POL (ex-MATIC)POL: $1.03 billion smart contract platform, zero knowledge (ZK)
StacksSTX: $608 million infrastructure, smart contract platform
DeriveDRV: $339 million smart contract platform, decentralized finance (DeFi)
StarknetSTRK: $325 million infrastructure, smart contract platform
Market cap is price times coins in circulation, from CoinGecko. The small words beside each coin are CoinGecko's own tags. A size ranking, not a pick.
What is Layer 2 crypto?
Layer 2 crypto coins are the coins CoinGecko tags as Layer 2 (L2). Each coin sits in one theme only: the first, most specific one its tags match. We track 45 Layer 2 coins, 34 of them rated below.
Bottom line
POL (ex-MATIC) ranks first for research priority in Layer 2 crypto at 77.2/100, and its native activity evidence clears the coverage gate. The theme's 13-week excess versus Bitcoin is +22.4% on 39% breadth, which is what decides whether that lead is isolated or broad. 9 of the 34 assets here carry enough native evidence to move past a price-led label.
These Layer 2 coins are part of the cryptocurrency universe this site tracks daily: the top 1,000 coins by market cap when the list was built, priced from exchange closes where we have a price we trust, and matched to protocol fees and revenue where a protocol publishes them.
The theme itself · before any single company
How has Layer 2 moved against Bitcoin?
The line below covers up to 5 years and opens on the 5Y view; the buttons cut it shorter. Over the most recent two of them this theme is 29% behind Bitcoin. Protocol revenue across its protocols fell 24% on average over the last four reported quarters. It has been ahead of Bitcoin on a rolling three-month view for 8 weeks running.
FADING · −7 in 4w·Price down, no fundamental support10 of 29 coins ahead of Bitcoin by 5% or more over three months
Ahead of Bitcoin for 8 weeks running; 15/29 >200d (−7); 10 of 29 ahead of Bitcoin by 5% or more over three months (7 fewer than four weeks earlier).
Layer 2, equal-weighted, based at 200Bitcoin, same base, same starttrailing 12-month protocol revenue risingfalling
Layer 2, equal-weighted, based at 200Bitcoin, same base, same starttrailing 12-month protocol revenue risingfalling
Layer 2, equal-weighted, based at 200Bitcoin, same base, same starttrailing 12-month protocol revenue risingfalling
Both lines start at 200 in the same week, so the gap between them tells the story: the theme line is an equal-weighted index of its 29 coins. The bars underneath are trailing 12-month protocol revenue, one bar per reported quarter, each member set to 100 at the start and the theme taking the middle value, so a price line pulling away from flat bars means the market is paying more for the same earnings. A bar turns red when that figure is lower than the quarter before. The rules are fixed and the same everywhere on this site: ahead by 5% or more over three months, or behind by 20% or more over a year while protocol revenue grew 20% or more. Hover or tap any point to read both values and the gap.
BTC LED market context
Layer 2 vs Bitcoin: Relative Strength & Breadth
Layer 2 crypto has underperformed Bitcoin by 27.8% over 52 weeks on an equal-weight index of current members. Over 13 weeks the figure is +22.4%. 13 of 33 covered assets are above their own 200-day average. Sophon leads Bitcoin-relative strength at +180.2%. Price readings are as of 2026-10-30.
+22%13 weeks vs Bitcoin
-28%52 weeks vs Bitcoin
13 of 33above their 200-day average
SOPHfurthest ahead of Bitcoin · +180%
Assets
34
canonical functional membership
Activity-covered
9/34
enough native evidence
Top score
77.2/100
POL (ex-MATIC)
Calendar quarters
20
complete; missing stays missing
Global asset selection · top 20 shown
Showing 20 of 34 assets
00 · exact additive research priority
4-Factor Crypto Evidence Score
A within-theme research-priority score for the 34 assets in Layer 2, out of 100. The four displayed point contributions add exactly to the total, and the market regime changes the action label, never the arithmetic. POL (ex-MATIC) is highest at 77.2/100 on 93% evidence. It ranks research attention, not portfolio action.
POL (ex-MATIC) leads the current research queue at 77.2/100 with 93% evidence.
9 of 34 assets have enough native activity evidence to move beyond a price-led label.
11 of the 45 Layer 2 coins are not rated this week: 11 report no traded volume. They are listed in full below the ranking.
Missing native metrics are not scored as zero and are not silently reweighted. They pull only the affected factor toward neutral and lower its visible evidence percentage. An asset with nothing measurable at all is not scored at 50 either: it is listed as not rated.
