Five-year price · 20 complete calendar quarters · BTC-relative

Layer 2 Crypto Coins

Is Layer 2 outperforming Bitcoin, and is leadership broad?

Bottom line

POL (ex-MATIC) ranks first for research priority in Layer 2 crypto at 78.7/100, and its native activity evidence clears the coverage gate. The theme's 13-week excess versus Bitcoin is -9.1% on 28% breadth, which is what decides whether that lead is isolated or broad. 10 of the 34 assets here carry enough native evidence to move past a tape-led label.

These Layer 2 coins are part of the cryptocurrency universe this site tracks daily — 894 of the top 1,000 crypto currency assets by market cap, priced from exchange closes 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 73% behind Bitcoin. Protocol revenue across its protocols fell 21% on average over the last four reported quarters.

ASLEEP · 1y −10.8%·Price down, no fundamental support3 of 25 coins ahead of Bitcoin by 5% or more over three months

RS — · 8/25 >200d (+0) · 3/25 lead (−3) · EPS —

Layer 2, equal-weighted, based at 200 Bitcoin, same base, same start trailing 12-month protocol revenue rising falling

Both lines start at 200 in the same week, so the distance between them is the whole story: the theme line is an equal-weighted index of its 25 coins. The bars underneath are trailing 12-month protocol revenue, one bar per reported quarter, each member rebased to 100 at the start and the theme taking the median — so a price line pulling away from flat bars is a re-rating, not earnings. A bar turns red when that figure is lower than the quarter before. Rules are fixed and applied identically 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 any point to read both values and the gap. This is a description of what the numbers did, not advice.

BTC LED market context

Layer 2 vs Bitcoin — Relative Strength & Breadth

Layer 2 crypto has underperformed Bitcoin by 51.7% over 52 weeks on an equal-weight index of current members. Over 13 weeks the figure is -9.1%. 7 of 25 covered assets are above their own 200-day average. Prom leads Bitcoin-relative strength at +367%. Price readings are as of 2026-09-11.

-9.1%13w vs BTC

-52%52w vs BTC

7/25Above 200-DMA

PROMRS leader · +367%

Assets

canonical functional membership

Activity-covered

10/34

enough native evidence

Top score

78.7/100

POL (ex-MATIC)

Calendar quarters

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 78.7/100 on 93% evidence. It ranks research attention, not portfolio action.

Market leadership · 35Network & economic traction · 30Value capture · 20Liquidity & downside risk · 15

POL (ex-MATIC) leads the current research queue at 78.7/100 with 93% evidence.

10/34 assets have enough native activity evidence to move beyond a tape-led label.

14 of the 48 Layer 2 coins are not rated this week: 10 have no price within 7 days, 4 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

78.7/100 · Priority research · 93% evidence

Exact sum: 25.2 + 26.6 + 16.6 + 10.3 = 78.7

Decision use: Tape and usage agree. Advance to token-accrual, catalyst and custody-risk diligence.

25.2/35Market leadership

RS-BTC 8.2 pp · RS-sector 13.1 pp · 200-DMA —

80% evidence

26.6/30Network & economic traction

Fees 204.4% · revenue 239.4% · users 18.7%

100% evidence

16.6/20Value capture

Fee yield 2.95% · revenue yield 2.94%

100% evidence

10.3/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $6,202,123 · vol 105.1%

100% evidence

2. Prom · PROM

70.4/100 · Tape-led · on-chain proof incomplete · 50% evidence

Exact sum: 34.9 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 10.5 = 70.4

Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.

34.9/35Market leadership

RS-BTC 367 pp · RS-sector 77 pp · 200-DMA above

100% evidence

15.0/30Network & economic traction

Fees — · revenue — · users —

0% evidence

10.0/20Value capture

Fee yield — · revenue yield —

0% evidence

10.5/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $41,429,688 · vol 203.2%

100% evidence

3. COTI · COTI

69.2/100 · Tape-led · on-chain proof incomplete · 50% evidence

Exact sum: 34.2 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 10.0 = 69.2

Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.

