Is the Ethereum "high value-added model" effective? Despite the sharp drop in transaction fees, it still holds its ground with a $32 million gap, with Solana close behind.

By the end of the first quarter of 2026, the cracks in the on-chain revenue structure have become clear. As of March 29, Ethereum’s daily transaction fees were $7.38 million, a sharp drop of -13.77% from the previous day, while Solana stood at $6.14 million, only declining -4.28%, demonstrating relative stability. On the surface, this appears to be simple volatility; in reality, it is a collision result between the profit models of “value storage type (L1+L2)” structures and “transaction processing type (L1 centralized)” structures.

The most noteworthy point is that the reason for Ethereum’s fee plunge is not “reduced demand,” but rather “demand transfer.” As major L2 chains like Base absorb revenue, the demand for available block space on the mainnet decreases, directly leading to a drop in transaction fees. In other words, the same economic activities are migrating off the network (to L2), which merely reduces Ethereum’s “surface revenue.”

In contrast, Solana’s activities are structurally concentrated on L1. Transaction-intensive demands such as meme coins, DEX transactions, and NFT activities are directly reflected on the main chain, resulting in relatively low fee volatility. This creates a virtuous cycle structure of “high speed · low cost → large volume of transactions → stable revenue.”

The following data clearly illustrates this structural difference.

[Transaction Fee Revenue Comparison]

• 24-hour transaction fees

Ethereum: $7.38 million (-13.77%)

Solana: $6.14 million (-4.28%)

• 7-day cumulative

Ethereum: $61.78 million

Solana: $35.59 million

• 30-day cumulative

Ethereum: $322.12 million

Solana: $191.10 million

The key lies in “cumulative” rather than “single day.” In terms of short-term volatility, Solana seems to have the advantage, but when measured over 30 days, Ethereum’s revenue is still approximately 1.7 times higher. This indicates that high-value activities such as DeFi, RWA, and stablecoin payments are still concentrated in the Ethereum ecosystem.

At the core of this trend is Circle’s strategic shift. Circle is advancing the construction of payment-oriented infrastructure using USDC as the gas token through its self-developed L1 “Arc.” This not only expands the chain but also signifies the standardization of a “dollar payment network on-chain.”

The importance of this structure is evident. USDC payments, on-chain government bonds, and RWA tokenization can all create repeatable and predictable fee flows. Especially for tokenized government bond products like USYC, the issuance and redemption process generates continuous on-chain transactions, creating “real yields” that are much more stable than traditional DeFi.

Ethereum is at the center of this high-value traffic. The RWA market, combined with a DeFi TVL of $53.6 billion, is attracting institutional funds and enhancing the quality of network value. Meanwhile, Solana, as a payment and transaction layer, has advantages in “processing” RWA.

Ultimately, the competition between the two chains can be summarized as follows:

Ethereum: High margin · Low turnover (capital-intensive revenue)

Solana: Low margin · High turnover (traffic-based revenue)

The data presented this quarter does not show a “revenue reversal,” but rather a “differentiation of revenue structures.”

It is particularly worth noting that the reduction in Ethereum’s transaction fees is not a long-term bearish signal. On the contrary, this represents a phase of achieving scalability through L2 expansion, which, in the long run, is closer to a transformation process aimed at absorbing larger-scale economic activities. Solana, on the other hand, maximizes its short-term revenue efficiency based on an established high-speed processing architecture.

In summary, the current market is not a “throne replacement” scenario, but is restructuring into the following dual structure:

• Ethereum: The core layer for value settlement and asset management

• Solana: The high-speed layer for transaction execution and payment processing

The future variables are clear. If Arc L1 can truly absorb institutional payment flows, the “location of fee generation” itself may be reshaped. This will change the game rules, shifting from the original L1 competition to “competition based on stablecoin financial infrastructure.”

The first quarter’s on-chain revenue data is not merely a set of numbers. It signals where capital is generated, where it flows, and what structures it settles into. Currently, this trend is converging into a dual-layer competitive system: under “Ethereum’s quality dominance,” “Solana’s quantity chase” is proceeding in parallel.

TokenPost AI Notice

This article uses a language model based on TokenPost.ai for article summarization. The main content of the text may be omitted or not align with the facts.