1. POL (ex-MATIC) · POL
77.2/100 · Thinly traded · 93% evidence
Exact sum: 21.6 + 25.9 + 18.6 + 11.1 = 77.2
What it means: The readings disagree, so the score says little either way.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): +9.2 pts · vs its theme (30 days): +0.1 pts · above its 200-day average
80% evidence
25.9/30Usage growth
Fees 344.3% · revenue 394.7% · users -25.6%
100% evidence
18.6/20Value capture
Fee yield 2.86% · revenue yield 2.86%
100% evidence
11.1/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $4.9M · price swings: 61.8% a year
100% evidence
2. Prom · PROM
66.7/100 · Price-led, little network data · 50% evidence
Exact sum: 32.1 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 9.6 = 66.7
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): +169 pts · vs its theme (30 days): +5.3 pts · above its 200-day average
100% evidence
15.0/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
0% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
9.6/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $5.6M · price swings: 121.5% a year
100% evidence
3. Merlin Chain · MERL
66.2/100 · Thinly traded · 55% evidence
Exact sum: 31.7 + 14.6 + 10.0 + 9.9 = 66.2
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): +47 pts · vs its theme (30 days): +10.6 pts · above its 200-day average
100% evidence
14.6/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
17% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
9.9/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $3.8M · price swings: 76% a year
100% evidence
4. PHALA · PHA
60.7/100 · Price-led, little network data · 50% evidence
Exact sum: 26.1 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 9.6 = 60.7
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): +93.7 pts · vs its theme (30 days): −29.4 pts · above its 200-day average
100% evidence
15.0/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
0% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
9.6/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $14.8M · price swings: 139.5% a year
100% evidence
5. Sophon · SOPH
60.4/100 · Thinly traded · 50% evidence
Exact sum: 34.4 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 1.0 = 60.4
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): +22 pts · vs its theme (30 days): +9.9 pts · above its 200-day average
100% evidence
10.8/30Usage growth
Fees -77.3% · revenue -75.2% · users -72.8%
100% evidence
8.4/20Value capture
Fee yield 0.48% · revenue yield 0.46%
100% evidence
10.5/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $78.4M · price swings: 137% a year
100% evidence
7. Nervos Network · CKB
58.4/100 · Thinly traded · 50% evidence
Exact sum: 27.9 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 5.5 = 58.4
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): +29.6 pts · vs its theme (30 days): +10.6 pts · above its 200-day average
100% evidence
15.0/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
0% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
5.5/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $2.4M · price swings: 156.6% a year
100% evidence
8. Treasure · MAGIC
58.1/100 · Thinly traded · 43% evidence
Exact sum: 29.2 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 3.9 = 58.1
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): +73.9 pts · vs its theme (30 days): +72.3 pts · above its 200-day average
80% evidence
15.0/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
0% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
3.9/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $2.0M · price swings: 286.3% a year
100% evidence
9. Stacks · STX
56.4/100 · Thinly traded · 43% evidence
Exact sum: 25.0 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 6.4 = 56.4
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): +83.2 pts · vs its theme (30 days): −5.8 pts · above its 200-day average
80% evidence
15.0/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
0% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
6.4/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $2.5M · price swings: 84.6% a year
100% evidence
10. MegaETH · MEGA
55.5/100 · Thinly traded · 43% evidence
Exact sum: 22.3 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 8.2 = 55.5
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): −6.2 pts · vs its theme (30 days): −9.9 pts · below its 200-day average
100% evidence
19.9/30Usage growth
Fees 55.4% · revenue — · users -22.9%
80% evidence
13.8/20Value capture
Fee yield 2.03% · revenue yield 1.98%
81% evidence
9.2/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $3.5M · price swings: 72.4% a year
100% evidence
12. Metal DAO · MTL
55.1/100 · Thinly traded · 50% evidence
Exact sum: 23.9 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 6.2 = 55.1
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): +6.6 pts · vs its theme (30 days): −1.5 pts · above its 200-day average
100% evidence
15.0/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
0% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
6.2/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $404.8K · price swings: 46.7% a year
100% evidence
13. Cartesi · CTSI
52.6/100 · Thinly traded · 50% evidence
Exact sum: 20.0 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 7.6 = 52.6
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): +11.2 pts · vs its theme (30 days): +3.9 pts · below its 200-day average
80% evidence
10.1/30Usage growth
Fees -56.2% · revenue -46.7% · users -72.8%
100% evidence
11.5/20Value capture
Fee yield 0.49% · revenue yield 0.46%
100% evidence
5.7/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $2.5M · price swings: 136.5% a year
100% evidence
15. Lumia · LUMIA
48.8/100 · Thinly traded · 50% evidence
Exact sum: 17.2 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 6.6 = 48.8
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): −11.4 pts · vs its theme (30 days): +13.1 pts · below its 200-day average
100% evidence
15.0/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
0% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
6.6/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $2.9M · price swings: 161.2% a year
100% evidence
16. Hermez Network · HEZ
47.8/100 · Thinly traded · 50% evidence
Exact sum: 16.0 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 6.8 = 47.8
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): −19 pts · vs its theme (30 days): +12.3 pts · above its 200-day average
100% evidence
15.0/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
0% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
6.8/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $10.9K · price swings: 9.8% a year
