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 69.5/100, and its native activity evidence clears the coverage gate. The theme's 13-week excess versus Bitcoin is -11.4% on 13% breadth, which is what decides whether that lead is isolated or broad. 10 of the 33 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 57% behind Bitcoin. Protocol revenue across its protocols fell 21% on average over the last four reported quarters. It has been ahead of Bitcoin on a rolling three-month view for 11 weeks running.

BREAKING OUT · ahead 11w·Price down, no fundamental support13 of 25 coins ahead of Bitcoin by 5% or more over three months

RS ↑11w · 6/24 >200d (−1) · 13/25 lead (+1) · 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.

RISK OFF market context

Layer 2 vs Bitcoin — Relative Strength & Breadth

Layer 2 crypto has underperformed Bitcoin by 47.3% over 52 weeks on an equal-weight index of current members. Over 13 weeks the figure is -11.4%. 3 of 24 covered assets are above their own 200-day average. COTI leads Bitcoin-relative strength at +36.5%. Price readings are as of 2026-07-31.

-11%13w vs BTC

-47%52w vs BTC

3/24Above 200-DMA

COTIRS leader · +37%

Assets

canonical functional membership

Activity-covered

10/33

enough native evidence

Top score

69.5/100

POL (ex-MATIC)

Calendar quarters

complete; missing stays missing

Global asset selection · top 20 shown

Showing 20 of 33 assets

00 · exact additive research priority

4-Factor Crypto Evidence Score

A within-theme research-priority score for the 33 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 69.5/100 on 62% 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 69.5/100 with 62% evidence.

10/33 assets have enough native activity evidence to move beyond a tape-led label.

15 of the 48 Layer 2 coins are not rated this week: 10 have no price within 7 days, 5 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

69.5/100 · Illiquid · research only · 62% evidence

Exact sum: 17.5 + 27.0 + 16.6 + 8.4 = 69.5

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

17.5/35Market leadership

RS-BTC — · RS-sector — · 200-DMA —

0% evidence

27.0/30Network & 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

8.4/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $2,341,226 · vol —

80% evidence

2. COTI · COTI

64.1/100 · Illiquid · research only · 55% evidence

Exact sum: 31.2 + 17.2 + 10.0 + 5.7 = 64.1

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

31.2/35Market leadership

RS-BTC 36.5 pp · RS-sector 104.6 pp · 200-DMA above

100% evidence

17.2/30Network & economic traction

Fees — · revenue — · users —

17% evidence

10.0/20Value capture

Fee yield — · revenue yield —

0% evidence

5.7/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $2,444,801 · vol 244.7%

100% evidence

3. Capx AI · CAPX

56.5/100 · Illiquid · research only · 50% evidence

Exact sum: 24.5 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 7.0 = 56.5

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

24.5/35Market leadership

RS-BTC 16.3 pp · RS-sector 7.7 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

7.0/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $328,602 · vol 25.5%

100% evidence

4. Prom · PROM

55.8/100 · Illiquid · research only · 55% evidence

Exact sum: 25.8 + 15.5 + 10.0 + 4.5 = 55.8

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

25.8/35Market leadership

RS-BTC 1.3 pp · RS-sector 53 pp · 200-DMA above

100% evidence

15.5/30Network & economic traction

Fees — · revenue — · users —

17% evidence

10.0/20Value capture

Fee yield — · revenue yield —

0% evidence

4.5/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $1,578,445 · vol 163.9%

100% evidence

5. Celo · CELO

54.2/100 · Illiquid · research only · 90% evidence

Exact sum: 13.6 + 18.3 + 13.0 + 9.3 = 54.2

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

13.6/35Market leadership

RS-BTC -10.8 pp · RS-sector 2.5 pp · 200-DMA below

100% evidence

18.3/30Network & 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

9.3/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $4,324,426 · vol 57.1%

100% evidence

6. Aztec · AZTEC

53.1/100 · Illiquid · research only · 43% evidence

Exact sum: 19.9 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 8.2 = 53.1

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

19.9/35Market leadership

RS-BTC -10.8 pp · RS-sector 15 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

8.2/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $4,566,275 · vol 67.9%

100% evidence

7. Linea · LINEA

50.5/100 · Mixed · market gate closed · 100% evidence

Exact sum: 9.5 + 11.2 + 17.6 + 12.2 = 50.5

Decision use: Cheap on network economics while activity contracts: investigate value-capture trap risk.

