# Layer 2 crypto coins — market cap, protocol fees and revenue

> Layer 2 vs Bitcoin — Relative Strength & Breadth

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.

## Agent research brief

- What matters now: Layer 2 is -11.4% versus Bitcoin over 13 weeks. Only 13% of covered assets are above trend; leadership is narrow.
- Best research lead: POL (ex-MATIC) ranks first at 69.5/100 with 62% total evidence and 100% native evidence.
- The contradiction: 10/33 assets clear the native-evidence gate; the rest should not be treated as fundamentally confirmed.
- What to do with it: Keep this as a research queue, not an entry list. The market gate reopens only when Bitcoin trend and sector breadth improve.

Data: price 2026-07-31; protocol 2026-07-31; chain users/transactions 2026-07-31; chain TVL 2026-07-25; market-cap snapshot 2026-07-04.

## 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.

1. POL (ex-MATIC) (POL): 69.5/100 — Illiquid · research only; 17.5 + 27.0 + 16.6 + 8.4 = 69.5; evidence 62%; native evidence 100%
   Decision use: Evidence is mixed. Keep normal research priority and wait for two pillars to agree.
2. COTI (COTI): 64.1/100 — Illiquid · research only; 31.2 + 17.2 + 10.0 + 5.7 = 64.1; evidence 55%; native evidence 10%
   Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.
3. Capx AI (CAPX): 56.5/100 — Illiquid · research only; 24.5 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 7.0 = 56.5; evidence 50%; native evidence 0%
   Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.
4. Prom (PROM): 55.8/100 — Illiquid · research only; 25.8 + 15.5 + 10.0 + 4.5 = 55.8; evidence 55%; native evidence 10%
   Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.
5. Celo (CELO): 54.2/100 — Illiquid · research only; 13.6 + 18.3 + 13.0 + 9.3 = 54.2; evidence 90%; native evidence 81%
   Decision use: Evidence is mixed. Keep normal research priority and wait for two pillars to agree.
6. Aztec (AZTEC): 53.1/100 — Illiquid · research only; 19.9 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 8.2 = 53.1; evidence 43%; native evidence 0%
   Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.
7. Linea (LINEA): 50.5/100 — Mixed · market gate closed; 9.5 + 11.2 + 17.6 + 12.2 = 50.5; evidence 100%; native evidence 100%
   Decision use: Cheap on network economics while activity contracts: investigate value-capture trap risk.
8. MegaETH (MEGA): 49.9/100 — Illiquid · research only; 17.5 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 7.4 = 49.9; evidence 12%; native evidence 0%
   Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.
9. Sophon (SOPH): 48.9/100 — Illiquid · research only; 21.7 + 12.8 + 10.0 + 4.4 = 48.9; evidence 55%; native evidence 10%
   Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.
10. AltLayer (ALT): 48.2/100 — Illiquid · research only; 17.5 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 5.7 = 48.2; evidence 12%; native evidence 0%
   Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.
11. BSquared Network (B2): 48.1/100 — Tape-led · on-chain proof incomplete; 16.3 + 13.0 + 10.0 + 8.8 = 48.1; evidence 55%; native evidence 10%
   Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.
12. Immutable (IMX): 48/100 — Illiquid · research only; 17.5 + 14.5 + 10.0 + 6.0 = 48.0; evidence 17%; native evidence 10%
   Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.
13. OpenLedger (OPEN): 47.9/100 — Illiquid · research only; 17.5 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 5.4 = 47.9; evidence 12%; native evidence 0%
   Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.
14. Stacks (STX): 47.5/100 — Illiquid · research only; 17.5 + 15.1 + 10.0 + 4.9 = 47.5; evidence 17%; native evidence 10%
   Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.
15. Aevo (AEVO): 47.3/100 — Illiquid · research only; 14.2 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 8.1 = 47.3; evidence 50%; native evidence 0%
   Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.
16. Treasure (MAGIC): 47.3/100 — Illiquid · research only; 17.5 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 4.8 = 47.3; evidence 12%; native evidence 0%
   Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.
17. Optimism (OP): 44.7/100 — Lagging · market gate closed; 11.2 + 11.2 + 10.9 + 11.4 = 44.7; evidence 100%; native evidence 100%
   Decision use: Evidence is mixed. Keep normal research priority and wait for two pillars to agree.
18. Metal DAO (MTL): 44.4/100 — Illiquid · research only; 13.2 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 6.2 = 44.4; evidence 50%; native evidence 0%
   Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.
19. Mantle (MNT): 41.7/100 — Illiquid · research only; 20.5 + 9.8 + 5.0 + 6.4 = 41.7; evidence 64%; native evidence 68%
   Decision use: Evidence is mixed. Keep normal research priority and wait for two pillars to agree.
20. Cartesi (CTSI): 41.7/100 — Illiquid · research only; 9.2 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 7.5 = 41.7; evidence 50%; native evidence 0%
   Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.
21. ZKsync (ZK): 41.1/100 — Illiquid · research only; 17.5 + 9.1 + 9.1 + 5.4 = 41.1; evidence 62%; native evidence 100%
   Decision use: Evidence is mixed. Keep normal research priority and wait for two pillars to agree.
22. Loopring (LRC): 41/100 — Illiquid · research only; 9.9 + 13.9 + 10.0 + 7.2 = 41.0; evidence 55%; native evidence 10%
   Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.
23. PHALA (PHA): 39.5/100 — Tape-led · on-chain proof incomplete; 4.4 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 10.1 = 39.5; evidence 50%; native evidence 0%
   Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.
24. Status (SNT): 37.6/100 — Illiquid · research only; 6.3 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 6.3 = 37.6; evidence 50%; native evidence 0%
   Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.
25. Nervos Network (CKB): 36.8/100 — Illiquid · research only; 5.4 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 6.4 = 36.8; evidence 50%; native evidence 0%
   Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.
26. Manta Network (MANTA): 36.3/100 — Lagging · market gate closed; 21.3 + 2.7 + 1.1 + 11.2 = 36.3; evidence 100%; native evidence 100%
   Decision use: Evidence is mixed. Keep normal research priority and wait for two pillars to agree.
27. Orderly (ORDER): 36.2/100 — Illiquid · research only; 3.7 + 14.4 + 10.0 + 8.1 = 36.2; evidence 55%; native evidence 10%
   Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.
28. Lumia (LUMIA): 36.2/100 — Illiquid · research only; 4.2 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 7.0 = 36.2; evidence 50%; native evidence 0%
   Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.
29. Merlin Chain (MERL): 34.2/100 — Illiquid · research only; 4.3 + 13.3 + 10.0 + 6.6 = 34.2; evidence 55%; native evidence 10%
   Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.
30. Taiko (TAIKO): 33.6/100 — Lagging · market gate closed; 8.2 + 3.1 + 14.2 + 8.1 = 33.6; evidence 94%; native evidence 88%
   Decision use: Cheap on network economics while activity contracts: investigate value-capture trap risk.
31. Metis (METIS): 31.9/100 — Illiquid · research only; 9.7 + 7.0 + 8.3 + 6.9 = 31.9; evidence 84%; native evidence 68%
   Decision use: Evidence is mixed. Keep normal research priority and wait for two pillars to agree.
32. Islamic Coin (ISLM): 24.1/100 — Illiquid · research only; 0.3 + 12.5 + 10.0 + 1.3 = 24.1; evidence 55%; native evidence 10%
   Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.
33. Lisk (LSK): 21.3/100 — Illiquid · research only; 4.2 + 3.3 + 6.6 + 7.2 = 21.3; evidence 100%; native evidence 100%
   Decision use: Evidence is mixed. Keep normal research priority and wait for two pillars to agree.