100% evidence
17. Saakuru · SKR
47.1/100 · Thinly traded · 12% evidence
Exact sum: 17.5 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 4.6 = 47.1
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): — · vs its theme (30 days): — · 200-day average: —
0% evidence
15.0/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
0% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
4.6/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $8 · price swings: —
80% evidence
18. Orderly · ORDER
45.5/100 · Thinly traded · 55% evidence
Exact sum: 16.7 + 14.9 + 10.0 + 3.9 = 45.5
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): +4 pts · vs its theme (30 days): +5.1 pts · below its 200-day average
100% evidence
14.9/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
17% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
3.9/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $2.9M · price swings: 340.5% a year
100% evidence
19. Aztec · AZTEC
45.0/100 · Price-led, little network data · 50% evidence
Exact sum: 9.6 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 10.4 = 45.0
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): +167 pts · vs its theme (30 days): −10.7 pts · above its 200-day average
100% evidence
2.9/30Usage growth
Fees -94.1% · revenue -91.3% · users -97%
100% evidence
4.3/20Value capture
Fee yield 0.05% · revenue yield 0.05%
100% evidence
9.3/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $10.7M · price swings: 121.4% a year
100% evidence
22. Aevo · AEVO
42.0/100 · Thinly traded · 50% evidence
Exact sum: 7.9 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 9.1 = 42.0
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): −22.9 pts · vs its theme (30 days): −2 pts · below its 200-day average
100% evidence
15.0/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
0% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
9.1/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $2.9M · price swings: 52.4% a year
100% evidence
23. Status · SNT
42.0/100 · Thinly traded · 50% evidence
Exact sum: 9.2 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 7.8 = 42.0
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): −10.5 pts · vs its theme (30 days): −2 pts · below its 200-day average
100% evidence
15.0/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
0% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
7.8/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $2.5M · price swings: 36.8% a year
100% evidence
24. AltLayer · ALT
41.7/100 · Thinly traded · 43% evidence
Exact sum: 12.8 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 3.9 = 41.7
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): −17.9 pts · vs its theme (30 days): −4.3 pts · below its 200-day average
80% evidence
15.0/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
0% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
3.9/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $2.0M · price swings: 238% a year
100% evidence
25. Immutable · IMX
40.3/100 · Thinly traded · 48% evidence
Exact sum: 13.5 + 12.7 + 10.0 + 4.1 = 40.3
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): −6.2 pts · vs its theme (30 days): +3.5 pts · below its 200-day average
100% evidence
7.7/30Usage growth
Fees -78% · revenue — · users -91.1%
80% evidence
7.5/20Value capture
Fee yield 0.19% · revenue yield —
50% evidence
8.4/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $3.0M · price swings: 85% a year
100% evidence
27. COTI · COTI
37.3/100 · Price-led, little network data · 50% evidence
Exact sum: 2.7 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 9.6 = 37.3
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): −56.6 pts · vs its theme (30 days): −8.5 pts · below its 200-day average
100% evidence
15.0/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
0% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
9.6/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $6.1M · price swings: 64.7% a year
100% evidence
28. BSquared Network · B2
34.8/100 · Thinly traded · 55% evidence
Exact sum: 4.2 + 14.0 + 10.0 + 6.6 = 34.8
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): −41.2 pts · vs its theme (30 days): −4.5 pts · below its 200-day average
100% evidence
14.0/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
17% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
6.6/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $1.8M · price swings: 52.6% a year
100% evidence
29. Capx AI · CAPX
33.5/100 · Thinly traded · 50% evidence
Exact sum: 5.4 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 3.1 = 33.5
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): −31.5 pts · vs its theme (30 days): −10.8 pts · below its 200-day average
100% evidence
15.0/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
0% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
3.1/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $174.9K · price swings: 86.7% a year
100% evidence
30. OpenLedger · OPEN
33.4/100 · Thinly traded · 43% evidence
Exact sum: 4.4 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 4.0 = 33.4
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): −18.7 pts · vs its theme (30 days): 0 pts · below its 200-day average
100% evidence
4.0/30Usage growth
Fees -97.8% · revenue — · users -98.2%
80% evidence
11.8/20Value capture
Fee yield 0.7% · revenue yield 0.19%
100% evidence
8.6/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $3.4M · price swings: 63% a year
100% evidence
32. Loopring · LRC
31.7/100 · Thinly traded · 55% evidence
Exact sum: 3.1 + 12.5 + 10.0 + 6.1 = 31.7
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): −48.1 pts · vs its theme (30 days): −6.9 pts · below its 200-day average
100% evidence
12.5/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
17% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
6.1/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $1.3M · price swings: 51.9% a year
100% evidence
33. Islamic Coin · ISLM
31.5/100 · Thinly traded · 50% evidence
Exact sum: 2.7 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 3.8 = 31.5
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): −20 pts · vs its theme (30 days): +6.1 pts · below its 200-day average
100% evidence
3.3/30Usage growth
Fees -86.9% · revenue -93.1% · users -97.2%
100% evidence
1.3/20Value capture
Fee yield 0.1% · revenue yield 0.03%
100% evidence
8.6/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $2.6M · price swings: 80.7% a year
100% evidence
Showing 5 of 34 ranked assets
01 · complete calendar-quarter evidence
Which projects are generating the most network fees?