34.2/35Market leadership

RS-BTC 58.1 pp · RS-sector 25.2 pp · 200-DMA above

100% evidence

15.0/30Network & economic traction

Fees — · revenue — · users —

0% evidence

10.0/20Value capture

Fee yield — · revenue yield —

0% evidence

10.0/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $20,084,462 · vol 110%

100% evidence

4. Celo · CELO

65.1/100 · Illiquid · research only · 90% evidence

Exact sum: 23.4 + 19.5 + 13.0 + 9.2 = 65.1

Decision use: Tape and usage agree. Advance to token-accrual, catalyst and custody-risk diligence.

23.4/35Market leadership

RS-BTC 1.8 pp · RS-sector 5.9 pp · 200-DMA above

100% evidence

19.5/30Network & economic traction

Fees 40.5% · revenue — · users -7.5%

80% evidence

13.0/20Value capture

Fee yield 1.74% · revenue yield 1.69%

81% evidence

9.2/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $2,318,667 · vol 66.5%

100% evidence

5. Stacks · STX

58.6/100 · Illiquid · research only · 43% evidence

Exact sum: 28.3 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 5.3 = 58.6

Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.

28.3/35Market leadership

RS-BTC 16.9 pp · RS-sector 87.9 pp · 200-DMA —

80% evidence

15.0/30Network & economic traction

Fees — · revenue — · users —

0% evidence

10.0/20Value capture

Fee yield — · revenue yield —

0% evidence

5.3/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $1,957,261 · vol 132.6%

100% evidence

6. Linea · LINEA

55.0/100 · Mixed · 100% evidence

Exact sum: 11.2 + 13.7 + 17.6 + 12.5 = 55.0

Decision use: Evidence is mixed. Keep normal research priority and wait for two pillars to agree.

11.2/35Market leadership

RS-BTC -20.4 pp · RS-sector 2 pp · 200-DMA below

100% evidence

13.7/30Network & economic traction

Fees -34.8% · revenue -33.1% · users -76.8%

100% evidence

17.6/20Value capture

Fee yield 5.26% · revenue yield 5.22%

100% evidence

12.5/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $10,904,822 · vol 71.6%

100% evidence

7. Capx AI · CAPX

52.7/100 · Illiquid · research only · 50% evidence

Exact sum: 24.5 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 3.2 = 52.7

Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.

24.5/35Market leadership

RS-BTC -0.6 pp · RS-sector 15.4 pp · 200-DMA above

100% evidence

15.0/30Network & economic traction

Fees — · revenue — · users —

0% evidence

10.0/20Value capture

Fee yield — · revenue yield —

0% evidence

3.2/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $261,833 · vol 198.7%

100% evidence

8. Sophon · SOPH

51.2/100 · Illiquid · research only · 50% evidence

Exact sum: 20.9 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 5.3 = 51.2

Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.

20.9/35Market leadership

RS-BTC -1.4 pp · RS-sector 0 pp · 200-DMA above

100% evidence

15.0/30Network & economic traction

Fees — · revenue — · users —

0% evidence

10.0/20Value capture

Fee yield — · revenue yield —

0% evidence

5.3/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $171 · vol 66.4%

100% evidence

9. Lisk · LSK

49.7/100 · Illiquid · research only · 100% evidence

Exact sum: 31.4 + 3.4 + 6.6 + 8.3 = 49.7

Decision use: Price leads usage. Wait for fees, users or TVL to confirm the move.

31.4/35Market leadership

RS-BTC 32.1 pp · RS-sector 58.8 pp · 200-DMA above

100% evidence

3.4/30Network & economic traction

Fees -89.7% · revenue -83.9% · users -94.2%

100% evidence

6.6/20Value capture

Fee yield 0.19% · revenue yield 0.17%

100% evidence

8.3/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $2,637,430 · vol 109.2%

100% evidence

10. Aevo · AEVO

49.3/100 · Illiquid · research only · 50% evidence

Exact sum: 13.0 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 11.3 = 49.3

Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.

