Protocol Fees (7d)

This is the same measurement as the 24-hour figure summed over a rolling week, which absorbs the weekday pattern in trading and settlement activity and removes the effect of any single busy day. Seven days is short enough to show a change in conditions within days of it happening, which is why it is the usual window for spotting whether a spike persisted or reversed. It is still small enough that one large event inside the window shapes the total.

How it is computed

sum of all user-paid fees recognized by the protocol fee adapter over the trailing 7 days, converted to US dollars at the time of each event

Where it misleads

A rolling seven-day total and a calendar-week total are different numbers, and providers publish both under the same label, so week-over-week comparisons across sites frequently disagree. The window routinely straddles a governance vote, a fee-parameter change, or the start or end of an incentive campaign, which means it can contain two different fee regimes averaged into one figure. Adapters are revised and backfilled after publication, so a seven-day total observed today may not match the same seven days queried later. Because the total is in US dollars, a week in which the native token fell sharply shows falling fees even if the number of transactions rose.

The equity comparison, and why it fails

Weekly bookings. The analogy fails because there is no order book of contracted future work behind the number; each fee is settled at the instant the transaction confirms and nothing is owed afterward.

Reading a high or a low value

A higher weekly total means users paid more for the protocol's services over the week than in comparable weeks. Reading it alongside the 30-day figure shows whether a recent move is persisting or fading.