Author: Frank, PANews
In recent times, the hottest topic in the tech and startup circles isn’t a major company’s new model release but the nationwide “lobster farming” craze.
On one hand, the “lobster farming” boom has driven growth in related industries, with large model companies and cloud server providers raking in profits. On the other hand, how much real benefit Openclaw can actually bring to users remains a mystery. Although social media is filled with such myth stories, a closer look reveals most are virtual stories designed to attract traffic.
Is lobster farming truly profitable? If so, who is actually making the money?
PANews has compiled data from TrustMRR, public cases on social media, project official websites, and cross-verified reports from multiple sources. To distinguish “verified real income” from online self-proclaimed myths, we excluded many rumors based solely on unverified claims or hearsay.
According to TrustMRR, the OpenClaw category shows a total of 153 recorded projects in this ecosystem, with nearly $358,600 in total revenue over the past 30 days. Analyzing the top 30 samples, their combined income accounts for 97.3% of the total revenue. If we break down these projects and their underlying monetization logic by “industry value chain,” a stark truth emerges: the first to make money aren’t those using lobsters as products, but those helping others farm lobsters, teaching others how to do it, and those riding the meme coin hype.
But this isn’t the most genuine answer we’re after. How exactly are those truly using Openclaw making money? To answer this, PANews has summarized five monetization strategies behind OpenClaw.
First: Selling “Shovels” and services — quick cash from exploiting “cognitive gaps”
The most discussed and revenue-bright products in OpenClaw are often not specific applications but tools and one-click hosting services.
OpenClaw functions more like an infrastructure layer rather than a ready-to-use consumer product. It presents a high barrier for non-technical users. Once complexity exists, services will emerge.
Within TrustMRR’s approximately $350,000 in sample revenue over 30 days, projects related to “hosting deployment” and “one-click cloud hosting” alone contributed about $120,100, accounting for 34.5% of the sample revenue.
A typical example is QuickClaw, which packages underlying capabilities into a mobile app priced at $3.99/week or $49.99/year. Its revenue over the past 30 days is about $8,782.
In Chinese communities, this logic manifests more plainly: “lobster proxy” services on Xianyu (Idle Fish).
According to media reports, recently, “OpenClaw deployment proxy” services on Xianyu and Xiaohongshu have exploded in growth. Remote installation costs range from 100-300 RMB, with on-site services between 400-1000 RMB. During certain periods, daily transaction volume for related services increased by 150% compared to the previous quarter.
The essence of this logic is “earning from information and perception gaps.” Users are willing to pay to save 30 minutes of hassle, but this is a “window period” business. As official one-click deployment tools mature, the profit from pure proxy services will quickly diminish.
Second: Packaging AI expert personas — when “storytelling” itself becomes the most expensive product
If we go a step further, another more valuable layer in the OpenClaw ecosystem appears: not just deploying for you, but training your Agent. Among the top 30 samples in TrustMRR, projects related to templates, skill packs, and configurations contribute 26.4% of revenue.
One of the most credible and well-documented business cases at this level is FelixCraft.
In early 2026, creator Nat Eliason launched an experiment. He named his OpenClaw robot “Felix,” invested $1,000 as startup capital, and let it build its own business. Within a week, Felix generated about $3,500 in revenue via Stripe. Additionally, the crypto community issued related MEME tokens for this Agent, forwarding 60% of daily transaction fees, allowing Felix to earn tokens worth up to $100,000 in a week.
As a highly analyzable case, Felix has several features. First, Nat Eliason granted this AI high enough permissions to autonomously post tweets and interact in communities. Before product launch, he spent significant effort building the framework, including memory modules, security settings, workflow design, etc.
He admits in a podcast interview that the profit was an unexpected outcome. Essentially, Felix’s main revenue still comes from packaging his training process and results as a product for sale. The MEME token gains are largely driven by the story and traffic it creates.
Notably, the top-earning project in TrustMRR’s OpenClaw category, Claw Mart (a marketplace for Agent skills), was created by Felix. Its total revenue has reached $71,300. The story of Felix’s autonomous project creation and automation is the strongest endorsement of this product.