POL (ex-MATIC) leads Layer 2 crypto on Trailing 12-month fees at $29.4M, 2065% ahead of Linea. 2 of 9 assets with comparable change data are growing. Coverage is 9 of the 34 ranked assets in this theme, through the Q3 2026 calendar quarter. Where a project publishes nothing, the cell stays blank rather than being read as zero.
LeaderPOL (ex-MATIC) · $29.4M
Gap2065% versus #2
Persistence2 assets have positive comparable growth
Coverage9 of 34 assets
Investor read: Use this as a network-economics research lead, not token-holder earnings. Verify whether the measured activity accrues to the token before treating scale as value capture.
This conclusion weakens if: fee growth turns negative across two complete calendar quarters or fee coverage falls below the stated threshold.
Trailing 12-month fees is the sum of the latest four complete calendar quarters. Growth compares that sum with the prior four-quarter sum.
Trailing 12-month feestop 5
1POL (ex-MATIC) POL$29.4M
2Linea LINEA$1.4M
3Optimism OP$1.2M
4Celo CELO$886.5K
5ZKsync ZK$543.3K
Fee growthtop 5
1POL (ex-MATIC) POL+344%
2Celo CELO+55%
3ZKsync ZK-56%
4Linea LINEA-73%
5Optimism OP-77%
Network fees · asset comparison
9 of 34 coins report it · 9 with a comparable change
Latest comparable data · top 20 shown first
Asset
Trailing 12-month fees
Fee growth
POL (ex-MATIC) POL
$7.1M
+344%
Prom PROM
—
—
Merlin Chain MERL
—
—
PHALA PHA
—
—
Sophon SOPH
—
—
Optimism OP
$178.9K
-77%
Nervos Network CKB
—
—
Treasure MAGIC
—
—
Stacks STX
—
—
MegaETH MEGA
$181.4K
—
Celo CELO
$360.8K
+55%
Metal DAO MTL
—
—
Cartesi CTSI
—
—
ZKsync ZK
$51.9K
-56%
Lumia LUMIA
—
—
Hermez Network HEZ
—
—
Saakuru SKR
—
—
Orderly ORDER
—
—
Aztec AZTEC
—
—
Linea LINEA
$121.4K
-73%
Lisk LSK
$1.7K
-94%
Aevo AEVO
—
—
Status SNT
—
—
AltLayer ALT
—
—
Immutable IMX
—
—
Metis METIS
$4.6K
-78%
COTI COTI
—
—
BSquared Network B2
—
—
Capx AI CAPX
$224.3K
—
OpenLedger OPEN
$118.9K
—
Taiko TAIKO
$15.6K
-98%
Loopring LRC
—
—
Islamic Coin ISLM
—
—
Manta Network MANTA
$1.8K
-87%
Showing 20 of 34 assets
02 · complete calendar-quarter evidence
Which projects convert activity into protocol revenue?
POL (ex-MATIC) leads Layer 2 crypto on Trailing 12-month revenue at $29.4M, 2076% ahead of Linea. 1 of 6 assets with comparable change data is growing. Coverage is 8 of the 34 ranked assets in this theme, through the Q3 2026 calendar quarter. Where a project publishes nothing, the cell stays blank rather than being read as zero.
LeaderPOL (ex-MATIC) · $29.4M
Gap2076% versus #2
Persistence1 asset has positive comparable growth
Coverage8 of 34 assets
Investor read: Use this as a network-economics research lead, not token-holder earnings. Verify whether the measured activity accrues to the token before treating scale as value capture.
This conclusion weakens if: revenue growth turns negative or the revenue-to-fees take rate falls for two complete calendar quarters.
Trailing 12-month revenue is the sum of the latest four complete calendar quarters. Growth compares that sum with the prior four-quarter sum.
