Futures
Access hundreds of perpetual contracts
TradFi
Gold
One platform for global traditional assets
Options
Hot
Trade European-style vanilla options
Unified Account
Maximize your capital efficiency
Demo Trading
Introduction to Futures Trading
Learn the basics of futures trading
Futures Events
Join events to earn rewards
Demo Trading
Use virtual funds to practice risk-free trading
Launch
CandyDrop
Collect candies to earn airdrops
Launchpool
Quick staking, earn potential new tokens
HODLer Airdrop
Hold GT and get massive airdrops for free
Launchpad
Be early to the next big token project
Alpha Points
Trade on-chain assets and earn airdrops
Futures Points
Earn futures points and claim airdrop rewards
The chains holding the most capital are not the ones making the most money.
But that gap doesn’t always resolve the way people expect.
Let’s start with the surface layer.
Solana is generating $8.73M in daily fees. The entire Ethereum stack combined is doing $122K.
At the same time, Ethereum L2s secure $31B+ in value. Solana’s DeFi TVL sits closer to $6.03B.
So the system storing more capital is earning less at the base layer.
That looks like a mismatch. But it’s more of a design tradeoff than a flaw.
This didn’t happen by accident.
EIP-4844 did exactly what it was supposed to do.
It made blockspace cheap. It made L2s usable at scale. It removed one of the biggest barriers to adoption.
But it also changed where value is captured.
When blockspace becomes abundant, it behaves less like a scarce asset and more like infrastructure.
So fees don’t disappear. They get redistributed.
On Ethereum, more of that value flows to: • L2s • applications • sequencers • execution layers
On Solana, activity still translates more directly into base layer fees.
So even with less capital, the system generates more visible revenue at the chain level.
That’s the real difference.
Ethereum is optimizing for: • scale • accessibility • ecosystem expansion
Solana is optimizing for: • tighter value capture at the base layer • direct monetization of activity
Both models work. But they produce very different outcomes for value capture.
Because eventually, markets ask:
Where does the value actually accrue?
If a chain processes billions in activity but captures little at the base layer, that value doesn’t vanish.
It moves up the stack.
That makes the base layer harder to price, not necessarily weaker.
That’s the unresolved piece for L2s.
Value accrual to ETH is: • less direct • more distributed • still evolving
It’s not broken. But it’s not fully priced in either.
And this is where things get interesting.
The market is still anchored to: “L2s scale Ethereum.”
Which is true.
But scaling and value capture are not the same thing.
Over time, one of three things likely happens:
• L2s improve how value flows back to the base layer • value continues concentrating at higher layers • the market shifts to pricing the full ecosystem, not just the chain
Right now, we’re in btw.
Capital sits on one side. Revenue shows up on another.
And the connection between them is still being figured out.