Felix’s success reveals a high-level monetization path: giving Agents continuous identity. When OpenClaw is branded with a specific name (Felix), a sellable guide, reusable skill packs, and a compelling “AI entrepreneurship” narrative, it transforms into a powerful personal brand with viral potential. However, the core obstacle isn’t AI itself but Nat Eliason’s strong agent training skills and marketing ideas.
Third: Selling efficiency myths — using AI to work, monetizing through storytelling
Among all monetization paths, the most recognized might be: replacing manual work with OpenClaw, saving money, and turning that into profit.
In content operations, this has become a reality. Developer Oliver Henry named his Agent “Larry,” responsible for his TikTok account. Larry automatically calls large models to generate images, write headlines, and upload drafts. Henry only spends 60 seconds daily choosing background music and clicking publish.
Henry states that within five days, Larry’s videos surpassed 500,000 views, bringing in about $588 in revenue (from promoted apps in his videos). Additionally, Larry generated $4,000 through MEME coin issuance. Interestingly, Henry’s tweet sharing this story has already reached 7.1 million views, similar to Felix, where the story itself seems more commercially valuable than the Agent.
Fusheng, founder of猎豹移动, built a team called “30,000” with 8 Agents, achieving daily updates on their official account from a few articles per year to daily posts, hitting a record of over 1 million reads, attracting social attention. The viral post explaining how the Agent works also contributed to this success.
In content creation, whether an Agent’s content quality can become a viral hit remains unproven. Most viral stories so far focus on how Agents make money or improve efficiency. The biggest current topic in content creation is the “little lobster” story.
Fourth: Deep industry customization — moving beyond tool competition to earn “service premiums”
If proxy services earn “entry barrier” profits, then packaging “lobsters” into personalized products is a different game.
RoofClaw exemplifies this. TrustMRR shows it earned about $49,800 in the past 30 days, with total revenue reaching $1.8 million. It offers “personalized customization and delivery of Openclaw-equipped MacBook Air.” The business model isn’t just pre-installing a lobster but encapsulating it within a MacBook, along with tailored services to train the lobster into a customized Agent.
This type of service likely taps into the future commercial needs of “lobsters.” Users probably don’t just want a ready-to-use lobster but a fully trained, customized one. Behind this demand is a deep service for Agents.
Simply put, we foresee many companies relying on Agents in the future, but how these Agents are trained or “cultivated” will become an unavoidable necessity.
Fifth: On-chain trading legends — the most tempting poisoned apple and traffic bait
On social media, the most viral stories about OpenClaw are always about getting rich quickly.
Currently, one verifiable on-chain example is the high-frequency trading bot associated with account 0x8dxd on Polymarket. Many posts speculate that this bot relies on OpenClaw for high-frequency trading, but PANews’s analysis shows the actual controller behind this address has never published such claims. The stories claiming “OpenClaw designed an automated trading system earning $10,000/month” are just soft ads, mostly promoting their automated trading programs.
This case is listed as a warning: as previous PANews research confirms, Agents and high-frequency trading bots are not the same. People are often misled and fantasize about their mystery.
Final thoughts: Teaching you how to make money is the real winning strategy
After analyzing the entire ecosystem, we notice a phenomenon more worth pondering than any single case: sharing “I made X amount with OpenClaw” on social media is itself a very stable business.
When a post like “I earn 50,000/month with OpenClaw” goes viral, traffic becomes a lure. The author naturally directs viewers to paid communities, consulting, or product links. “Showing off income” is the top of the funnel; “making money myths” are the strongest marketing material. This creates a perfect self-reinforcing cycle: selling stories of wealth — attracting traffic — monetizing traffic — sharing secret tips as a mentor — leveraging bigger gains.
Essentially, this has spawned a new business chain: bottom layer is proxy services and infrastructure; middle layer is skill packs and workflow replacements; top layer is industry solutions and consulting. If you understand sales, marketing, and have traffic, OpenClaw can drastically reduce costs and amplify productivity.
Many are sharing how OpenClaw optimized workflows and enabled many conveniences, but it’s far from a secret to wealth. The “herd effect” it triggers is the core of this traffic story: when you scramble to the front, you find nothing there — and you are the one being waited for.
(PS: This article was created without using the “little lobster” analogy.)