Trailing 12-month revenuetop 5
1POL (ex-MATIC) POL$29.4M
2Linea LINEA$1.3M
3Optimism OP$1.1M
4Celo CELO$867.2K
5ZKsync ZK$514.7K
Revenue growthtop 5
1POL (ex-MATIC) POL+395%
2ZKsync ZK-47%
3Linea LINEA-73%
4Optimism OP-75%
5Lisk LSK-91%
Protocol revenue · asset comparison
8 of 34 coins report it · 6 with a comparable change
Latest comparable data · top 20 shown first
Asset
Trailing 12-month revenue
Revenue growth
POL (ex-MATIC) POL
$7.1M
+395%
Prom PROM
—
—
Merlin Chain MERL
—
—
PHALA PHA
—
—
Sophon SOPH
—
—
Optimism OP
$169.5K
-75%
Nervos Network CKB
—
—
Treasure MAGIC
—
—
Stacks STX
—
—
MegaETH MEGA
$178.1K
—
Celo CELO
$357.3K
—
Metal DAO MTL
—
—
Cartesi CTSI
—
—
ZKsync ZK
$29.7K
-47%
Lumia LUMIA
—
—
Hermez Network HEZ
—
—
Saakuru SKR
—
—
Orderly ORDER
—
—
Aztec AZTEC
—
—
Linea LINEA
$119.2K
-73%
Lisk LSK
$1.1K
-91%
Aevo AEVO
—
—
Status SNT
—
—
AltLayer ALT
—
—
Immutable IMX
—
—
Metis METIS
—
—
COTI COTI
—
—
BSquared Network B2
—
—
Capx AI CAPX
$201.9K
—
OpenLedger OPEN
$118.9K
—
Taiko TAIKO
$6.4K
—
Loopring LRC
—
—
Islamic Coin ISLM
—
—
Manta Network MANTA
$-1.1K
-93%
Showing 20 of 34 assets
03 · complete calendar-quarter evidence
Where is capital actually committed on-chain?
POL (ex-MATIC) leads Layer 2 crypto on Quarter-end TVL at $4.1B, 112% ahead of Optimism. None of the 14 assets with comparable change data is growing. Coverage is 19 of the 34 ranked assets in this theme, through the Q3 2026 calendar quarter. Where a project publishes nothing, the cell stays blank rather than being read as zero.
LeaderPOL (ex-MATIC) · $4.1B
Gap112% versus #2
Persistence0 assets have positive comparable growth
Coverage19 of 34 assets
Investor read: Use this as a network-economics research lead, not token-holder earnings. Verify whether the measured activity accrues to the token before treating scale as value capture.
This conclusion weakens if: TVL rises while fees and users fall; that pattern can be incentive-funded mercenary liquidity.
Quarter-end TVL uses protocol TVL first for protocol assets and exact-ID chain TVL for chain assets or where protocol TVL is unavailable. A blank is unavailable, not zero. Growth compares with the same complete quarter one year earlier.
Quarter-end TVLtop 5
1POL (ex-MATIC) POL$4.1B
2Optimism OP$1.9B
3Merlin Chain MERL$445.7M
4Linea LINEA$377.4M
5Celo CELO$270.0M
TVL growthtop 5
1POL (ex-MATIC) POL-14%
2Celo CELO-29%
3Orderly ORDER-36%
4Merlin Chain MERL-40%
5Optimism OP-50%
Total value locked · asset comparison
19 of 34 coins report it · 14 with a comparable change
Latest comparable data · top 20 shown first
Asset
Quarter-end TVL
TVL growth
POL (ex-MATIC) POL
$4.1B
-14%
Prom PROM
—
—
Merlin Chain MERL
$445.7M
-40%
PHALA PHA
—
—
Sophon SOPH
—
—
Optimism OP
$1.9B
-50%
Nervos Network CKB
—
—
Treasure MAGIC
$0
—
Stacks STX
$92.9K
—
MegaETH MEGA
$83.1M
—
Celo CELO
$270.0M
-29%
Metal DAO MTL
—
—
Cartesi CTSI
—
—
ZKsync ZK
$266.3M
-60%
Lumia LUMIA
—
—
Hermez Network HEZ
—
—
Saakuru SKR
—
—
Orderly ORDER
$354.5K
-36%
Aztec AZTEC
—
—
Linea LINEA
$377.4M
-83%
Lisk LSK
$36.7M
-68%
Aevo AEVO
—
—
Status SNT
—
—
AltLayer ALT
—
—
Immutable IMX
$648.3K
-98%
Metis METIS
$29.3M
-77%
COTI COTI
—
—
BSquared Network B2
$230.1M
-55%
Capx AI CAPX
$0
—
OpenLedger OPEN
$0
—
Taiko TAIKO
$13.5M
-66%
Loopring LRC
$33.9K
-100%
Islamic Coin ISLM
—
—
Manta Network MANTA
$97.4M
-64%
Showing 20 of 34 assets
04 · complete calendar-quarter evidence
Which chains are gaining real users?
Celo leads Layer 2 crypto on Average daily active addresses at 459,790 addresses, 4% ahead of POL (ex-MATIC). None of the 9 assets with comparable change data is growing. Coverage is 10 of the 34 ranked assets in this theme, through the Q3 2026 calendar quarter.
