L1 prices collapsed in 2025, but fundamentals held firm – What changed?

ambcrypto2025-12-26 tarihinde yayınlandı2025-12-26 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

L1 token prices collapsed sharply in 2025, with significant yearly declines: TON fell 73.8%, Avalanche and Sui both dropped around 67%, Solana decreased 35.9%, and Ethereum declined 15.3%. Only BNB and TRX posted gains. However, fundamental on-chain metrics remained strong. Tron led in revenue with $3.5B, while Solana generated the most fees at $699.9M. User activity stayed high, with BNB Chain having 59.8M active addresses and Solana 39.8M. The data indicates the downturn was a market repricing rather than a structural decline, as networks with real usage and revenue maintained robust fundamentals despite price corrections.

L1s got absolutely pulverized this year. Prices collapsed hard, but was that really the end?

An analysis shared on the 25th of December by Schizoxbt showed severe underperformance across major Layer-1 tokens. Large-cap status offered little protection as multiple networks posted steep yearly drawdowns.

Ethereum ended the year down 15.3%, while Solana fell 35.9% over the same period. Avalanche and Sui declined 67.9% and 67.3%, respectively, reflecting sustained downside pressure.

TON recorded the sharpest drop, falling 73.8% during 2025. Only BNB and TRX posted gains, rising 18.2% and 9.8%, respectively, against broader weakness.

The data reinforced a harsh lesson for investors. Market capitalization alone did not guarantee resilience during provider risk-off conditions.

But price action told only part of the story.

Revenue and Fees: Did network monetization really weaken?

While token prices fell, on-chain revenue data painted a noticeably different picture. Token Terminal data showed activity remained heavily concentrated across a handful of Layer-1 networks.

Tron led all Layer-1s in revenue, generating approximately $3.5 B over the past 365 days. Ethereum followed with $305.3 M, while Solana generated roughly $206.8 M during the same period.

Fee generation showed a similar pattern. Solana led in fees with $699.9 M, while Ethereum recorded $549.3 M in cumulative fees.

BNB Chain also remained economically relevant, producing $260.3 M in fees despite muted price action. The consistency of suggested usage did not collapse alongside token valuations.

User activity: Were traders actually leaving Layer-1s?

Monthly active address data further challenged the bearish narrative surrounding Layer-1s. User activity remained elevated on networks, dominating transaction throughput.

BNB Chain led with 59.8 M active addresses, while Solana followed at 39.8 M. NEAR Protocol recorded 38.7 M, placing it firmly among high-usage networks.

Sei Network reported 10.6 M active addresses, rivaling Bitcoin at 10.3 M. Ethereum trailed slightly with 9.3 M, reflecting steady but slower growth.

The numbers suggested participation persisted even as prices corrected.

Fundamentals vs. price action

The divergence between prices and fundamentals became the defining theme of 2025. Layer-1 tokens appeared to undergo repricing rather than structural deterioration.

Losses deepened after many Layer-1s peaked near all-time highs in early October. The subsequent October sell-off accelerated downside momentum and amplified year-end drawdowns.

However, capital and activity consolidated around networks generating real usage, fees, and revenue. Speculative premiums faded, while economically productive chains retained relevance.


Final Thoughts

  • The 2025 drawdown highlighted how Layer-1 valuations corrected sharply after October’s all-time highs.
  • However, on-chain revenue and user data suggested the sector faced repricing pressure, not structural decline.

İlgili Sorular

QAccording to the analysis by Schizoxbt, which two Layer-1 tokens were the only ones to post gains in 2025?

ABNB and TRX were the only ones to post gains, rising 18.2% and 9.8%, respectively.

QWhich Layer-1 network generated the most revenue over the past 365 days, and how much was it?

ATron led all Layer-1s in revenue, generating approximately $3.5 billion over the past 365 days.

QDespite the price collapse, what did the data on monthly active addresses suggest about user activity on Layer-1 networks?

AThe data on monthly active addresses suggested that user participation persisted and remained elevated, challenging the bearish narrative that traders were leaving.

QWhat was the defining theme of 2025 for Layer-1 tokens, as described in the article?

AThe defining theme was the divergence between prices and fundamentals, where tokens underwent a repricing rather than a structural deterioration.

QWhat event in October 2025 is cited as accelerating the downside momentum for Layer-1 token prices?

AThe subsequent October sell-off, which occurred after many Layer-1s peaked near all-time highs in early October, accelerated the downside momentum and amplified year-end drawdowns.

İlgili Okumalar

Bitcoin Withdrawals Continue: 8 Years of Storage in a Coldcard Cold Wallet Ended in Zero

Coldcard Hardware Wallet Hacked: Losses Mount Due to Vulnerable Seed Generation A critical vulnerability in Coldcard hardware wallets has led to a continued wave of fund thefts. According to Galaxy Research, the total stolen has reached 1,367.05 BTC (approx. $88.6 million) from 4,585 addresses, a significant increase from the initial 594.5 BTC reported on July 30, 2026. Most of the stolen funds remain on the attackers' addresses. The issue is not with the current firmware, which Coinkite has updated, but with seed phrases generated on vulnerable devices between March 2021 and the release of fixed firmware versions. Due to a programmer error, devices switched from using a hardware random number generator to the software-based Yasmarang generator, which was initialized with publicly accessible data like the chip's serial number. This made the seed phrases predictable through offline brute-force attacks, meaning wallets remain at risk until funds are moved to a new wallet generated with the patched firmware. Affected devices include Mk2/Mk3 with firmware 4.0.1–4.1.9 (and up to 5.0.3), Mk4/Mk5 up to version 5.6.0, and Q models up to 1.5.0Q. The only exceptions are seeds created with a high-entropy method like at least 50 independent dice rolls or a strong unique BIP-39 passphrase. All other owners must generate a new seed on the fixed firmware and transfer their assets. A case highlighting the human impact involves a 39-year-old long-term investor who lost 2 BTC (approx. $130,000) in minutes. He had accumulated the Bitcoin over eight years through physical labor, viewing it as a financial lifeline and a retirement plan in a country suffering from hyperinflation. His story underscores that even conservative "buy and hold in cold storage" strategies can be compromised by such underlying technical flaws. From a technical perspective, this incident echoes historical failures where weak random number generators undermined cryptographic security, challenging the assumption that offline storage is automatically foolproof.

cryptonews.ru3 saat önce

Bitcoin Withdrawals Continue: 8 Years of Storage in a Coldcard Cold Wallet Ended in Zero

cryptonews.ru3 saat önce

İşlemler

Spot
活动图片