9.5/35Market leadership

RS-BTC -17.4 pp · RS-sector 3.5 pp · 200-DMA below

100% evidence

11.2/30Network & 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

12.2/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $12,548,356 · vol 46.1%

100% evidence

8. MegaETH · MEGA

49.9/100 · Illiquid · research only · 12% evidence

Exact sum: 17.5 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 7.4 = 49.9

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

17.5/35Market leadership

RS-BTC — · RS-sector — · 200-DMA —

0% evidence

15.0/30Network & economic traction

Fees — · revenue — · users —

0% evidence

10.0/20Value capture

Fee yield — · revenue yield —

0% evidence

7.4/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $2,288,570 · vol —

80% evidence

9. Sophon · SOPH

48.9/100 · Illiquid · research only · 55% evidence

Exact sum: 21.7 + 12.8 + 10.0 + 4.4 = 48.9

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

21.7/35Market leadership

RS-BTC 6.4 pp · RS-sector 8.9 pp · 200-DMA below

100% evidence

12.8/30Network & economic traction

Fees — · revenue — · users —

17% evidence

10.0/20Value capture

Fee yield — · revenue yield —

0% evidence

4.4/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $326 · vol 57.2%

100% evidence

10. AltLayer · ALT

48.2/100 · Illiquid · research only · 12% evidence

Exact sum: 17.5 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 5.7 = 48.2

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

17.5/35Market leadership

RS-BTC — · RS-sector — · 200-DMA —

0% evidence

15.0/30Network & economic traction

Fees — · revenue — · users —

0% evidence

10.0/20Value capture

Fee yield — · revenue yield —

0% evidence

5.7/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $379,777 · vol —

80% evidence

11. BSquared Network · B2

48.1/100 · Tape-led · on-chain proof incomplete · 55% evidence

Exact sum: 16.3 + 13.0 + 10.0 + 8.8 = 48.1

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

16.3/35Market leadership

RS-BTC -3.5 pp · RS-sector 0 pp · 200-DMA below

100% evidence

13.0/30Network & economic traction

Fees — · revenue — · users —

17% evidence

10.0/20Value capture

Fee yield — · revenue yield —

0% evidence

8.8/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $5,565,708 · vol 153.8%

100% evidence

12. Immutable · IMX

48.0/100 · Illiquid · research only · 17% evidence

Exact sum: 17.5 + 14.5 + 10.0 + 6.0 = 48.0

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

17.5/35Market leadership

RS-BTC — · RS-sector — · 200-DMA —

0% evidence

14.5/30Network & economic traction

Fees — · revenue — · users —

17% evidence

10.0/20Value capture

Fee yield — · revenue yield —

0% evidence

6.0/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $447,244 · vol —

80% evidence

13. OpenLedger · OPEN

47.9/100 · Illiquid · research only · 12% evidence

Exact sum: 17.5 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 5.4 = 47.9

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

17.5/35Market leadership

RS-BTC — · RS-sector — · 200-DMA —

0% evidence

15.0/30Network & economic traction

Fees — · revenue — · users —

0% evidence

10.0/20Value capture

Fee yield — · revenue yield —

0% evidence

5.4/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $692,034 · vol —

80% evidence

14. Stacks · STX

47.5/100 · Illiquid · research only · 17% evidence

Exact sum: 17.5 + 15.1 + 10.0 + 4.9 = 47.5

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

17.5/35Market leadership

RS-BTC — · RS-sector — · 200-DMA —

0% evidence

15.1/30Network & economic traction

Fees — · revenue — · users —

17% evidence

10.0/20Value capture

Fee yield — · revenue yield —

0% evidence

4.9/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $479,465 · vol —

80% evidence

15. Aevo · AEVO

47.3/100 · Illiquid · research only · 50% evidence

Exact sum: 14.2 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 8.1 = 47.3

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

14.2/35Market leadership

RS-BTC -10.4 pp · RS-sector 8.4 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

