the next 6–12 months, I think it has room for a valuation re-rating if revenue holds and token capture improves.
$JUP has a broader ecosystem. $RAY has a stronger buyback model. But $MET has the setup for a re-rating.
That's why I'd choose $MET.
NFA.