¿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 05 September 2026
Fourteen digital assets recorded market-cap-to-fee ratios spanning from 2.3× to 19,558× as of 05 September 2026.
The Spread of Market-Cap-to-Fee Ratios
Across the fourteen assets observed as of 05 September 2026, the ratio of point-in-time market capitalisation to fees annualized from the trailing 30 days ranges from 2.3× (Uniswap) to 19,558× (Bitcoin). Between those poles sit Canton at 7.2×, TRON at 102.8×, Chainlink at 121.9×, Solana at 221.6×, BNB at 458.8×, Hyperliquid at 915.8×, Ethereum at 2,297.7×, Sui at 2,469.3×, Avalanche at 2,510.1×, Aave at 5.1×, Rain at 5,984.0×, and Gram (prev. Toncoin) at 3,706.6×. A wide ratio means a large market capitalisation is present relative to the fee base observed over that window; it does not, by itself, indicate that future fees will grow, shrink, or remain stable, nor does it characterise the asset's merit in any direction.
Fee Retention: Take Rate as a Separate Dimension
The take rate—revenue as a share of fees—varies as sharply as the multiples themselves. TRON, Canton, Hyperliquid, and Avalanche each record a take rate of 100%, meaning all fees measured under their respective accounting bases flow to the protocol or validators as revenue. At the other end, Uniswap retains 7.8% of its $1.66 billion in annualized fees (annualized from the trailing 30 days), passing the remainder to liquidity providers outside the protocol treasury. Aave retains 13.9%, Solana 9.8%, and BNB 10.0%. Rain retains 60.7%. Chainlink's figure of 95.2% reflects the CCIP accounting basis. A high take rate and a low take rate are structural facts about how fee flows are allocated, not signals about sustainability or quality. Bitcoin and Gram carry no revenue figure in the dataset, so no take rate is calculable for them.
Chain-Basis and Application-Basis Figures Are Not Comparable
Several entries use a chain accounting basis (e.g., chain:Solana, chain:Canton) while others use an application basis (application:Uniswap V3, application:Aave V3, application:CCIP, application:Rain). Chain-basis figures aggregate fees paid to secure or operate the entire network; application-basis figures capture only what flows through a specific protocol deployed on top of some infrastructure. Uniswap's annualized fee figure of $1.66 billion (annualized from the trailing 30 days) reflects trading volume routed through Uniswap V3 contracts, not the cost of the underlying chain. Placing these side by side in a ranked table can create the appearance of like-for-like comparability where none exists; each figure must be read within its stated accounting scope.
Why These Are Not Equity Multiples
The single largest reason a reader should not treat market-cap-to-fee ratios as equity price-to-earnings multiples is that token holders do not automatically possess a legal claim on fee cash flows. In most cases no contractual mechanism distributes fees to holders the way dividends or buybacks distribute earnings to shareholders. Fees may flow to validators, stakers, liquidity providers, or burn mechanisms under governance rules that can change. The ratio therefore describes a relationship between two observed numbers—market capitalisation and fee activity—rather than a yield or earnings multiple in the equity-accounting sense.
periods{'market_cap': 'point-in-time', 'fees_and_revenue': 'annualized from the trailing 30 days'}
observation date05 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