Solana generated more user fees than Ethereum, according to a Sept. 22 dashboard snapshot from data provider DefiLlama, though Ethereum continued to burn more fees. The divergence highlights a key distinction: user spending can flow to validators and applications without producing an equivalent benefit to those simply holding the network’s coin.
DefiLlama’s Solana overview reported approximately $1.1 million in chain fees over 24 hours and $117,138 in chain revenue. Ethereum’s overview showed $649,423 in fees and $226,298 in revenue over the same period.
For both networks, the revenue metric reflects fees designated as burned—tokens removed from supply without distributing cash to holders.
Solana also led on displayed seven-day and 30-day fees, while Ethereum maintained a narrower advantage in reported burns. However, the dollar ranking alone does not resolve which token offers stronger economics; new issuance, network value, and the share of validator income reaching stakers all influence the comparison.
DefiLlama’s chain fee table placed Solana at $23.6 million over 30 days, compared with Ethereum’s $12 million. The chain revenue table showed a burn comparison of $2.66 million for Solana and $2.8 million for Ethereum.
Displayed metric | Solana | Ethereum
24-hour chain fees | About $1.10 million | $649,423
24-hour reported burns | $117,138 | $226,298
7-day chain fees | $5.93 million | $3.09 million
7-day reported burns | $698,884 | $761,849
30-day chain fees | $23.58 million | $12.04 million
30-day reported burns | $2.66 million | $2.80 million
Exact window endpoints were not disclosed, and Ethereum’s shared revenue table showed a different daily figure of $229,846. The comparison therefore applies to the displayed aggregates, with inherent synchronization limitations.
The longer time frames also temper the daily headline. Ethereum’s 30-day reported burn was only slightly larger than Solana’s, even though its daily overview indicated a much wider gap. Aggregate leadership over seven or 30 days does not imply that either network led every individual day.
How Fees Reach Validators, Stakers, and Applications
Under Solana’s fee structure, the base charge is 5,000 lamports per signature. Half of this base fee is burned, while the other half goes to the validator who produces the block. Validators receive all priority fees, which users pay to prioritize their transactions.
This allocation makes fee composition significant. An increase in priority fees boosts validator receipts without channeling any portion toward burning, meaning higher total fees can coexist with a comparatively modest burn figure.
Ethereum burns execution base fees, while priority tips go to validators. DefiLlama’s Ethereum data-collection code also counts blob fees within both total fees and reported burns. Two similar totals for user spending can affect supply differently, depending on the types of fees being paid.
The data-collection programs, known as adapters, estimate portions of these reported burns. DefiLlama’s Solana adapter approximates base fees by multiplying transaction count by 5,000 lamports, although the protocol charges by signature.
Ethereum’s adapter uses each block’s minimum effective transaction gas price as a proxy for its execution base fee and retrieves blob fees separately from Dune. Neither estimate should be regarded as a fully reconciled measurement of tokens destroyed.
Burning reduces supply relative to what it would otherwise have been, but it does not credit a holder’s wallet, confirm that total supply is declining, or guarantee a price increase. These are separate questions from how much users paid to transact.
A validator’s receipts are not automatically shared with all stakeholders. Solana’s staking documentation describes inflationary rewards distributed to validators and delegated stake accounts, with commissions affecting what delegators ultimately receive.
The yield also depends on total stake and validator performance. These newly issued rewards are separate from user fees.
On July 2, 2025, Solana staking infrastructure project Jito announced a live upgrade enabling validators to distribute priority fees to their stakers. Validators’ choices and commissions determine the distribution, and a sharing mechanism does not transform all chain fees into a uniform return for SOL stakers.
For an ordinary holder, the relevant distinction lies between owning the asset and participating in a particular reward arrangement.
A passive holder receives no validator payment merely because chain fees rise, while a staker must understand which rewards are included and what deductions apply before treating a quoted yield as fee income.
Applications represent another destination for economic activity. The Sept. 22 overview snapshots showed $7.7 million in 24-hour app revenue on Solana versus $1.9 million on Ethereum. App fees amounted to $18.2 million and $8.5 million, respectively.
DefiLlama’s definitions separate app metrics from gas fees. They also define chain REV as chain fees plus maximum extractable value (MEV) tips. REV can describe a broader stream of transaction-related spending, but adding it to chain fees would count those fees twice.
Valuation and Issuance Reshape the Investment Question
Ethereum’s larger dollar burn exists against a much larger token valuation. The same Sept. 22 overview snapshots displayed market capitalizations of $335 billion for ETH and $69 billion for SOL. Nearly comparable 30-day reported burns represent a far larger fraction of Solana’s displayed market capitalization.
A holder’s yield requires a separate calculation. It compares a period’s estimated burning with a valuation at one moment, and it says nothing by itself about tokens created during that period. A larger gross burn relative to market value can coexist with issuance that more than offsets it.
Ethereum’s supply mechanics make that distinction explicit: net supply depends on issuance and burning. Its Merge explainer’s roughly 1,700 ETH-per-day example assumes about 14 million ETH staked, so it cannot serve as a current September 2026 issuance measurement.
Without matched-period issuance data for both networks, these fee tables cannot establish either a net supply advantage or a superior investment return.
Solana’s accepted SGP-0002 proposal calls for increasing annual disinflation from 15% to 30%, but explicitly depends on SIMD-0550 acceptance and activation. Its current monetary effect hinges on implementation.
For holders comparing SOL and ETH, the decisive missing evidence is a matched-period account of tokens issued and burned, alongside the fees actually distributed after commissions.
The September snapshot shows stronger fee generation on Solana and a larger reported dollar burn on Ethereum. Turning either observation into a return claim requires knowing how much reaches the holder, how much supply is added, and what valuation the buyer pays.
Also Read
- Global Flash PMIs Take Center Stage as Investors Assess Growth Momentum
- Solana Begins Testnet Trial of Alpenglow Upgrade Targeting Sub-Second Finality
- Zcash Tops Major Cryptocurrencies With 10% Rally as Bitcoin Stabilizes Near $87,000
- XRPL fixes critical pre-mainnet flaw, but client apps remain at risk