13.0/35Market leadership

RS-BTC -9.8 pp · RS-sector -5.4 pp · 200-DMA below

100% evidence

15.0/30Network & economic traction

Fees — · revenue — · users —

0% evidence

10.0/20Value capture

Fee yield — · revenue yield —

0% evidence

11.3/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $3,624,541 · vol 69.2%

100% evidence

11. Merlin Chain · MERL

48.8/100 · Illiquid · research only · 55% evidence

Exact sum: 17.0 + 14.0 + 10.0 + 7.8 = 48.8

Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.

17.0/35Market leadership

RS-BTC -6.9 pp · RS-sector 9.7 pp · 200-DMA below

100% evidence

14.0/30Network & economic traction

Fees — · revenue — · users —

17% evidence

10.0/20Value capture

Fee yield — · revenue yield —

0% evidence

7.8/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $2,453,115 · vol 111.9%

100% evidence

12. Hermez Network · HEZ

47.0/100 · Illiquid · research only · 50% evidence

Exact sum: 15.4 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 6.6 = 47.0

Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.

15.4/35Market leadership

RS-BTC -10.8 pp · RS-sector -10.7 pp · 200-DMA above

100% evidence

15.0/30Network & economic traction

Fees — · revenue — · users —

0% evidence

10.0/20Value capture

Fee yield — · revenue yield —

0% evidence

6.6/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $1,010 · vol 19.4%

100% evidence

13. Status · SNT

45.6/100 · Illiquid · research only · 50% evidence

Exact sum: 14.5 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 6.1 = 45.6

Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.

14.5/35Market leadership

RS-BTC -22.1 pp · RS-sector 28.8 pp · 200-DMA below

100% evidence

15.0/30Network & economic traction

Fees — · revenue — · users —

0% evidence

10.0/20Value capture

Fee yield — · revenue yield —

0% evidence

6.1/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $2,255,071 · vol 116.7%

100% evidence

14. Aztec · AZTEC

45.1/100 · Illiquid · research only · 43% evidence

Exact sum: 11.0 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 9.1 = 45.1

Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.

11.0/35Market leadership

RS-BTC -34.1 pp · RS-sector 0.2 pp · 200-DMA below

80% evidence

15.0/30Network & economic traction

Fees — · revenue — · users —

0% evidence

10.0/20Value capture

Fee yield — · revenue yield —

0% evidence

9.1/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $3,131,878 · vol 81.5%

100% evidence

15. Metal DAO · MTL

43.6/100 · Illiquid · research only · 50% evidence

Exact sum: 12.8 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 5.8 = 43.6

Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.

12.8/35Market leadership

RS-BTC -19.9 pp · RS-sector 12.2 pp · 200-DMA below

100% evidence

15.0/30Network & economic traction

Fees — · revenue — · users —

0% evidence

10.0/20Value capture

Fee yield — · revenue yield —

0% evidence

5.8/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $555,646 · vol 63.1%

100% evidence

16. Nervos Network · CKB

42.6/100 · Illiquid · research only · 50% evidence

Exact sum: 10.1 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 7.5 = 42.6

Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.

10.1/35Market leadership

RS-BTC -27.3 pp · RS-sector 11.5 pp · 200-DMA below

100% evidence

15.0/30Network & economic traction

Fees — · revenue — · users —

0% evidence

10.0/20Value capture

Fee yield — · revenue yield —

0% evidence

7.5/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $2,170,404 · vol 70.8%

100% evidence

17. Orderly · ORDER

41.9/100 · Illiquid · research only · 55% evidence

Exact sum: 8.6 + 14.6 + 10.0 + 8.7 = 41.9

Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.

8.6/35Market leadership

RS-BTC -33.1 pp · RS-sector 7.7 pp · 200-DMA below

100% evidence

14.6/30Network & economic traction

Fees — · revenue — · users —

17% evidence

10.0/20Value capture

Fee yield — · revenue yield —

0% evidence

8.7/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $2,650,406 · vol 70.8%

100% evidence

18. AltLayer · ALT

41.4/100 · Illiquid · research only · 43% evidence

Exact sum: 9.8 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 6.6 = 41.4

Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.

