Sector Alpha Week of 2026-07-24
Five-year price · 20 complete calendar quarters · BTC-relative

Interoperability/Bridges Crypto Coins

Is Interoperability/Bridges outperforming Bitcoin, and is leadership broad?

Bottom line

deBridge ranks first for research priority in Interoperability/Bridges crypto at 63.4/100, and its native activity evidence clears the coverage gate. The theme's 13-week excess versus Bitcoin is -14.3% on 0% breadth, which is what decides whether that lead is isolated or broad. 3 of the 11 assets here carry enough native evidence to move past a tape-led label.

These Interoperability/Bridges 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 Interoperability/Bridges moved against Bitcoin?

The line below covers 5 years. Over the most recent two of them this theme is 59% behind Bitcoin. Protocol revenue across its protocols fell 6% on average over the last four reported quarters. It has been ahead of Bitcoin on a rolling three-month view for 10 weeks running.

BREAKING OUT · ahead 10w·Price down, no fundamental support4 of 10 coins ahead of Bitcoin by 5% or more over three months

RS ↑10w · 4/10 >200d (+0) · 4/10 lead (+0) · EPS —

2050100200500Mon Mon Mon Mon Mon 17271
2050100200500Mon Mon Mon Mon Mon 17271
Interoperability/Bridges, equal-weighted, based at 200 Bitcoin, same base, same start trailing 12-month protocol revenue rising falling
Strength anatomy MixedHow much of the theme is participating, how recently, and whether the movers score well.
Together4 of 10 coins moving
Fresh0 crossed in the last 4 weeks
Down the cap ladder — bar is now, tick is four weeks ago
Large 2/20
Mid 1/40
Small 1/40

Participation is not spreading downward this month; the larger companies are still carrying most of it.

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 10 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

Interoperability/Bridges vs Bitcoin — Relative Strength & Breadth

Interoperability/Bridges crypto has underperformed Bitcoin by 64.7% over 52 weeks on an equal-weight index of current members. Over 13 weeks the figure is -14.3%. 0 of 6 covered assets are above their own 200-day average. deBridge leads Bitcoin-relative strength at +21.6%. Price readings are as of 2026-07-24.

-14%13w vs BTC
-65%52w vs BTC
0/6Above 200-DMA
DBRRS leader · +22%
Assets
11
canonical functional membership
Activity-covered
3/11
enough native evidence
Top score
63.4/100
deBridge
Calendar quarters
20
complete; missing stays missing
Global asset selection · top 20 shown
00 · exact additive research priority

4-Factor Crypto Evidence Score

A within-theme research-priority score for the 11 assets in Interoperability/Bridges, out of 100. The four displayed point contributions add exactly to the total, and the market regime changes the action label, never the arithmetic. deBridge is highest at 63.4/100 on 87% evidence. It ranks research attention, not portfolio action.

Market leadership · 35Network & economic traction · 30Value capture · 20Liquidity & downside risk · 15
deBridge leads the current research queue at 63.4/100 with 87% evidence.
3/11 assets have enough native activity evidence to move beyond a tape-led label.

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.

1. deBridge · DBR

63.4/100 · Illiquid · research only · 87% evidence

Exact sum: 24.4 + 16.2 + 16.5 + 6.3 = 63.4

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

24.4/35Market leadership

RS-BTC 21.6 pp · RS-sector 3.7 pp · 200-DMA below

100% evidence

16.2/30Network & economic traction

Fees 9.7% · revenue 9.7% · users —

70% evidence

16.5/20Value capture

Fee yield 12.46% · revenue yield 12.46%

80% evidence

6.3/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $6,656 · vol 24.3%

100% evidence

2. Hyperlane · HYPER

53.8/100 · Illiquid · research only · 25% evidence

Exact sum: 17.5 + 15.0 + 13.2 + 8.1 = 53.8

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

13.2/20Value capture

Fee yield 5.26% · revenue yield 5.26%

65% evidence

8.1/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $1,129,596 · vol —

80% evidence

3. Caldera · ERA

52.3/100 · Illiquid · research only · 50% evidence

Exact sum: 21.7 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 5.6 = 52.3

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

21.7/35Market leadership

RS-BTC 8.8 pp · RS-sector 4.3 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

