Blockchain Economics: Evaluating Ethereum, Solana, and Hyperliquid

Valente likens the three networks to well-known restaurant brands to illustrate their scaling and revenue strategies. Ethereum mirrors a franchise model, such as McDonald’s, where independent layer 2 networks like Arbitrum or Base handle execution while relying on the main chain for settlement. While this allows for rapid, decentralized growth, Valente notes that Ethereum currently struggles to capture a significant share of the economic activity generated by these off-chain participants. Changes to blob pricing, intended to balance network utility with settlement income, remain a point of ongoing technical debate within the community.

In contrast, Solana functions like a vertically integrated company, similar to Chipotle. By keeping application execution within a single, unified environment, the network ensures that base fees and transaction value flow more directly to validators and token holders. This integrated approach grants Solana greater control over the user experience and fee markets, though it places the burden of infrastructure stability and operational resilience entirely on the base layer.

Hyperliquid adopts a more concentrated structure, characterized as an In-N-Out model. By focusing on its proprietary trading venue and consensus system, the platform channels significant transaction fees into market-based repurchases of its HYPE token via an Assistance Fund. This creates a direct link between protocol activity and the native asset, though it carries heightened concentration risk. Ultimately, Valente argues that these disparate models—decentralized franchising, integrated scaling, and direct product-to-token capture—require investors to apply tailored metrics rather than relying on uniform standards.