9.8/35Market leadership

RS-BTC -25.4 pp · RS-sector -10.6 pp · 200-DMA —

80% evidence

15.0/30Network & economic traction

Fees — · revenue — · users —

0% evidence

10.0/20Value capture

Fee yield — · revenue yield —

0% evidence

6.6/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $500,174 · vol 59.4%

100% evidence

19. PHALA · PHA

40.7/100 · Tape-led · on-chain proof incomplete · 50% evidence

Exact sum: 5.4 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 10.3 = 40.7

Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.

5.4/35Market leadership

RS-BTC -47.3 pp · RS-sector 0 pp · 200-DMA below

100% evidence

15.0/30Network & economic traction

Fees — · revenue — · users —

0% evidence

10.0/20Value capture

Fee yield — · revenue yield —

0% evidence

10.3/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $8,355,827 · vol 70.8%

100% evidence

20. Optimism · OP

40.6/100 · Lagging · 100% evidence

Exact sum: 7.0 + 10.5 + 10.9 + 12.2 = 40.6

Decision use: Evidence is mixed. Keep normal research priority and wait for two pillars to agree.

7.0/35Market leadership

RS-BTC -30.6 pp · RS-sector -6.5 pp · 200-DMA below

100% evidence

10.5/30Network & economic traction

Fees -74.8% · revenue -73.3% · users -84.4%

100% evidence

10.9/20Value capture

Fee yield 0.81% · revenue yield 0.78%

100% evidence

12.2/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $52,640,869 · vol 93.4%

100% evidence

Showing 20 of 34 ranked assets

01 · complete calendar-quarter evidence

Which projects are generating the most network fees?

LeaderPOL (ex-MATIC) · $23.2M

Gap634% versus #2

Persistence2 assets have positive comparable growth

Coverage10/34 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 five

1POL (ex-MATIC) POL$23.2M

2Linea LINEA$3.2M

3Optimism OP$1.9M

4Celo CELO$684.1K

5ZKsync ZK$677.7K

Fee growthtop five

1POL (ex-MATIC) POL+204%

2Celo CELO+41%

3Linea LINEA-35%

4ZKsync ZK-56%

5Mantle MNT-72%

Network fees · asset comparison

10/34 level · 10/34 change

Latest comparable data · top 20 shown first

Asset	Trailing 12-month fees	Fee growth
polygon-ecosystem-token	$8.2M	+204%
prometeus	—	—
coti	—	—
celo	$298.0K	+41%
blockstack	—	—
linea	$118.0K	-35%
capx-ai	$224.3K	—
sophon	—	—
lisk	$1.5K	-90%
aevo-exchange	—	—
merlin-chain	—	—
hermez-network-token	—	—
status	—	—
aztec	—	—
metal	—	—
nervos-network	—	—
orderly-network	—	—
altlayer	—	—
pha	—	—
optimism	$149.2K	-75%
magic	—	—
cartesi	—	—
bsquared-network	—	—
megaeth	$176.2K	—
zksync	$53.1K	-56%
lumia	—	—
immutable-x	—	—
metis-token	$7.7K	-76%
mantle	$64.1K	-72%
taiko	$15.2K	-92%
openledger-2	$144.2K	—
loopring	—	—
islamic-coin	—	—
manta-network	$4.6K	-88%

Showing 20 of 34 assets

02 · complete calendar-quarter evidence

Which projects convert activity into protocol revenue?