LeaderCelo · 459,790
Gap4% versus #2
Persistence0 assets have positive comparable growth
Coverage10 of 34 assets
Investor read: Use this as a network-economics research lead, not token-holder earnings. Verify whether the measured activity accrues to the token before treating scale as value capture.
This conclusion weakens if: address growth reverses for two complete quarters or activity rises without corresponding fees.
Average daily active addresses uses verified chain activity only. Host-chain users are never assigned to an application token. A blank means the source does not cover that asset, not zero users.
Average daily active addressestop 5
1Celo CELO459,790
2POL (ex-MATIC) POL441,491
3Optimism OP21,643
4ZKsync ZK3,049
5Linea LINEA2,940
User growthtop 5
1Celo CELO-23%
2POL (ex-MATIC) POL-26%
3Optimism OP-73%
4ZKsync ZK-73%
5Metis METIS-91%
Active users · asset comparison
10 of 34 coins report it · 9 with a comparable change
Latest comparable data · top 20 shown first
Asset
Average daily active addresses
User growth
POL (ex-MATIC) POL
441,491
-26%
Prom PROM
—
—
Merlin Chain MERL
—
—
PHALA PHA
—
—
Sophon SOPH
—
—
Optimism OP
21,643
-73%
Nervos Network CKB
—
—
Treasure MAGIC
—
—
Stacks STX
—
—
MegaETH MEGA
2,228
—
Celo CELO
459,790
-23%
Metal DAO MTL
—
—
Cartesi CTSI
—
—
ZKsync ZK
3,049
-73%
Lumia LUMIA
—
—
Hermez Network HEZ
—
—
Saakuru SKR
—
—
Orderly ORDER
—
—
Aztec AZTEC
—
—
Linea LINEA
2,940
-95%
Lisk LSK
398
-97%
Aevo AEVO
—
—
Status SNT
—
—
AltLayer ALT
—
—
Immutable IMX
—
—
Metis METIS
381
-91%
COTI COTI
—
—
BSquared Network B2
—
—
Capx AI CAPX
—
—
OpenLedger OPEN
—
—
Taiko TAIKO
1,059
-98%
Loopring LRC
—
—
Islamic Coin ISLM
—
—
Manta Network MANTA
450
-97%
Showing 20 of 34 assets
06 · complete calendar-quarter evidence
Which chains are processing the most transactions?
POL (ex-MATIC) leads Layer 2 crypto on Trailing 12-month transactions at 2,468,882,792 transactions, 280% ahead of Optimism. 3 of 9 assets with comparable change data are growing. Coverage is 9 of the 34 ranked assets in this theme, through the Q3 2026 calendar quarter. Where a project publishes nothing, the cell stays blank rather than being read as zero.
LeaderPOL (ex-MATIC) · 2,468,882,792
Gap280% versus #2
Persistence3 assets have positive comparable growth
Coverage9 of 34 assets
Investor read: Use this as a network-economics research lead, not token-holder earnings. Verify whether the measured activity accrues to the token before treating scale as value capture.
This conclusion weakens if: transaction growth turns negative while users and fees also deteriorate.
Trailing 12-month transactions is the sum of the latest four complete calendar quarters. Growth compares that sum with the prior four-quarter sum.
Trailing 12-month transactionstop 5
1POL (ex-MATIC) POL2,468,882,792
2Optimism OP650,420,750
3Celo CELO478,375,907
4Linea LINEA22,929,744
5Taiko TAIKO16,756,852
Transaction growthtop 5
1POL (ex-MATIC) POL+103%
2Optimism OP+77%
3Celo CELO+3.6%
4Linea LINEA-62%
5Metis METIS-72%
Transactions · asset comparison
9 of 34 coins report it · 9 with a comparable change
Latest comparable data · top 20 shown first
Asset
Trailing 12-month transactions
Transaction growth
POL (ex-MATIC) POL
537,189,556
+103%
Prom PROM
—
—
Merlin Chain MERL
—
—
PHALA PHA
—
—
Sophon SOPH
—
—
Optimism OP
148,052,180
+77%
Nervos Network CKB
—
—
Treasure MAGIC
—
—
Stacks STX
—
—
MegaETH MEGA
120,139,352
—
Celo CELO
97,450,009
+3.6%
Metal DAO MTL
—
—
Cartesi CTSI
—
—
ZKsync ZK
1,475,573
-74%
Lumia LUMIA
—
—
Hermez Network HEZ
—
—
Saakuru SKR
—
—
Orderly ORDER
—
—
Aztec AZTEC
—
—
Linea LINEA
1,544,858
-62%
Lisk LSK
316,548
-86%
Aevo AEVO
—
—
Status SNT
—
—
AltLayer ALT
—
—
Immutable IMX
—
—
Metis METIS
772,726
-72%
COTI COTI
—
—
BSquared Network B2
—
—
Capx AI CAPX
—
—
OpenLedger OPEN
—
—
Taiko TAIKO
4,435,372
-98%
Loopring LRC
—
—
Islamic Coin ISLM
—
—
Manta Network MANTA
2,617,014
-74%
Showing 20 of 34 assets
06 · let price answer last
Which assets lead on price and relative strength?