8.1/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $2,767,606 · vol 41.7%

100% evidence

16. Treasure · MAGIC

47.3/100 · Illiquid · research only · 12% evidence

Exact sum: 17.5 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 4.8 = 47.3

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

17.5/35Market leadership

RS-BTC — · RS-sector — · 200-DMA —

0% evidence

15.0/30Network & economic traction

Fees — · revenue — · users —

0% evidence

10.0/20Value capture

Fee yield — · revenue yield —

0% evidence

4.8/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $143,554 · vol —

80% evidence

17. Optimism · OP

44.7/100 · Lagging · market gate closed · 100% evidence

Exact sum: 11.2 + 11.2 + 10.9 + 11.4 = 44.7

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

11.2/35Market leadership

RS-BTC -12 pp · RS-sector -2 pp · 200-DMA below

100% evidence

11.2/30Network & 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

11.4/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $36,391,248 · vol 62%

100% evidence

18. Metal DAO · MTL

44.4/100 · Illiquid · research only · 50% evidence

Exact sum: 13.2 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 6.2 = 44.4

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

13.2/35Market leadership

RS-BTC -10 pp · RS-sector 1.2 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

6.2/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $360,020 · vol 40.2%

100% evidence

19. Mantle · MNT

41.7/100 · Illiquid · research only · 64% evidence

Exact sum: 20.5 + 9.8 + 5.0 + 6.4 = 41.7

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

20.5/35Market leadership

RS-BTC — · RS-sector -2 pp · 200-DMA above

43% evidence

9.8/30Network & economic traction

Fees -71.6% · revenue — · users -87%

80% evidence

5.0/20Value capture

Fee yield 0.03% · revenue yield —

50% evidence

6.4/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $27,387 · vol 34.9%

100% evidence

20. Cartesi · CTSI

41.7/100 · Illiquid · research only · 50% evidence

Exact sum: 9.2 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 7.5 = 41.7

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

9.2/35Market leadership

RS-BTC -16.8 pp · RS-sector 1.1 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 $960,823 · vol 44.4%

100% evidence

Showing 20 of 33 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

Coverage10/33 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

10/33 level · 10/33 change

Latest comparable data · top 20 shown first

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

Showing 20 of 33 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

Coverage8/33 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

8/33 level · 6/33 change

Latest comparable data · top 20 shown first

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

Showing 20 of 33 assets

03 · complete calendar-quarter evidence

Where is capital actually committed on-chain?

LeaderPOL (ex-MATIC) · $977.4M

Gap81% versus #2

Persistence1 assets have positive comparable growth

Coverage24/33 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$977.4M

2Optimism OP$541.2M

3Mantle MNT$144.2M

4MegaETH MEGA$100.8M

5Stacks STX$79.3M

TVL growthtop five

1COTI COTI+53%

2POL (ex-MATIC) POL-9.1%

3Prom PROM-14%

4Stacks STX-27%

5Optimism OP-28%

Total value locked · asset comparison

24/33 level · 20/33 change

Latest comparable data · top 20 shown first

Asset	Quarter-end TVL	TVL growth
polygon-ecosystem-token	$977.4M	-9.1%
coti	$666.7K	+53%
capx-ai	$2.2M	—
prometeus	$510.4K	-14%
celo	$18.7M	-72%
aztec	—	—
linea	$24.9M	-80%
megaeth	$100.8M	—
sophon	$297.7K	-98%
altlayer	—	—
bsquared-network	$2.0M	-93%
immutable-x	$11.0M	-36%
openledger-2	$0	—
blockstack	$79.3M	-27%
aevo-exchange	—	—
magic	$0	—
optimism	$541.2M	-28%
metal	—	—
mantle	$144.2M	-32%
cartesi	—	—
zksync	$13.9M	-72%
loopring	$8.3M	-65%
pha	—	—
status	—	—
nervos-network	—	—
manta-network	$3.6M	-79%
orderly-network	$208.3K	-36%
lumia	—	—
merlin-chain	$7.1M	-89%
taiko	$2.5M	-99%
metis-token	$2.8M	-89%
islamic-coin	$11	-100%
lisk	$657.8K	-96%

Showing 20 of 33 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

Coverage11/33 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

11/33 level · 10/33 change

Latest comparable data · top 20 shown first

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

Showing 20 of 33 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

Coverage10/33 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

10/33 level · 10/33 change

Latest comparable data · top 20 shown first

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

Showing 20 of 33 assets

06 · let price answer last

Which assets lead on price and relative strength?