LeaderPOL (ex-MATIC) · $23.1M

Gap637% versus #2

Persistence1 assets have positive comparable growth

Coverage8/34 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 five

1POL (ex-MATIC) POL$23.1M

2Linea LINEA$3.1M

3Optimism OP$1.8M

4Celo CELO$663.4K

5ZKsync ZK$635.4K

Revenue growthtop five

1POL (ex-MATIC) POL+239%

2Linea LINEA-33%

3ZKsync ZK-48%

4Optimism OP-73%

5Lisk LSK-84%

Protocol revenue · asset comparison

8/34 level · 6/34 change

Latest comparable data · top 20 shown first

Asset	Trailing 12-month revenue	Revenue growth
polygon-ecosystem-token	$8.2M	+239%
prometeus	—	—
coti	—	—
celo	$294.1K	—
blockstack	—	—
linea	$115.7K	-33%
capx-ai	$201.9K	—
sophon	—	—
lisk	$853	-84%
aevo-exchange	—	—
merlin-chain	—	—
hermez-network-token	—	—
status	—	—
aztec	—	—
metal	—	—
nervos-network	—	—
orderly-network	—	—
altlayer	—	—
pha	—	—
optimism	$140.2K	-73%
magic	—	—
cartesi	—	—
bsquared-network	—	—
megaeth	$171.0K	—
zksync	$49.2K	-48%
lumia	—	—
immutable-x	—	—
metis-token	—	—
mantle	—	—
taiko	$4.2K	—
openledger-2	$144.2K	—
loopring	—	—
islamic-coin	—	—
manta-network	$1.4K	-94%

Showing 20 of 34 assets

03 · complete calendar-quarter evidence

Where is capital actually committed on-chain?

LeaderPOL (ex-MATIC) · $4B

Gap136% versus #2

Persistence0 assets have positive comparable growth

Coverage19/34 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 five

1POL (ex-MATIC) POL$4.0B

2Optimism OP$1.7B

3Mantle MNT$1.3B

4Merlin Chain MERL$358.9M

5Linea LINEA$318.5M

TVL growthtop five

1Linea LINEA-7.1%

2Mantle MNT-11%

3POL (ex-MATIC) POL-20%

4Celo CELO-29%

5Orderly ORDER-36%

Total value locked · asset comparison

19/34 level · 15/34 change

Latest comparable data · top 20 shown first

Asset	Quarter-end TVL	TVL growth
polygon-ecosystem-token	$4.0B	-20%
prometeus	—	—
coti	—	—
celo	$259.7M	-29%
blockstack	—	—
linea	$318.5M	-7.1%
capx-ai	$2.2M	—
sophon	—	—
lisk	$31.1M	-76%
aevo-exchange	—	—
merlin-chain	$358.9M	-48%
hermez-network-token	—	—
status	—	—
aztec	—	—
metal	—	—
nervos-network	—	—
orderly-network	$208.3K	-36%
altlayer	—	—
pha	—	—
optimism	$1.7B	-47%
magic	$0	—
cartesi	—	—
bsquared-network	$171.5M	-74%
megaeth	$240.3M	—
zksync	$217.9M	-63%
lumia	—	—
immutable-x	$401.6K	-98%
metis-token	$25.1M	-81%
mantle	$1.3B	-11%
taiko	$9.1M	-94%
openledger-2	$0	—
loopring	$8.3M	-65%
islamic-coin	—	—
manta-network	$91.5M	-64%

Showing 20 of 34 assets

04 · complete calendar-quarter evidence

Which chains are gaining real users?

LeaderPOL (ex-MATIC) · 624,400

Gap33% versus #2

Persistence1 assets have positive comparable growth

Coverage11/34 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 five

1POL (ex-MATIC) POL624,400

2Celo CELO467,973

3Optimism OP17,646

4ZKsync ZK7,103

5MegaETH MEGA5,189

User growthtop five

1POL (ex-MATIC) POL+19%

2Celo CELO-7.5%

3ZKsync ZK-39%

4Linea LINEA-77%

5Optimism OP-84%

Active users · asset comparison

11/34 level · 10/34 change

Latest comparable data · top 20 shown first

Asset	Average daily active addresses	User growth
polygon-ecosystem-token	624,400	+19%
prometeus	—	—
coti	—	—
celo	467,973	-7.5%
blockstack	—	—
linea	4,899	-77%
capx-ai	—	—
sophon	—	—
lisk	382	-94%
aevo-exchange	—	—
merlin-chain	—	—
hermez-network-token	—	—
status	—	—
aztec	—	—
metal	—	—
nervos-network	—	—
orderly-network	—	—
altlayer	—	—
pha	—	—
optimism	17,646	-84%
magic	—	—
cartesi	—	—
bsquared-network	—	—
megaeth	5,189	—
zksync	7,103	-39%
lumia	—	—
immutable-x	—	—
metis-token	389	-96%
mantle	1,590	-87%
taiko	3,454	-98%
openledger-2	—	—
loopring	—	—
islamic-coin	—	—
manta-network	925	-97%

Showing 20 of 34 assets

06 · complete calendar-quarter evidence

Which chains are processing the most transactions?