Sophon leads the Layer 2 tape on Bitcoin-relative strength at +180% over 90 days. 13 of 33 covered assets are above their own 200-day average. Price shows what happened; BTC-relative strength shows whether the asset beat crypto’s opportunity-cost benchmark. Both lines run through 2026-10-30.
Complete set · no silent drops
Which assets are in Layer 2?
34 of the 45 coins assigned to Layer 2 are rated and ranked below, and the other 11 are listed under it with the reason each one is not rated: price-only names that publish no protocol activity included. Each asset has exactly one canonical functional theme, chosen by a specific-to-general first match on its categories.
11 of the 45 Layer 2 coins are not rated this week: 11 report no traded volume. Each one stays on this page with its reason instead of being scored at the midpoint of a range nothing measured.
No traded volume is reported on most of the last 30 days, so it has no liquidity reading.
Methodology · boundaries make the answer useful
What can make this comparison misleading?
This Layer 2 comparison names 5 ways its own evidence can mislead, all listed below. The largest is that crypto network activity is not company earnings: protocol revenue does not automatically accrue to token holders. Coverage is also uneven: 9 of 34 assets carry enough native evidence to rank on more than price.
Crypto network activity is not company earnings. Protocol revenue does not automatically accrue to token holders.
Market-cap values are a dated universe snapshot, not point-in-time historical supply data.
Current category labels are applied to historical prices; this creates survivorship and taxonomy hindsight.
Funding rates, open interest, liquidations, exchange flows, unlock schedules, historical circulating supply and developer activity are not held and are not inferred.
Equal weighting is used for sector history because true historical market-cap weights are unavailable.
Price and technicalsThrough 2026-10-30. Five-year weekly observations benchmarked to Bitcoin.
Protocol activityThrough 2026-10-30. Fees, revenue, protocol TVL and DEX volume.
Chain activityUsers and transactions through 2026-10-30; chain TVL: not published for these coins.
Market capSnapshot dated 2026-11-05; no historical supply series is implied.
Questions the page should answer directly
Crypto analysis FAQs
These 22 answers cover the questions this page can settle from data it holds: what the category is, how the score is built, what the coverage gaps are, and what would change the read. Every answer below is also present in the page’s FAQ schema and in its plain-text rendition. None of them is a recommendation.
What is Layer 2 crypto?
Layer 2 crypto coins are the coins CoinGecko tags as Layer 2 (L2). Each coin sits in one theme only: the first, most specific one its tags match. We track 45 Layer 2 coins, 34 of them rated below.
What is the total market cap of Layer 2 crypto coins?
The 33 Layer 2 coins on this page with a current market cap were worth about $3.0 billion together, by CoinGecko's reading of 5 November 2026. 1 more have only an older reading, so they are not counted. Individual figures are in the table.
Are Layer 2 crypto coins outperforming Bitcoin?
Layer 2 has returned -27.8% versus Bitcoin over 52 weeks and +22.4% over 13 weeks on an equal-weight current-member index. 13/33 covered assets are above their 200-day averages as of 2026-10-30.
Which Layer 2 asset has the strongest research score?
POL (ex-MATIC) ranks first at 77.2/100: 21.6 + 25.9 + 18.6 + 11.1 = 77.2. It is labelled “Thinly traded” with 93% overall evidence and 100% native-economics evidence.
Why are some Layer 2 coins not rated?
11 of the 45 coins are not rated this week: 11 report no traded volume. They stay listed with the reason beside each one rather than being scored at a neutral midpoint, because a missing reading is not a middling reading.
How is the Layer 2 4-factor score calculated?
The exact sum is Market leadership /35 + Network and economic traction /30 + Value capture /20 + Liquidity and downside risk /15. Missing data pulls only the affected factor toward neutral and lowers evidence; it is never silently reweighted.
Why can a Layer 2 asset be labelled price-led?
Price-led means price and relative-strength evidence exists but less than half of the native traction and value-capture evidence is available. Such assets remain visible but rank below fully evidenced assets.
Does protocol revenue accrue to the token?
Not necessarily. Protocol fees and revenue measure network economics; token-holder value depends on the protocol’s burn, buyback, staking, distribution and governance rules. This page never assumes accrual merely because revenue exists.
Does crypto have a P/E or PEG ratio?
No comparable company-style P/E or PEG is used. Where coverage permits, the page shows network fee yield and protocol-revenue yield against a dated market-cap snapshot, with an explicit token-accrual caveat.