COTI leads the Layer 2 tape on Bitcoin-relative strength at +37% over 90 days. 3 of 24 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 2026-07-31.

Complete set · no silent drops

Which assets are in Layer 2?

33 of the 48 coins assigned to Layer 2 are rated and ranked below, and the other 15 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	$0.0722	—	—	—	—	$2.3M	usable	chain + protocol + chain TVL	69.5	62%
2	COTI COTI	$0.0164	+16%	+37%	Above	245%	$2.4M	usable	chain TVL	64.1	55%
3	Capx AI CAPX	$0.1520	-3.9%	+16%	Below	26%	$328.6K	usable	protocol + chain TVL	56.5	50%
4	Prom PROM	$1.63	-19%	+1.3%	Above	164%	$1.6M	usable	chain TVL	55.8	55%
5	Celo CELO	$0.0627	-31%	-11%	Below	57%	$4.3M	usable	chain + protocol + chain TVL	54.2	90%
6	Aztec AZTEC	$0.0139	-31%	-11%	—	68%	$4.6M	usable	tape only	53.1	43%
7	Linea LINEA	$0.0022	-38%	-17%	Below	46%	$12.5M	usable	chain + chain TVL	50.5	100%
8	MegaETH MEGA	$0.0374	—	—	—	—	$2.3M	usable	chain + chain TVL	49.9	12%
9	Sophon SOPH	$0.0007	-14%	+6.4%	Below	57%	$326	usable	chain TVL	48.9	55%
10	AltLayer ALT	$0.0057	—	—	—	—	$379.8K	usable	tape only	48.2	12%
11	BSquared Network B2	$0.4728	-24%	-3.5%	Below	154%	$5.6M	usable	protocol + chain TVL	48.1	55%
12	Immutable IMX	$0.1113	—	—	—	—	$447.2K	usable	protocol + chain TVL	48.0	17%
13	OpenLedger OPEN	$0.1821	—	—	—	—	$692.0K	usable	protocol + chain TVL	47.9	12%
14	Stacks STX	$0.1333	—	—	—	—	$479.5K	usable	chain TVL	47.5	17%
15	Aevo AEVO	$0.0193	-31%	-10%	Below	42%	$2.8M	usable	tape only	47.3	50%
16	Treasure MAGIC	$0.0398	—	—	—	—	$143.6K	usable	protocol	47.3	12%
17	Optimism OP	$0.0850	-32%	-12%	Below	62%	$36.4M	usable	chain + chain TVL	44.7	100%
18	Metal DAO MTL	$0.2101	-30%	-10.0%	Below	40%	$360.0K	usable	tape only	44.4	50%
19	Mantle MNT	$1.01	—	—	Above	35%	$27.4K	usable	chain + protocol + chain TVL	41.7	64%
20	Cartesi CTSI	$0.0212	-37%	-17%	Below	44%	$960.8K	usable	tape only	41.7	50%
21	ZKsync ZK	$0.0081	—	—	—	—	$857.0K	usable	chain + protocol + chain TVL	41.1	62%
22	Loopring LRC	$0.0106	-38%	-18%	Below	157%	$3.2M	usable	protocol	41.0	55%
23	PHALA PHA	$0.0196	-40%	-20%	Below	62%	$7.7M	usable	tape only	39.5	50%
24	Status SNT	$0.0061	-39%	-18%	Below	48%	$1.9M	usable	tape only	37.6	50%
25	Nervos Network CKB	$0.0008	-46%	-25%	Below	48%	$2.3M	usable	tape only	36.8	50%
26	Manta Network MANTA	$0.0588	-14%	+6.3%	Below	52%	$5.1M	usable	chain + protocol + chain TVL	36.3	100%
27	Orderly ORDER	$0.0281	-50%	-30%	Below	80%	$4.9M	usable	protocol	36.2	55%
28	Lumia LUMIA	$0.0752	-53%	-33%	Below	195%	$4.7M	usable	tape only	36.2	50%
29	Merlin Chain MERL	$0.0170	-54%	-34%	Below	64%	$3.0M	usable	protocol + chain TVL	34.2	55%
30	Taiko TAIKO	$0.0719	-37%	-17%	Below	357%	$7.3M	usable	chain + protocol + chain TVL	33.6	94%
31	Metis METIS	$2.40	-33%	-12%	Below	51%	$2.1M	usable	chain + protocol + chain TVL	31.9	84%
32	Islamic Coin ISLM	$0.0039	-66%	-46%	Below	86%	$7.4K	usable	chain TVL	24.1	55%
33	Lisk LSK	$0.0726	-43%	-23%	Below	45%	$2.2M	usable	chain + protocol + chain TVL	21.3	100%

