¿Nuevo en los mercados — precios, rendimientos, market cap? Explicamos cada término mientras navegas, en lenguaje claro. Los mismos datos, con la ayuda incorporada.
Visión experta
Ya conoces el mercado. Solo los datos — limpios, rápidos y compactos, sin explicaciones adicionales. Esta es la vista predeterminada.
What the fee-generating assets look like on 04 September 2026
Fee-stream data as of 04 September 2026 reveals a wide dispersion in market-cap-to-fees multiples across fourteen digital assets.
Market-Cap-to-Fees: The Spread
Across the fourteen assets observed on 04 September 2026, the market-cap-to-fees ratio (fees annualized from the trailing 30 days; market cap point-in-time) spans from 2.6x for Uniswap to 19,967x for Bitcoin. That is a range of roughly four orders of magnitude within a single table. A wide spread of this kind describes dispersion in how the market has sized each asset relative to its current fee generation; it does not, by itself, indicate which assets are priced correctly, incorrectly, or attractively. Many structural factors — token supply mechanics, validator economics, protocol stage, and fee-volatility — differ across assets and are not captured in the ratio alone.
Fee Retention: Who Keeps What
The dataset distinguishes fees from revenue where a take-rate is calculable. The contrast is stark. TRON (chain:Tron) and Canton (chain:Canton) both report a take_rate_pct of 100.0%, meaning annualized revenue equals annualized fees at roughly $310.2 million and $594.2 million respectively (annualized from the trailing 30 days). At the other end, Uniswap (application:Uniswap V3) retains only 7.8% of its $1.53 billion in annualized fees, passing the remainder to liquidity providers. Ethereum (chain:Ethereum) retains 24.1% of its $127.9 million in annualized fees. The distinction matters because a high gross fee number with a low take rate yields a materially smaller revenue base for the protocol itself. Conflating fees and revenue when comparing assets would misrepresent the underlying economics.
Chain-Basis vs. Application-Basis: Not Directly Comparable
Several entries in this dataset are measured on a chain basis (e.g., chain:Bitcoin, chain:Solana, chain:BSC) while others are measured on an application basis (e.g., application:Uniswap V3, application:Aave V3, application:CCIP). Chain-basis figures aggregate all economic activity settled on that network. Application-basis figures capture only the activity flowing through a specific protocol, which may itself run on one or more of the chains listed elsewhere. Placing Chainlink (application:CCIP, market cap $8.75 billion) beside Solana (chain:Solana, market cap $59.7 billion) in a single ranked table does not make their multiples directly comparable; the accounting perimeters are different by construction. Readers should treat the two cohorts separately when drawing cross-asset inferences.
Why These Are Not Equity Multiples
The single most important reason not to read market-cap-to-fees as an analogue of a price-to-sales or EV/revenue multiple is that token holders generally have no contractual claim on fee cash flows. In equity markets, a revenue multiple presupposes a residual ownership right that can, in principle, be enforced. For most of the assets listed here, fees accrue to validators, stakers, liquidity providers, or are burned — not distributed to token holders in a legally defined sense. The multiple therefore describes a market sizing relationship, not a yield or earnings entitlement. Treating it otherwise would import an assumption the data does not support.
periods{'market_cap': 'point-in-time', 'fees_and_revenue': 'annualized from the trailing 30 days'}
observation date04 September 2026
Redactado por un modelo de lenguaje de IA a partir de las cifras indicadas arriba y nada más. No contiene ninguna opinión sobre precios ni ninguna recomendación. Las cifras corresponden a los periodos de referencia indicados en sus propias páginas.
· claude-sonnet-4-6