LeaderPOL (ex-MATIC) · 2,276,969,823

Gap269% versus #2

Persistence3 assets have positive comparable growth

Coverage10/34 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 five

1POL (ex-MATIC) POL2,276,969,823

2Optimism OP616,494,669

3Celo CELO496,427,817

4Taiko TAIKO79,010,414

5Linea LINEA42,194,039

Transaction growthtop five

1Optimism OP+103%

2POL (ex-MATIC) POL+96%

3Celo CELO+11%

4Linea LINEA-57%

5Metis METIS-61%

Transactions · asset comparison

10/34 level · 10/34 change

Latest comparable data · top 20 shown first

Asset	Trailing 12-month transactions	Transaction growth
polygon-ecosystem-token	743,480,044	+96%
prometeus	—	—
coti	—	—
celo	110,721,706	+11%
blockstack	—	—
linea	2,275,290	-57%
capx-ai	—	—
sophon	—	—
lisk	555,864	-72%
aevo-exchange	—	—
merlin-chain	—	—
hermez-network-token	—	—
status	—	—
aztec	—	—
metal	—	—
nervos-network	—	—
orderly-network	—	—
altlayer	—	—
pha	—	—
optimism	146,577,945	+103%
magic	—	—
cartesi	—	—
bsquared-network	—	—
megaeth	138,918,857	—
zksync	1,982,417	-78%
lumia	—	—
immutable-x	—	—
metis-token	924,668	-61%
mantle	3,454,769	-76%
taiko	4,075,977	-90%
openledger-2	—	—
loopring	—	—
islamic-coin	—	—
manta-network	2,816,845	-79%

Showing 20 of 34 assets

06 · let price answer last

Which assets lead on price and relative strength?

Prom leads the Layer 2 tape on Bitcoin-relative strength at +367% over 90 days. 7 of 25 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 2026-09-11.

Complete set · no silent drops

Which assets are in Layer 2?

34 of the 48 coins assigned to Layer 2 are rated and ranked below, and the other 14 are listed under it with the reason each one is not rated — tape-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.