## Which projects are generating the most network fees?

What the numbers say: 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.

- POL (ex-MATIC) (POL): $23.2M
- Linea (LINEA): $3.2M
- Optimism (OP): $1.9M
- Celo (CELO): $684.1K
- ZKsync (ZK): $677.7K

## Which projects convert activity into protocol revenue?

What the numbers say: 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.

- POL (ex-MATIC) (POL): $23.1M
- Linea (LINEA): $3.1M
- Optimism (OP): $1.8M
- Celo (CELO): $663.4K
- ZKsync (ZK): $635.4K

## Where is capital actually committed on-chain?

What the numbers say: 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.

- POL (ex-MATIC) (POL): $977.4M
- Optimism (OP): $541.2M
- Mantle (MNT): $144.2M
- MegaETH (MEGA): $100.8M
- Stacks (STX): $79.3M

## Which chains are gaining real users?

What the numbers say: 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.

- POL (ex-MATIC) (POL): 624,400
- Celo (CELO): 467,973
- Optimism (OP): 17,646
- ZKsync (ZK): 7,103
- MegaETH (MEGA): 5,189

## Which chains are processing the most transactions?

What the numbers say: 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.

- POL (ex-MATIC) (POL): 2,276,969,823
- Optimism (OP): 616,494,669
- Celo (CELO): 496,427,817
- Taiko (TAIKO): 79,010,414
- Linea (LINEA): 42,194,039

## Every rated asset

- POL (ex-MATIC) (POL) — 90d —; RS-BTC —; score 69.5; activity chain + protocol + chain TVL
- COTI (COTI) — 90d +16%; RS-BTC +37%; score 64.1; activity chain TVL
- Capx AI (CAPX) — 90d -3.9%; RS-BTC +16%; score 56.5; activity protocol + chain TVL
- Prom (PROM) — 90d -19%; RS-BTC +1.3%; score 55.8; activity chain TVL
- Celo (CELO) — 90d -31%; RS-BTC -11%; score 54.2; activity chain + protocol + chain TVL
- Aztec (AZTEC) — 90d -31%; RS-BTC -11%; score 53.1; activity tape only
- Linea (LINEA) — 90d -38%; RS-BTC -17%; score 50.5; activity chain + chain TVL
- MegaETH (MEGA) — 90d —; RS-BTC —; score 49.9; activity chain + chain TVL
- Sophon (SOPH) — 90d -14%; RS-BTC +6.4%; score 48.9; activity chain TVL
- AltLayer (ALT) — 90d —; RS-BTC —; score 48.2; activity tape only
- BSquared Network (B2) — 90d -24%; RS-BTC -3.5%; score 48.1; activity protocol + chain TVL
- Immutable (IMX) — 90d —; RS-BTC —; score 48; activity protocol + chain TVL
- OpenLedger (OPEN) — 90d —; RS-BTC —; score 47.9; activity protocol + chain TVL
- Stacks (STX) — 90d —; RS-BTC —; score 47.5; activity chain TVL
- Aevo (AEVO) — 90d -31%; RS-BTC -10%; score 47.3; activity tape only
- Treasure (MAGIC) — 90d —; RS-BTC —; score 47.3; activity protocol
- Optimism (OP) — 90d -32%; RS-BTC -12%; score 44.7; activity chain + chain TVL
- Metal DAO (MTL) — 90d -30%; RS-BTC -10.0%; score 44.4; activity tape only
- Mantle (MNT) — 90d —; RS-BTC —; score 41.7; activity chain + protocol + chain TVL
- Cartesi (CTSI) — 90d -37%; RS-BTC -17%; score 41.7; activity tape only
- ZKsync (ZK) — 90d —; RS-BTC —; score 41.1; activity chain + protocol + chain TVL
- Loopring (LRC) — 90d -38%; RS-BTC -18%; score 41; activity protocol
- PHALA (PHA) — 90d -40%; RS-BTC -20%; score 39.5; activity tape only
- Status (SNT) — 90d -39%; RS-BTC -18%; score 37.6; activity tape only
- Nervos Network (CKB) — 90d -46%; RS-BTC -25%; score 36.8; activity tape only
- Manta Network (MANTA) — 90d -14%; RS-BTC +6.3%; score 36.3; activity chain + protocol + chain TVL
- Orderly (ORDER) — 90d -50%; RS-BTC -30%; score 36.2; activity protocol
- Lumia (LUMIA) — 90d -53%; RS-BTC -33%; score 36.2; activity tape only
- Merlin Chain (MERL) — 90d -54%; RS-BTC -34%; score 34.2; activity protocol + chain TVL
- Taiko (TAIKO) — 90d -37%; RS-BTC -17%; score 33.6; activity chain + protocol + chain TVL
- Metis (METIS) — 90d -33%; RS-BTC -12%; score 31.9; activity chain + protocol + chain TVL
- Islamic Coin (ISLM) — 90d -66%; RS-BTC -46%; score 24.1; activity chain TVL
- Lisk (LSK) — 90d -43%; RS-BTC -23%; score 21.3; activity chain + protocol + chain TVL

## 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.

- ADI (ADI) — No price this week: No traded price in the 95 days to 2026-07-31.
- Arbitrum (ARB) — No traded volume reported: No traded volume is reported on most of the last 30 days, so it has no liquidity reading.
- Starknet (STRK) — No traded volume reported: No traded volume is reported on most of the last 30 days, so it has no liquidity reading.
- Derive (DRV) — No price this week: No traded price in the 95 days to 2026-07-31.
- SOON (SOON) — No price this week: No traded price in the 95 days to 2026-07-31.
- Hermez Network (HEZ) — No traded volume reported: No traded volume is reported on most of the last 30 days, so it has no liquidity reading.
- Zora (ZORA) — No price this week: No traded price in the 95 days to 2026-07-31.
- Saakuru (SKR) — No price this week: No traded price in the 95 days to 2026-07-31.
- CYBER (CYBER) — 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) — No traded volume reported: No traded volume is reported on most of the last 30 days, so it has no liquidity reading.
- Blast (BLAST) — No price this week: No traded price in the 95 days to 2026-07-31.
- Corn (CORN) — No price this week: No traded price in the 95 days to 2026-07-31.
- Citrea (CTR) — No price this week: No traded price in the 95 days to 2026-07-31.
- DeGate (DG) — No price this week: No traded price in the 95 days to 2026-07-31.
- BOB (Build on Bitcoin) (BOB) — No price this week: No traded price in the 95 days to 2026-07-31.

## Limitations

- 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.

## FAQs

### 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.