Back to Dashboards

Chain comparison

Public

🦙By Gentle Graceful Llama

25Views

Chain Comparison: Revenue & Transactions

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.

📊 Revenue vs. Fees: Understanding the Spread

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

Transaction Throughput by Chain

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

Per-Chain Revenue Trends

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