Ethereum vs Solana: How Their Structures Influence Value Capture

ARK Invest digital‑asset researcher Lorenzo Valente compared three blockchain networks—Ethereum, Solana and Hyperliquid—using analogies to U.S. restaurant businesses. He argues that each network’s operating model creates distinct pathways for revenue capture and associated risks.

Ethereum: A Franchise‑Style Ecosystem

Valente likens Ethereum to a McDonald’s‑style franchise. Independent layer‑2 networks (e.g., Arbitrum, Base, OP Mainnet) build and finance their own execution environments while relying on Ethereum for data availability and settlement. These rollups pay Ethereum primarily for blob data, a cost reduced by EIP‑4844 in March 2024. Valente notes that, although this structure enables rapid expansion without direct capital outlay from Ethereum, the main chain captures relatively limited settlement fees, describing the situation as “charging rent close to operating cost.”

Solana: Vertically Integrated Operations

Solana is compared to Chipotle, reflecting a vertically integrated model where applications run directly on the base layer. Trades, token launches and stablecoin transfers all share the same execution environment, and fees are paid to validators and, in part, burned. This architecture keeps a larger share of fee revenue within the Solana network, but also concentrates operational risk—congestion or network disruptions can affect all applications simultaneously. Recent upgrades such as Firedancer and Alpenglow aim to improve performance and validator diversity.

Hyperliquid: Direct Fee‑to‑Token Flow

Hyperliquid receives the In‑N‑Out analogy. Its core product is on‑chain perpetual futures trading, supported by a proprietary consensus system (HyperBFT) and trading infrastructure (HyperCore). Most trading fees are funneled into an Assistance Fund that purchases the native HYPE token, creating a direct link between product revenue and token demand. Crypto.news reported that the fund has spent over $1.3 billion on HYPE purchases since its inception. Hyperliquid also allows external builders to launch markets via HIP‑3, letting them retain up to 50 % of generated fees.

Key Takeaways

• Ethereum’s franchise model offers broad distribution but captures limited settlement revenue.
• Solana’s integrated design retains more fees within the network but faces higher systemic risk.
• Hyperliquid’s fee‑capture chain is the shortest, directly tying trading fees to HYPE purchases, but it carries the greatest concentration risk.
• Future value capture for each network depends on factors such as blob pricing (Ethereum), network upgrades and validator diversity (Solana), and HIP‑3 adoption and derivatives activity (Hyperliquid).