On January 14, the verified Solana account on X published a sharp jab at Starknet:
“Starknet has 8 daily active users, 10 transactions per day, and yet somehow a $1B market cap and $15B FDV. Send this straight to zero.”
However, the data used in this post apparently refers to an April 2024 snapshot. The FDV figure was incorrect. According to current data, the fully diluted valuation of Starknet is now about $900M, not $15B.
Getting the valuation wrong is one thing. But the very fact that the official Solana account publicly calls to “send the project to zero” pretty accurately shows the state of the industry in 2026. A project that is counting on serious institutional money and wants to attract it on-chain is openly calling for the collapse of a competing network. Even if it was done via social media run by an intern.
Nevertheless, the main question remains. How do you measure the gap between what a network is worth on paper and what it actually does.
Valuation is not usage. But some networks are valued as if they have both.
The main problem is to separate metrics that are easy to inflate from those that are much harder to fake. The former include nominal perpetual futures volumes and address activity. The latter is the real fee pressure, measured by REV. This metric reflects the real economic value of the network, combining blockchain fees and MEV tips that users actually pay for transaction execution priority.
A Set of Metrics That Truly Matter
Market capitalization is calculated based on the circulating coin supply, while FDV relies on the total token supply.
Activity metrics are divided into spot DEX volume, which reflects on-chain swaps, and perpetual futures volume. DefiLlama defines it as the nominal trading volume including leverage.
If a trader opens a position for $100,000 with $10,000 margin, the statistics count the full $100,000. Because of this, perpetual volumes initially appear inflated and are easily pumped up by zero-fee trading or incentive programs that stimulate activity regardless of real demand.
See Also: Setting Rules for the Crypto Market May Take Years, Paradigm Executive Says
REV allows you to filter out this noise, as it shows how much users actually pay to use the network.
DefiLlama defines REV as the sum of network fees and MEV tips. High volumes with low REV indicate nominal turnover created by incentives, not organic economic activity.
What the Real Numbers Show
Using data from mid-January 2026, 30-day spot DEX volume and 30-day perpetual volume metrics were collected for the 50 largest blockchain infrastructures, sorted by market capitalization.
Solana shows $121.8B in spot volume and $32.4B in futures. In total, that’s $154.2B in trading activity with FDV $90.7B. The ratio is 0.59.
The network’s speculative valuation is about half the monthly trading volume. Activity is distributed among dozens of DEXes, including Jupiter, Raydium and Orca. Daily REV consistently exceeds $1M, and millions of active addresses process millions of transactions.
Arbitrum shows $15B in spot volume and $37.8B in futures. In total, that’s $52.8B with FDV $2.2B. The ratio is 0.04.
At first glance, this looks impressive, until you account for concentration. One DEX exchange, Variational accounts for $24.9B of this volume, which is about 66% of all derivatives trading in the network.
See Also: Whale Activity on Binance Dropped Significantly in January
Variational launched a points program on December 17. The documentation states that the VAR token has not yet launched, and about 50% of the supply is planned to be distributed to the community.
This is a classic example of incentive-driven activity. Traders accumulate points in anticipation of the token launch and may reconsider their participation after rewards end. In this case, monthly Arbitrum volume could drop by about $20B if Variational activity normalizes after the airdrop. At the same time, spot DEX volume and TVL at $3B will remain unchanged.
Starknet shows an even more illustrative example. With spot volume of $208M , futures volume reaches $36.4B. In total, that’s $36.6B with FDV around $900M. The ratio is 0.025.
Virtually all futures volume in the network is generated by a single exchange, Extended, which almost completely dominates. The platform runs an active points program launched in April 2025, with weekly distributions, referral bonuses, and fee discounts directly tied to trading volume.
The real signal comes from the network fee metric for Starknet. According to DefiLlama, over 30 days they totaled about $186,293. This is a negligible amount compared to $36.4B in monthly nominal perpetual volume. Such a discrepancy shows high trading activity without comparable fee pressure. Volumes are driven by incentives, not real economic demand.
Optimism shows $8.2B in spot volume and $6.5B in futures. In total, that’s $14.7B with FDV $8B. The ratio is 0.54. At the same time, volumes are distributed across several platforms, not concentrated in a single incentive-driven protocol.