5.6/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $0 · vol 24.1%

100% evidence

4. LayerZero · ZRO

50.1/100 · Illiquid · research only · 12% evidence

Exact sum: 17.5 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 7.6 = 50.1

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

7.6/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $2,418,179 · vol —

80% evidence

5. Axelar · AXL

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 $235,804 · vol —

80% evidence

6. Threshold Network · T

44.4/100 · Tape-led · on-chain proof incomplete · 50% evidence

Exact sum: 11.9 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 7.5 = 44.4

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

11.9/35Market leadership

RS-BTC -23.6 pp · RS-sector 10.4 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

7.5/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $6,798,422 · vol 146%

100% evidence

7. Wormhole · W

42.6/100 · Tape-led · on-chain proof incomplete · 68% evidence

Exact sum: 9.2 + 15.6 + 7.5 + 10.3 = 42.6

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

9.2/35Market leadership

RS-BTC -16.3 pp · RS-sector -6.4 pp · 200-DMA below

100% evidence

15.6/30Network & economic traction

Fees — · revenue — · users —

17% evidence

7.5/20Value capture

Fee yield 1.05% · revenue yield 0%

65% evidence

10.3/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $83,541,339 · vol 78.3%

100% evidence

8. Across Protocol · ACX

41.3/100 · Illiquid · research only · 43% evidence

Exact sum: 17.5 + 9.0 + 9.1 + 5.7 = 41.3

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

9.0/30Network & economic traction

Fees -92.8% · revenue — · users —

50% evidence

9.1/20Value capture

Fee yield 2.13% · revenue yield 0%

80% evidence

5.7/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $137,363 · vol —

80% evidence

9. Ronin · RON

39.6/100 · Lagging · market gate closed · 32% evidence

Exact sum: 17.5 + 7.0 + 7.6 + 7.5 = 39.6

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

7.0/30Network & economic traction

Fees -79.7% · revenue — · users -92.5%

80% evidence

7.6/20Value capture

Fee yield 0.54% · revenue yield —

40% evidence

7.5/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume — · vol —

0% evidence

10. ICON · ICX

33.2/100 · Illiquid · research only · 55% evidence

Exact sum: 3.9 + 13.0 + 10.0 + 6.3 = 33.2

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

3.9/35Market leadership

RS-BTC -23.5 pp · RS-sector -7.1 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

6.3/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $581,552 · vol 37.2%

100% evidence

11. ZetaChain · ZETA

30.5/100 · Illiquid · research only · 73% evidence

Exact sum: 4.1 + 12.9 + 6.0 + 7.5 = 30.5

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

4.1/35Market leadership

RS-BTC -24.5 pp · RS-sector -3.7 pp · 200-DMA below

100% evidence

12.9/30Network & economic traction

Fees 0.5% · revenue — · users —

50% evidence

6.0/20Value capture

Fee yield 0.06% · revenue yield —

40% evidence

7.5/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $4,545,002 · vol 61.2%

100% evidence

01 · complete calendar-quarter evidence

Which projects are generating the most network fees?

deBridge leads Interoperability/Bridges crypto on Trailing 12-month fees at $10.1M, 618% ahead of Hyperlane. 2 of 4 assets with comparable change data are growing. Coverage is 6 of the 11 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.

LeaderdeBridge · $10.1M
Gap618% versus #2
Persistence2 assets have positive comparable growth
Coverage6/11 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
1deBridge DBR$10.1M
2Hyperlane HYPER$1.4M
3Wormhole W$661.7K
4Across Protocol ACX$644.8K
5Ronin RON$257.0K
Fee growthtop five
1deBridge DBR+9.7%
2ZetaChain ZETA+0.5%
3Ronin RON-80%
4Across Protocol ACX-93%
Network fees · asset comparison
6/11 level · 4/11 change
Latest comparable data · top 20 shown first
AssetTrailing 12-month feesFee growth
debridge$1.8M+9.7%
hyperlane$36.8K
caldera
layerzero
axelar
threshold-network-token
wormhole$48.4K
across-protocol$165.9K-93%
ronin$10.3K-80%
icon
zetachain$452+0.5%
02 · complete calendar-quarter evidence

Which projects convert activity into protocol revenue?

deBridge leads Interoperability/Bridges crypto on Trailing 12-month revenue at $10.1M, 618% ahead of Hyperlane. 1 of 1 asset with comparable change data is growing. Coverage is 4 of the 11 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.

