Chain comparison

A side-by-side analysis of 10 blockchain networks — Ethereum, Solana, Tron, BSC, Arbitrum, Base, Polygon, Hyperliquid L1, Plasma, and Canton — tracking chain revenue (sequencer/validator earnings), total fees paid by users, and transaction throughput. Use this dashboard to benchmark chain monetization efficiency and activity trends.

Chain Revenue = what validators/sequencers/stakers actually earn after any burns. Chain Fees = total user spend. The gap between them reveals each network's economic design:

• Ethereum burns a significant share of base fees (EIP-1559) — revenue runs well below fees, making ETH deflationary during high-activity periods
• Tron passes most fees to validators — revenue closely tracks fees, with minimal burn
• Hyperliquid L1 routes sequencer revenue to its HLP vault and token stakers, making it a direct revenue-sharing chain
• Arbitrum & Base (L2s) earn sequencer profit on the spread between L1 data-posting costs and fees collected from users
• BSC uses low fees to maximize throughput — high transaction volume compensates for thin per-tx margins
• Solana prioritizes near-zero base fees, with priority fees increasingly driving revenue during high-demand periods
• Canton is focused on institutional DeFi (Digital Asset participants); on-chain activity reflects permissioned network usage
• Plasma is optimized for high-throughput payments with growing transaction counts

Daily transaction counts reveal which chains are winning on raw activity. Note: Canton and Hyperliquid L1 transaction data is not available in this view.

Individual chain revenue time series. Pair each with the chain fees chart above to assess burn/distribution mechanics.