CH. 04
4
Business Models for Web3 Ventures
Web3 Entrepreneurship · MBA Programme
Zishan A. Mohammad · March 2026
W3CP Radar Chart
ForkResistanceLiquidityMoatComposabilityDepthCommunityLock-InNetworkEffects246810 UniswapHyperliquid
$2T+
Uniswap cumulative trading volume since 2018 — exceeding most centralised exchanges
Chapter Thesis
Web3 protocols generate revenue through fees, not advertising — and competitive moats are built on composability and liquidity, not switching costs.
Chapter 4 of 8  ·  Business Models
Key Takeaways
1
Web3 protocols monetise through transaction fees, protocol-owned liquidity yield, and token appreciation — not advertising or data monetisation. Revenue is on-chain and auditable.
2
The five forces that shape traditional competitive strategy (Porter) do not apply to open-source protocols. The W3CP Framework replaces them: Fork Resistance, Liquidity Moat, Composability Depth, Community Lock-In, Network Effects.
3
Protocol-owned liquidity (Hyperliquid HLP) is structurally more durable than rented liquidity (Uniswap LPs) because it does not leave when token incentives end. Durable moat vs. rented moat.
Glossary
Token Business Model Canvas (TBMC)
An adaptation of Osterwalder's BMC for token-native revenue streams; adds token distribution, governance rights, and protocol fee mechanics.
Protocol-Owned Liquidity (POL)
Liquidity held directly in a protocol's treasury rather than rented from external LPs; provides durable market depth independent of incentive programmes.
Composability Depth
The degree to which other protocols depend on a given protocol as infrastructure; high depth creates structural switching costs even in open-source environments.
60% Test
Apply the TBMC to Uniswap. What is Hyperliquid's primary competitive moat? Why does composability depth matter more than first-mover advantage in Web3?
Entrepreneurship in the Age of AI & Web3