LeaderdeBridge · $10.1M
Gap618% versus #2
Persistence1 assets have positive comparable growth
Coverage4/11 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
1deBridge DBR$10.1M
2Hyperlane HYPER$1.4M
3Across Protocol ACX$0
4Wormhole W$0
Revenue growthtop five
1deBridge DBR+9.7%
Protocol revenue · asset comparison
4/11 level · 1/11 change
Latest comparable data · top 20 shown first
AssetTrailing 12-month revenueRevenue growth
debridge$1.8M+9.7%
hyperlane$36.8K
caldera
layerzero
axelar
threshold-network-token
wormhole$0
across-protocol$0
ronin$4.5K
icon
zetachain
03 · complete calendar-quarter evidence

Where is capital actually committed on-chain?

Wormhole leads Interoperability/Bridges crypto on Quarter-end TVL at $2.1B, 2086% ahead of Hyperlane. 0 of 6 assets with comparable change data are growing. Coverage is 7 of the 11 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.

LeaderWormhole · $2.1B
Gap2086% versus #2
Persistence0 assets have positive comparable growth
Coverage7/11 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
1Wormhole W$2.1B
2Hyperlane HYPER$94.7M
3Across Protocol ACX$19.0M
4Ronin RON$3.6M
5deBridge DBR$2.3M
TVL growthtop five
1Wormhole W-20%
2Ronin RON-33%
3Across Protocol ACX-78%
4deBridge DBR-79%
5ICON ICX-89%
Total value locked · asset comparison
7/11 level · 6/11 change
Latest comparable data · top 20 shown first
AssetQuarter-end TVLTVL growth
debridge$2.3M-79%
hyperlane$94.7M
caldera
layerzero
axelar
threshold-network-token
wormhole$2.1B-20%
across-protocol$19.0M-78%
ronin$3.6M-33%
icon$1.5M-89%
zetachain$359.4K-97%
04 · complete calendar-quarter evidence

Which chains are gaining real users?

Ronin leads Interoperability/Bridges crypto on Average daily active addresses at 22,512 addresses. 0 of 1 asset with comparable change data are growing. Coverage is 1 of the 11 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.

LeaderRonin · 22,512
GapNot comparable
Persistence0 assets have positive comparable growth
Coverage1/11 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
1Ronin RON22,512
User growthtop five
1Ronin RON-93%
Active users · asset comparison
1/11 level · 1/11 change
Latest comparable data · top 20 shown first
AssetAverage daily active addressesUser growth
debridge
hyperlane
caldera
layerzero
axelar
threshold-network-token
wormhole
across-protocol
ronin22,512-93%
icon
zetachain
06 · complete calendar-quarter evidence

Which chains are processing the most transactions?

Ronin leads Interoperability/Bridges crypto on Trailing 12-month transactions at 176,239,105 transactions. 0 of 1 asset with comparable change data are growing. Coverage is 1 of the 11 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.

LeaderRonin · 176,239,105
GapNot comparable
Persistence0 assets have positive comparable growth
Coverage1/11 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
1Ronin RON176,239,105
Transaction growthtop five
1Ronin RON-63%
Transactions · asset comparison
1/11 level · 1/11 change
Latest comparable data · top 20 shown first
AssetTrailing 12-month transactionsTransaction growth
debridge
hyperlane
caldera
layerzero
axelar
threshold-network-token
wormhole
across-protocol
ronin16,145,280-63%
icon
zetachain
06 · let price answer last

Which assets lead on price and relative strength?

deBridge leads the Interoperability/Bridges tape on Bitcoin-relative strength at +22% over 90 days. 0 of 6 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 2026-07-24.

Complete set · no silent drops

Which assets are in Interoperability/Bridges?

11 priced assets are assigned to Interoperability/Bridges, listed below by rank with every one visible — including tape-only names that publish no protocol activity. Each asset has exactly one canonical functional theme, chosen by a specific-to-general first match on its categories. Pegged, wrapped, liquid-staking receipt and tokenized-asset instruments are excluded because they have no independent price discovery.