Rank	Asset	Price	90d	RS-BTC	200-DMA	30d vol	Median volume	Price quality	Activity source	Score	Evidence
1	POL (ex-MATIC) POL	$0.0974	+28%	+8.2%	—	105%	$6.2M	usable	chain + protocol	78.7	93%
2	Prom PROM	$5.20	+387%	+367%	Above	203%	$41.4M	usable	tape only	70.4	50%
3	COTI COTI	$0.0178	+78%	+58%	Above	110%	$20.1M	usable	tape only	69.2	50%
4	Celo CELO	$0.0749	+22%	+1.8%	Above	67%	$2.3M	usable	chain + protocol	65.1	90%
5	Stacks STX	$0.2527	+37%	+17%	—	133%	$2.0M	usable	protocol	58.6	43%
6	Linea LINEA	$0.0025	-0.6%	-20%	Below	72%	$10.9M	usable	chain	55.0	100%
7	Capx AI CAPX	$0.1841	+19%	-0.6%	Above	199%	$261.8K	usable	protocol	52.7	50%
8	Sophon SOPH	$0.0009	+18%	-1.4%	Above	66%	$171	usable	tape only	51.2	50%
9	Lisk LSK	$0.1407	+52%	+32%	Above	109%	$2.6M	usable	chain + protocol	49.7	100%
10	Aevo AEVO	$0.0219	+10.0%	-9.8%	Below	69%	$3.6M	usable	tape only	49.3	50%
11	Merlin Chain MERL	$0.0231	+13%	-6.9%	Below	112%	$2.5M	usable	protocol	48.8	55%
12	Hermez Network HEZ	$3.32	+9.0%	-11%	Above	19%	$1.0K	usable	tape only	47.0	50%
13	Status SNT	$0.0074	-2.3%	-22%	Below	117%	$2.3M	usable	tape only	45.6	50%
14	Aztec AZTEC	$0.0141	-14%	-34%	Below	81%	$3.1M	usable	tape only	45.1	43%
15	Metal DAO MTL	$0.2547	-0.1%	-20%	Below	63%	$555.6K	usable	tape only	43.6	50%
16	Nervos Network CKB	$0.0011	-7.5%	-27%	Below	71%	$2.2M	usable	tape only	42.6	50%
17	Orderly ORDER	$0.0348	-13%	-33%	Below	71%	$2.7M	usable	protocol	41.9	55%
18	AltLayer ALT	$0.0063	-5.6%	-25%	—	59%	$500.2K	usable	tape only	41.4	43%
19	PHALA PHA	$0.0256	-28%	-47%	Below	71%	$8.4M	usable	tape only	40.7	50%
20	Optimism OP	$0.0955	-11%	-31%	Below	93%	$52.6M	usable	chain	40.6	100%
21	Treasure MAGIC	$0.0433	-7.5%	-27%	—	55%	$205.7K	usable	protocol	40.5	43%
22	Cartesi CTSI	$0.0239	+1.3%	-19%	Below	53%	$1.7M	usable	tape only	39.4	50%
23	BSquared Network B2	$0.4169	-1.5%	-21%	Below	86%	$2.8M	usable	protocol	37.5	55%
24	MegaETH MEGA	$0.0376	-40%	-60%	—	96%	$1.4M	usable	chain	36.4	43%
25	ZKsync ZK	$0.0094	-18%	-38%	—	92%	$1.6M	usable	chain + protocol	36.2	93%
26	Lumia LUMIA	$0.0745	-18%	-38%	Below	56%	$1.9M	usable	tape only	35.7	50%
27	Immutable IMX	$0.1213	-17%	-37%	—	76%	$356.8K	usable	protocol	35.6	48%
28	Metis METIS	$2.87	+4.9%	-15%	Below	118%	$1.9M	usable	chain + protocol	34.0	84%
29	Mantle MNT	$0.0002	—	—	—	1,175%	$16.5K	return withheld · discontinuity	chain + protocol	34.0	49%
30	Taiko TAIKO	$0.0792	-7.0%	-27%	Below	57%	$2.7M	usable	chain + protocol	32.3	94%
31	OpenLedger OPEN	$0.1244	-48%	-68%	—	87%	$745.4K	usable	protocol	32.2	43%
32	Loopring LRC	$0.0087	-37%	-56%	Below	111%	$2.5M	usable	protocol	30.7	55%
33	Islamic Coin ISLM	$0.0041	-38%	-58%	Below	52%	$811	usable	tape only	30.4	50%
34	Manta Network MANTA	$0.0596	-28%	-48%	Below	49%	$1.9M	usable	chain + protocol	13.5	100%

Showing 20 of 34 assets

Not rated — and why

14 of the 48 Layer 2 coins are not rated this week: 10 have no price within 7 days, 4 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.

Coin	Market cap	Reason	Detail
ADI ADI	$723.8M	No price this week	No traded price in the 95 days to 2026-09-11.
Arbitrum ARB	$506.1M	No traded volume reported	No traded volume is reported on most of the last 30 days, so it has no liquidity reading.
Starknet STRK	$206.6M	No traded volume reported	No traded volume is reported on most of the last 30 days, so it has no liquidity reading.
Derive DRV	$109.2M	No price this week	No traded price in the 95 days to 2026-09-11.
SOON SOON	$59.0M	No price this week	No traded price in the 95 days to 2026-09-11.
Zora ZORA	$32.3M	No price this week	No traded price in the 95 days to 2026-09-11.
Saakuru SKR	$26.1M	No price this week	No traded price in the 95 days to 2026-09-11.
CYBER CYBER	$24.4M	No traded volume reported	No traded volume is reported on most of the last 30 days, so it has no liquidity reading.
Tokamak Network TON	$22.3M	No traded volume reported	No traded volume is reported on most of the last 30 days, so it has no liquidity reading.
Blast BLAST	$20.2M	No price this week	No traded price in the 95 days to 2026-09-11.
Corn CORN	$18.6M	No price this week	No traded price in the 95 days to 2026-09-11.
Citrea CTR	$16.8M	No price this week	No traded price in the 95 days to 2026-09-11.
DeGate DG	$16.4M	No price this week	No traded price in the 95 days to 2026-09-11.
BOB (Build on Bitcoin) BOB	$15.3M	No price this week	No traded price in the 95 days to 2026-09-11.

