For anyone entering crypto, the logic can seem almost unavoidable: if a company is building on blockchain, it should eventually launch a token of its own.
That assumption has shaped much of the Web3 industry. A token can raise money, attract users, create incentives and give a project something that can be traded from day one. But none of that means a token is automatically necessary.
In fact, some of the businesses operating around blockchain infrastructure make money in ways that look surprisingly familiar: they charge for software, security, data or transaction services.
So, do Web3 businesses need their own token to succeed? In most cases, no. The more interesting question is whether a token performs a function that the business actually needs.
A blockchain business and a crypto token are not the same thing
The easiest way to understand the distinction is to separate the technology from the asset.
A company can use blockchain to move value, store records, settle transactions or provide digital-asset infrastructure without creating a new cryptocurrency. The blockchain may be the underlying technology, while the business itself operates more like a software company or financial infrastructure provider.
Fireblocks is a useful example. The company provides digital-asset infrastructure for institutions, including wallet and transaction technology, and says its network has supported more than $10 trillion in digital-asset transactions. Its commercial proposition is built around infrastructure and services rather than asking customers to buy a Fireblocks token.
That distinction matters because the existence of a blockchain component does not automatically create a need for a speculative asset.
The same principle can be applied to payment infrastructure. Businesses can use stablecoins and public blockchains for settlement without issuing a new token themselves. Stripe, for example, now provides infrastructure for merchants to accept stablecoin payments, illustrating how a company can build a commercial product around existing digital assets rather than inventing another one.
The token, in other words, is a design choice — not a membership card for Web3.
What makes money when there is no native token?
Once the token is removed from the picture, the business model becomes easier to examine.
One common approach is to charge for transactions. Payment providers, exchanges and on- and off-ramp infrastructure can take fees when customers move money through their systems. The underlying blockchain remains part of the technology stack, but the company’s revenue comes from facilitating activity rather than from the price of a separate asset.
Another route is software.
A blockchain company can offer a subscription, charge for advanced features or sell enterprise access to infrastructure. This model is familiar from traditional software: customers pay because the product saves time, reduces operational costs or solves a problem they cannot easily handle themselves.
B2B infrastructure follows a similar logic. Custody technology, wallet management, compliance tools, blockchain analytics and APIs can all be sold to companies that need reliable access to digital assets.
That creates a useful test.
If customers are willing to pay for the product in pounds, dollars, euros or stablecoins, the business has a revenue model that does not depend on a native token appreciating.
This is not necessarily less “crypto”. It may simply be a clearer separation between the service being sold and the asset being traded.
Why leaving the token out can reduce risk
A token does more than add another line to a project’s website. It creates another system that the company has to manage.
There is the technical side. A token contract can contain vulnerabilities, and the asset can become the target of manipulation, liquidity problems or market attacks.
There is the operational side. Once an asset is publicly traded, the company can find itself responding not only to customers but also to a large group of token holders who watch its market price around the clock.
And there is the regulatory question.
The legal treatment of digital assets varies by jurisdiction and depends heavily on how an asset is structured, marketed and used. Issuing one can therefore create compliance questions that would not necessarily exist if a company simply sold software or infrastructure.
That does not make token issuance inherently reckless. It means the token has to justify the additional complexity.
For a company whose product is custody infrastructure, for example, it is difficult to see why customers would need to hold a speculative asset in order to use the service. The commercial relationship can be much simpler: the customer pays for infrastructure, and the company delivers infrastructure.
That simplicity can be valuable.
But some Web3 networks genuinely need a token
There is an important caveat: saying that most Web3 businesses do not need a token is very different from saying tokens are unnecessary in crypto.
For a Layer-1 blockchain, a native asset can be part of the network’s basic economics. Bitcoin and Ether, for example, are not just optional loyalty points attached to a software product. They are tied to how their respective networks process transactions, compensate participants and secure the system.
The distinction becomes even clearer when looking at decentralised infrastructure.
A DePIN project — short for Decentralised Physical Infrastructure Networks — can use tokens to reward people for contributing resources such as storage, connectivity or physical infrastructure. In that context, the asset can serve as a coordination mechanism between a network and thousands of participants.
Governance systems present another case. Some DAOs use tokens to distribute voting power among participants. Whether that creates effective decentralisation is a separate question, but the token can have a genuine organisational function.
These examples point to a more useful rule: a token makes sense when it does something the underlying system actually needs.
The strongest test is what happens if the token disappears
This is where the distinction between a useful token and a fashionable one becomes clearer.
Imagine removing the token from a project entirely.
Does the network stop working? Do validators lose their economic incentive? Does a decentralised service lose the mechanism that coordinates thousands of contributors? Does governance fundamentally change?
If the answer is yes, the token may have a meaningful role in the architecture.
But imagine removing the token from a software company that provides blockchain analytics, custody tools or enterprise APIs.
Would the product still work?
Would customers still pay for it?
Would the business still be able to generate revenue?
If the answer to all three is yes, the company may not have a compelling reason to create an asset in the first place.
That is the paradox behind Web3 businesses without tokens. In an industry that has often treated token issuance as proof of innovation, choosing not to launch one can actually demonstrate that a company understands what its customers are paying for.
Web3 may be moving from token narratives to business fundamentals
The most important shift is not that tokens are disappearing. It is that they are increasingly easier to evaluate as one component of a larger system rather than as the business itself.
A token can be a funding mechanism, an incentive, a governance tool or a core part of blockchain infrastructure. But it can also be unnecessary baggage.
For beginners, the practical lesson is simple: when you encounter a Web3 project, do not start by asking whether it has a token or how much that token is worth.
Start with the product.
What problem does the company solve? Who pays for it? What creates recurring demand? And what role, if any, does the token play?
Those questions reveal something price charts cannot: whether the cryptocurrency is actually part of the technology’s economic machinery, or whether the technology could have worked just as well without it.