RankAssetPrice90dRS-BTC200-DMA30d volMedian volumePrice qualityActivity sourceScoreEvidence
1deBridge DBR$0.0418+4.2%+22%Below24%$6.7Kusableprotocol63.487%
2Hyperlane HYPER$0.0674$1.1Musableprotocol53.825%
3Caldera ERA$0.0001-8.6%+8.8%Below24%$0usabletape only52.350%
4LayerZero ZRO$0.8070$2.4Musabletape only50.112%
5Axelar AXL$0.0416$235.8Kusabletape only48.212%
6Threshold Network T$0.0037-41%-24%Below146%$6.8Musabletape only44.450%
7Wormhole W$0.0090-34%-16%Below78%$83.5Musableprotocol42.668%
8Across Protocol ACX$0.0418$137.4Kusableprotocol41.343%
9Ronin RONusablechain + protocol + chain TVL39.632%
10ICON ICX$0.0227-41%-23%Below37%$581.6Kusablechain TVL33.255%
11ZetaChain ZETA$0.0324-42%-25%Below61%$4.5Musableprotocol + chain TVL30.573%
Methodology · boundaries make the answer useful

What can make this comparison misleading?

This Interoperability/Bridges 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 — 3 of 11 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 2026-07-24. Five-year weekly observations benchmarked to Bitcoin.
Protocol activityThrough 2026-07-24. Fees, revenue, protocol TVL and DEX volume.
Chain activityUsers and transactions through 2026-07-24; separately sourced chain TVL through 2026-07-24.
Market capSnapshot dated 2026-07-04; no historical supply series is implied.
Questions the page should answer directly

Crypto analysis FAQs

These 20 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 Interoperability/Bridges crypto?

Interoperability/Bridges crypto refers to cryptocurrency projects grouped by what they actually do rather than by market fashion. This page tracks 11 such coins by market cap, price and Bitcoin-relative strength, with protocol fees and revenue where a project publishes them. Readings are as of 2026-07-24.

What is the total market cap of Interoperability/Bridges crypto coins?

The Interoperability/Bridges 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 Interoperability/Bridges crypto coins outperforming Bitcoin?

Interoperability/Bridges has returned -64.7% versus Bitcoin over 52 weeks and -14.3% over 13 weeks on an equal-weight current-member index. 0/6 covered assets are above their 200-day averages as of 2026-07-24.

Which Interoperability/Bridges asset has the strongest research score?

deBridge ranks first at 63.4/100: 24.4 + 16.2 + 16.5 + 6.3 = 63.4. It is labelled “Illiquid · research only” with 87% overall evidence and 74% native-economics evidence.

How is the Interoperability/Bridges 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 Interoperability/Bridges 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 Interoperability/Bridges?

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 2026-07-24; protocol activity through 2026-07-24; chain users and transactions through 2026-07-24; chain TVL through 2026-07-24; market capitalisation is a separate snapshot dated 2026-07-04.

Are stablecoins and wrapped tokens included in Interoperability/Bridges?

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. Interoperability/Bridges therefore has one canonical membership list.

What would invalidate the current Interoperability/Bridges 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?

deBridge leads Interoperability/Bridges crypto on Trailing 12-month fees at $10.1M, 618% ahead of Hyperlane. 2 of 4 assets with comparable change data are growing. Coverage is 6 of the 11 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?

deBridge leads Interoperability/Bridges crypto on Trailing 12-month revenue at $10.1M, 618% ahead of Hyperlane. 1 of 1 asset with comparable change data is growing. Coverage is 4 of the 11 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?

Wormhole leads Interoperability/Bridges crypto on Quarter-end TVL at $2.1B, 2086% ahead of Hyperlane. 0 of 6 assets with comparable change data are growing. Coverage is 7 of the 11 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?

Ronin leads Interoperability/Bridges crypto on Average daily active addresses at 22,512 addresses. 0 of 1 asset with comparable change data are growing. Coverage is 1 of the 11 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?

Ronin leads Interoperability/Bridges crypto on Trailing 12-month transactions at 176,239,105 transactions. 0 of 1 asset with comparable change data are growing. Coverage is 1 of the 11 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 transaction growth turns negative while users and fees also deteriorate.

Which Interoperability/Bridges project has the largest fee base?

deBridge leads covered trailing-12-month fees at $10.1M. Coverage is 6/11; this is network activity, not automatically token-holder income.

Chat with this page