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 — 10 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 2026-09-11. Five-year weekly observations benchmarked to Bitcoin.

Protocol activityThrough 2026-09-11. Fees, revenue, protocol TVL and DEX volume.

Chain activityUsers and transactions through 2026-09-11; separately sourced chain TVL through unavailable.

Market capSnapshot dated 2026-07-04; 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 refers to cryptocurrency projects grouped by what they actually do rather than by market fashion. This page tracks 34 such coins by market cap, price and Bitcoin-relative strength, with protocol fees and revenue where a project publishes them. Readings are as of 2026-09-11.

What is the total market cap of Layer 2 crypto coins?

The 34 Layer 2 coins on this page have a combined market cap of about $3.8B as of 2026-07-04. Individual figures are in the table. Market-cap metadata is a dated snapshot, separately from the price series.

Are Layer 2 crypto coins outperforming Bitcoin?

Layer 2 has returned -51.7% versus Bitcoin over 52 weeks and -9.1% over 13 weeks on an equal-weight current-member index. 7/25 covered assets are above their 200-day averages as of 2026-09-11.

Which Layer 2 asset has the strongest research score?

POL (ex-MATIC) ranks first at 78.7/100: 25.2 + 26.6 + 16.6 + 10.3 = 78.7. It is labelled “Priority research” with 93% overall evidence and 100% native-economics evidence.

Why are some Layer 2 coins not rated?

14 of the 48 coins are not rated this week: 10 have no price within 7 days, 4 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 tape-led?

Tape-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 2026-09-11; protocol activity through 2026-09-11; chain users and transactions through 2026-09-11; chain TVL through the latest available chain-TVL date; market capitalisation is a separate snapshot dated 2026-07-04.

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?

Two of the three weakening conditions are already in place as of 2026-09-11: the 13-week return versus Bitcoin is -9.1% (below zero) and 7 of 25 covered assets are above the 200-day average (below one-third). The read depends on native protocol activity remaining supportive — a contraction there would complete the invalidation.

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 $23.2M, 634% ahead of Linea. 2 of 10 assets with comparable change data are growing. Coverage is 10 of the 34 ranked assets in this theme, through the Q2 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 $23.1M, 637% 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 Q2 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 $4B, 136% ahead of Optimism. 0 of 15 assets with comparable change data are growing. Coverage is 19 of the 34 ranked assets in this theme, through the Q2 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?

POL (ex-MATIC) leads Layer 2 crypto on Average daily active addresses at 624,400 addresses, 33% ahead of Celo. 1 of 10 assets with comparable change data is growing. Coverage is 11 of the 34 ranked assets in this theme, through the Q2 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 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 2,276,969,823 transactions, 269% ahead of Optimism. 3 of 10 assets with comparable change data are growing, fastest at Optimism. Coverage is 10 of the 34 ranked assets in this theme, through the Q2 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 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 $23.2M. Coverage is 10/34; this is network activity, not automatically token-holder income.

Which are the biggest Layer 2 crypto coins by market cap?

Mantle is the largest Layer 2 crypto coin by market capitalisation at $1.5B, ahead of POL (ex-MATIC) at $785.9M and Stacks at $317.5M. The 34 Layer 2 coins on this page carry $3.8B between them, with a market-cap figure on file for 34 of them. Market-cap metadata is dated 2026-07-04.

About

Not SEBI Registered !! Not Investment advice !!