Showing 20 of 33 assets

Not rated — and why

15 of the 48 Layer 2 coins are not rated this week: 10 have no price within 7 days, 5 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 2026-07-31.
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 2026-07-31.
SOON SOON	$59.0M	No price this week	No traded price in the 95 days to 2026-07-31.
Hermez Network HEZ	$34.1M	No traded volume reported	No traded volume is reported on most of the last 30 days, so it has no liquidity reading.
Zora ZORA	$32.3M	No price this week	No traded price in the 95 days to 2026-07-31.
Saakuru SKR	$26.1M	No price this week	No traded price in the 95 days to 2026-07-31.
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 2026-07-31.
Corn CORN	$18.6M	No price this week	No traded price in the 95 days to 2026-07-31.
Citrea CTR	$16.8M	No price this week	No traded price in the 95 days to 2026-07-31.
DeGate DG	$16.4M	No price this week	No traded price in the 95 days to 2026-07-31.
BOB (Build on Bitcoin) BOB	$15.3M	No price this week	No traded price in the 95 days to 2026-07-31.

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 33 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 2026-07-31. Five-year weekly observations benchmarked to Bitcoin.

Protocol activityThrough 2026-07-31. Fees, revenue, protocol TVL and DEX volume.

Chain activityUsers and transactions through 2026-07-31; separately sourced chain TVL through 2026-07-25.

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 33 such coins by market cap, price and Bitcoin-relative strength, with protocol fees and revenue where a project publishes them. Readings are as of 2026-07-31.

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

The Layer 2 coins on this page are tracked against a universe of 894 of the top 1,000 crypto currency assets by market cap. Market-cap metadata is dated 2026-07-04, separately from the price series, and each coin's own figure is in the table on this page.

Are Layer 2 crypto coins outperforming Bitcoin?

Layer 2 has returned -47.3% versus Bitcoin over 52 weeks and -11.4% over 13 weeks on an equal-weight current-member index. 3/24 covered assets are above their 200-day averages as of 2026-07-31.

Which Layer 2 asset has the strongest research score?

POL (ex-MATIC) ranks first at 69.5/100: 17.5 + 27.0 + 16.6 + 8.4 = 69.5. It is labelled “Illiquid · research only” with 62% overall evidence and 100% native-economics evidence.

Why are some Layer 2 coins not rated?

15 of the 48 coins are not rated this week: 10 have no price within 7 days, 5 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 2026-07-31; protocol activity through 2026-07-31; chain users and transactions through 2026-07-31; chain TVL through 2026-07-25; 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 public MLA pages 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 also contracts.

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 33 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 33 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 $977.4M, 81% ahead of Optimism. 1 of 20 assets with comparable change data is growing, fastest at COTI. Coverage is 24 of the 33 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 33 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 33 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 10/33; 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 33 Layer 2 coins on this page carry $3.8B between them, with a market-cap figure on file for 33 of them. Market-cap metadata is dated 2026-07-04.