Daily Network Fee Revenue

Two reasons. First, Bitcoin processes far fewer transactions per day — roughly 300,000 versus Ethereum's 1,100,000. Bitcoin blocks are limited to about 3,000 transactions each (with SegWit, more), while Ethereum blocks regularly include 200+ transactions per block with sub-second block times in aggregate. Second, Bitcoin's fee market is largely settled: after a decade of optimisations, most Bitcoin users are fee-sensitive and batch transactions, so fees stay moderate except during specific congestion events like Ordinals mints or BRC-20 activity. Ethereum's fee revenue is higher because its block space is used more intensively (DeFi, NFTs, L2 settlement) and because its gas mechanism produces higher prices during demand spikes. The two chains serve different use cases, and their fee profiles reflect that.

Both, but in different proportions. L2 users pay fees to the L2 sequencer, and the sequencer in turn pays the L1 for the data availability and settlement costs of posting the batch. The L2's net revenue is (user fees) minus (L1 costs), and this can be negative during periods of high L1 gas — the L2 is effectively subsidising usage to attract activity. For the purposes of this calculator, the "average fee per transaction" for an L2 is what users pay the L2, and the daily revenue is the gross collection before L1 costs. To model net revenue, you would subtract the L1 cost per transaction, which typically runs $0.001–$0.05 per user transaction on top of the L2 fee. The Advanced mode does not currently model this; it assumes the "revenue" input is already net of any L1 costs if you want it to be.

High fee revenue is a mixed signal. On one hand, it means real users are willing to pay significant amounts to use the chain, which is the strongest evidence of genuine demand. A chain with $10M daily revenue is one that thousands of users find worth paying for at high prices. On the other hand, high fees suppress usage — users who cannot afford the fee go elsewhere or wait. Some of the most-used chains by transaction count have very low fee revenue because the fees are small, while some chains with high fee revenue have relatively few active users. The metric is best read alongside transaction count and unique active addresses: high revenue with high counts means broad high-value usage; high revenue with low counts means concentrated high-value usage (often a small number of applications); low revenue with high counts means broad low-value usage (gaming, spam, microtransactions).

Simply multiply by 365. Daily revenue × 365 = annual revenue. This is the standard convention and is what the market uses for P/S ratios. The only nuance is that for revenue-driven tokens, some analysts prefer to use a trailing average rather than a single day's figure, because daily revenue is volatile. A 30-day moving average × 365 gives a smoother annualised figure that is less sensitive to single-day spikes. If you are comparing a chain's revenue to its market cap to compute P/S, using a smoothed figure avoids the distortion of a single unusually high or low day. The Advanced mode does not currently smooth, but you can enter your own smoothed daily figure as the input.

Fee revenue is what users pay; validator (or miner) revenue is what actually reaches the block producers. On many modern chains, they are not equal. On Ethereum post-EIP-1559, the base fee is burned — it is removed from supply and does not go to validators. So on Ethereum, validators receive only the priority fee, which is typically 20–50% of total fees, while the base fee (the rest) is a deflationary force on ETH supply. On Bitcoin, 100% of fees go to miners (in addition to the block subsidy). On L2s, the sequencer collects all user fees but pays a portion to the L1. This is why you sometimes see headlines like "Ethereum burned $10M in fees today" (which refers to base fees destroyed) versus "Ethereum generated $5M in validator revenue" (which refers to priority fees only). The distinction matters for understanding token economics and for valuing mining or staking operations.

It is one of the more reliable fundamentals in crypto because it is hard to game: fees are paid by real users in real transactions, and they cannot be manufactured by token emissions or by double-counting the same value in multiple places. That said, it has limitations. First, fee revenue does not capture the value that flows through a chain in non-fee forms (transfers of stablecoins, MEV, off-chain revenue). Second, on chains with treasury tokens that subsidise fees, the "revenue" may be funded by token issuance and not by external demand. Third, some revenue is transient — a single viral application can spike fees for a week, then collapse. For a robust valuation, combine fee revenue with active user counts, developer activity, and the trajectory of the applications driving the fees. Fee revenue is one of the best single metrics, not the whole picture.

They refer to the same thing in most cases — the payment a user makes to have a transaction included in a block. "Gas" is the Ethereum-specific terminology: gas is a unit of computational work, and the gas fee is the amount paid for that work (gas used × gas price). On other chains, the term "fee" is more common. On Bitcoin, fees are simply satoshis per byte of transaction size. On Solana, fees are a base fee plus an optional priority fee. On L2s, the fee paid to the L2 is a "sequencer fee" and the L2 in turn pays a "data availability fee" to the L1. All of these ultimately reduce to "how much did the user pay to get their transaction processed", which is the number the daily revenue metric captures.