How much history is shown for Layer 2?
The page shows five years of weekly price and relative-strength history and 20 complete calendar quarters of on-chain activity where available. Missing periods remain gaps.
Why do the crypto data dates differ?
Prices and technical metrics run through 2026-10-30; protocol activity through 2026-10-30; chain users and transactions through 2026-10-30; chain TVL through the latest available chain-TVL date; market capitalisation is a separate snapshot dated 2026-11-05.
Are stablecoins and wrapped tokens included in Layer 2?
No. Pegged, wrapped, liquid-staking receipt and tokenized-asset instruments are excluded because they do not have independent price discovery.
Can one token appear in multiple raw crypto categories?
Yes, but pages on this site assign each asset to exactly one functional theme using a specific-to-general first-match taxonomy. Layer 2 therefore has one canonical membership list.
What would invalidate the current Layer 2 theme read?
The read weakens if the sector’s 13-week relative return versus Bitcoin falls below zero, fewer than one-third of covered assets remain above the 200-day average, and the leading asset’s native activity contracts. As of 2026-10-30, none of the three conditions are in place.
Does this page include funding rates, open interest or token unlocks?
No. Those datasets are not held in the current research store, so the page names them as unavailable rather than inferring them from price.
Which projects are generating the most network fees?
POL (ex-MATIC) leads Layer 2 crypto on Trailing 12-month fees at $29.4M, 2065% ahead of Linea. 2 of 9 assets with comparable change data are growing. Coverage is 9 of the 34 ranked assets in this theme, through the Q3 2026 calendar quarter. Where a project publishes nothing, the cell stays blank rather than being read as zero. Investor read: Use this as a network-economics research lead, not token-holder earnings. Verify whether the measured activity accrues to the token before treating scale as value capture. This conclusion weakens if fee growth turns negative across two complete calendar quarters or fee coverage falls below the stated threshold.
Which projects convert activity into protocol revenue?
POL (ex-MATIC) leads Layer 2 crypto on Trailing 12-month revenue at $29.4M, 2076% ahead of Linea. 1 of 6 assets with comparable change data is growing. Coverage is 8 of the 34 ranked assets in this theme, through the Q3 2026 calendar quarter. Where a project publishes nothing, the cell stays blank rather than being read as zero. Investor read: Use this as a network-economics research lead, not token-holder earnings. Verify whether the measured activity accrues to the token before treating scale as value capture. This conclusion weakens if revenue growth turns negative or the revenue-to-fees take rate falls for two complete calendar quarters.
Where is capital actually committed on-chain?
POL (ex-MATIC) leads Layer 2 crypto on Quarter-end TVL at $4.1B, 112% ahead of Optimism. None of the 14 assets with comparable change data is growing. Coverage is 19 of the 34 ranked assets in this theme, through the Q3 2026 calendar quarter. Where a project publishes nothing, the cell stays blank rather than being read as zero. Investor read: Use this as a network-economics research lead, not token-holder earnings. Verify whether the measured activity accrues to the token before treating scale as value capture. This conclusion weakens if TVL rises while fees and users fall; that pattern can be incentive-funded mercenary liquidity.
Which chains are gaining real users?
Celo leads Layer 2 crypto on Average daily active addresses at 459,790 addresses, 4% ahead of POL (ex-MATIC). None of the 9 assets with comparable change data is growing. Coverage is 10 of the 34 ranked assets in this theme, through the Q3 2026 calendar quarter. Investor read: Use this as a network-economics research lead, not token-holder earnings. Verify whether the measured activity accrues to the token before treating scale as value capture. This conclusion weakens if address growth reverses for two complete quarters or activity rises without corresponding fees.
Which chains are processing the most transactions?
POL (ex-MATIC) leads Layer 2 crypto on Trailing 12-month transactions at 2,468,882,792 transactions, 280% ahead of Optimism. 3 of 9 assets with comparable change data are growing. Coverage is 9 of the 34 ranked assets in this theme, through the Q3 2026 calendar quarter. Where a project publishes nothing, the cell stays blank rather than being read as zero. Investor read: Use this as a network-economics research lead, not token-holder earnings. Verify whether the measured activity accrues to the token before treating scale as value capture. This conclusion weakens if transaction growth turns negative while users and fees also deteriorate.
Which Layer 2 project has the largest fee base?
POL (ex-MATIC) leads covered trailing-12-month fees at $29.4M. Coverage is 9/34; this is network activity, not automatically token-holder income.
Which are the biggest Layer 2 crypto coins by market cap?
POL (ex-MATIC) is the largest Layer 2 crypto coin by market capitalisation at $1B, ahead of Stacks at $608.3M and Optimism at $251.2M. The 34 Layer 2 coins on this page carry $3B between them, with a market-cap figure on file for 33 of them. Market-cap metadata is dated 2026-11-05.