In general, I think the size of the money base, money velocity and liquidity has more to do with market volatility. First thing, its likely that depending on the platform business model and network effects that supports the coin — you’ll have different valuation metrics. In the case of remittance, of course it would make sense to look at the quality of the money transfers. But, you touched on something interesting at the beginning and that’s the value of protocol. The cryptonetwork’s adoption profile makes sense but assumes profit is the motive and looks a the size of profit taking industry. Traditionally profits potential has been the result of the network effects. It is not the cause of network effects. Second, you assume that this is in perpetuity and do not consider unknowns unknowns in the protocol. The protocol should not be a systemic risk — it is a market risk. Its based on the protocol developments teams competence, awareness and collaborative abilities. So, what is responsible for creating the network effects should be the important metrics to value a coin and predict its future value. Profit is not usually the driver to creating network effects. And, could potentially be a counter weight in the form of equity valuations to network effects value in coins.