¿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 13 September 2026
Fourteen digital assets recorded market-cap-to-fee ratios spanning from 1.9x to 19,005x as of 13 September 2026.
The Spread of Market-Cap-to-Fee Ratios
As of 13 September 2026, the market-cap-to-fees multiples across the fourteen assets in this dataset range from 1.9x (Uniswap) to 19,005x (Bitcoin), annualized from the trailing 30 days. That spread of roughly four orders of magnitude is itself a data point about the structural diversity of the group, not a signal of mispricing at either end. A wide multiple says that, at this point in time, fee generation is small relative to market capitalization; it does not say anything about whether that relationship will persist, normalize, or reverse, and it carries no information about the reasons market participants assign a given capitalization to an asset.
Fee Retention: Take Rate as a Structural Variable
Several assets retain all or nearly all fees they generate. TRON and Canton each record a take rate of 100% (annualized from the trailing 30 days), meaning fees and protocol revenue are reported as identical figures—$292,054,628 and $608,958,895 respectively. Chainlink retains 93.7% of fees as revenue. At the other end, Uniswap retains only 8.1% of its $2,103,584,103 in annualized fees, passing the remainder to liquidity providers. Ethereum retains 23.3%. These differences mean that a raw fee figure and a revenue figure describe different economic relationships: one measures total throughput of value across the protocol; the other measures what accrues, in accounting terms, to the protocol itself. Comparing market cap to fees for a high-passthrough asset against market cap to revenue for a high-retention asset would conflate two distinct constructs.
Chain-Basis Versus Application-Basis Figures Are Not Comparable
The dataset mixes two accounting bases. Entries marked chain:—Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, TRON, BNB, and others—aggregate fees at the network layer, capturing all activity settled on that chain. Entries marked application:—Uniswap V3, Aave V3, CCIP, Rain—capture only the fees flowing through a specific smart-contract deployment. An application running on Ethereum contributes to Ethereum's chain-level fee figure, but Ethereum's figure does not appear inside Uniswap's application-level figure. Reading a chain multiple alongside an application multiple as though they denominate the same scope of economic activity would be methodologically incorrect; they should be interpreted within their own category first.
Why These Are Not Equity Multiples
The single largest reason these market-cap-to-fee ratios cannot be read as equity price-to-sales or price-to-earnings multiples is that token holders do not hold a residual legal claim on fee cash flows in the way equity holders hold a claim on corporate earnings. Fee revenue in this dataset is an on-chain accounting construct; its relationship to any value that flows to token holders depends entirely on each protocol's specific and changeable token mechanics, governance decisions, and jurisdiction. The multiple describes a ratio between two observed quantities as of 13 September 2026; it does not describe a yield, a return, or an ownership stake.
periods{'market_cap': 'point-in-time', 'fees_and_revenue': 'annualized from the trailing 30 days'}
observation date13 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