Both Optimism and Arbitrum show significant daily REV, which usually exceeds $500K and often rises above $1M during periods of high activity. This indicates that users are paying for blockspace and transaction execution priority, not just farming points.
Solana leads in 30-day trading volume with $154.2B, while Starknet’s activity is almost entirely concentrated in $36.6B of perpetuals
Avalanche shows $4.1B in spot volume with minimal derivatives activity. With FDV $12B this gives a ratio of about 3x. For comparison, Polkadot has a combined market cap of less than $1B with FDV around $10B. The ratio exceeds 10x.
Additionally, Algorand FDV is close to $8B with minimal activity. This also leads to double-digit ratios. Such valuations reflect expectations for ecosystems that have not scaled or have seen user activity outflow to other networks.
Low Ratios Indicate Sustainability Risks, Not Guarantees
A low FDV to volume ratio does not in itself mean undervaluation or a good buying opportunity. Rather, it raises the question of sustainability. Either the valuation will rise if volumes prove stable and monetizable, or activity will return to average levels when incentives dry up and temporary capital moves on.
The answer depends on whether the activity is organic or incentive-driven, and whether it is distributed among different platforms and use cases or concentrated in one place.
The 0.04 ratio for Arbitrum changes meaning if more than 60% of futures volume tied to the points program before token launch disappears after the Variational airdrop. At the same time, this will not necessarily hurt the ecosystem as a whole, given the significant spot DEX volume and TVL exceeding $3B.
See Also: XRP May Become ‘Legally Untouchable’: What the Clarity Act Draft Changes
The 0.025 ratio for Starknet faces an even tougher test. Almost total control by Extended over derivatives activity, combined with direct incentives and weekly distributions, makes the situation especially sensitive.
Whether volume will remain after the points season ends will show whether the current ratio reflects a real opportunity or just a temporary distortion that will disappear along with the incentives. This is especially important given the market cap of about $454M with only 50.43% of supply unlocked.
The 0.59 ratio for Solana looks higher, but it reflects a different picture. Volumes are distributed among dozens of platforms, and daily REV consistently exceeds most L2 networks. This indicates steady organic demand in various product categories, not dependence on a single incentivized protocol.
Networks with low FDV-to-volume ratios, such as Starknet and Arbitrum, show high trading activity relative to valuation, while Solana is closer to the 1x level
REV gives the clearest signal for separating real demand from churn activity. If a network shows $50B in monthly futures volume but collects only $10K in daily fees, such volumes are for point accumulation, not economic demand. In contrast, networks that can monetize throughput show this in fee data, which grows with activity.
Volume concentration is a key leading indicator. If more than 50% of network activity comes from one platform, it’s not ecosystem adoption, but a single protocol cycle.
When incentives for such a protocol end or users leave for better execution elsewhere, volume metrics quickly shrink. Points programs create short-term spikes that distort data for months. The real test begins after the token launch, when farmers reassess execution quality and fee structure without extra incentives.
Solana shows a healthier picture. Volumes are distributed among major DEXes, and derivatives activity is split among several platforms. This indicates real product-market fit, not dependence on temporary incentives.
Starknet generates about $250K in REV per month with $36.6B in trading volume, while Solana brings in over $30M in REV.
Cosmos is a separate structural case. With FDV around $4B the main activity of the ecosystem is concentrated not in the hub, but in app-chain networks such as Osmosis and dYdX.
This means that low DEX and derivatives volumes do not reflect the real utility of Cosmos. The network’s value is formed around cross-chain interaction and shared security infrastructure, where the token gains value through coordination, not direct trading turnover.
See Also: Bitwise Launches Chainlink ETF: CLNK Debuts on NYSE Arca
The Solana post was more of a theatrical gesture and contained obviously incorrect figures. However, the key question remains. Does the network’s valuation reflect its current real activity or just expectations of future growth.
Spot DEX volume, perpetual volumes, REV and activity concentration by platform provide measurable signals. They allow you to distinguish networks valued for current traffic from those priced for expected activity or for volumes that may disappear immediately after points programs end.
