Crypto infrastructure companies split token units to focus on contracted services, following cloud and telecom trends

Over the summer, multiple crypto infrastructure firms began to untangle their token-based incentive layers from the core service they provide. Storj’s Chapter 11 filing cited “legacy obligations from an earlier chapter” as a drag on an otherwise “strong and right-sized” business, prompting a restructuring intended to keep operations running without interruption. Similar moves were reported for at least three other legacy DePIN projects, which sold or split parts of their businesses to decouple from the token. The common goal is to operate like a traditional contracted service provider rather than a token-driven network.

This follows a well-established pattern seen in cloud, telecom and semiconductor industries where raw capacity is built ahead of demand, the resource commoditizes and gets cheaper over time, and profits flow to whoever sells guaranteed, contracted service on top of it. Amazon’s AWS, for example, grew from a small compute rental business to a major profit driver while the underlying servers became a commodity. Telecom tower owners similarly see their revenue share shrink as wireless service providers capture most of the value. Crypto infrastructure is now attempting to repeat this shift by moving value from the token layer to service contracts.

Adopting this model carries costs: firms must absorb or restructure legacy token-related liabilities, invest in sales and contract management teams, and build the operational reliability expected of traditional service providers. They also lose the bootstrapping power of token incentives that once attracted early contributors of hardware, bandwidth or storage. Consequently, the transition requires upfront investment in infrastructure quality and customer acquisition without the immediate liquidity boost that token sales can provide.

Where the model may stall is in networks that still need token incentives to achieve sufficient scale or to align participant behavior in the absence of regulated contracts. Early-stage DePIN projects that lack enough contracted demand may find it difficult to sustain operations without the token-driven subsidy. Additionally, regulatory uncertainty around token classification can complicate a clean split, leaving some firms tethered to the token component despite their intentions. In such cases, the infrastructure may continue to look more like a crypto project than a conventional service provider.