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

Layer 2 Crypto Coins

Is Layer 2 outperforming Bitcoin, and is leadership broad?

Bottom line

Starknet ranks first for research priority in Layer 2 crypto at 71.8/100, and its native activity evidence clears the coverage gate. The theme's 13-week excess versus Bitcoin is -9.2% on 14% breadth, which is what decides whether that lead is isolated or broad. 12 of the 48 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 5 years. 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 10 weeks running.

BREAKING OUT · ahead 10w·Price down, no fundamental support15 of 24 coins ahead of Bitcoin by 5% or more over three months

RS ↑10w · 7/24 >200d (+0) · 15/24 lead (+2) · EPS —

Layer 2, 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.

Together15 of 24 coins moving

Fresh3 crossed in the last 4 weeks

Down the cap ladder — bar is now, tick is four weeks ago

Large 5/5+1

Mid 3/9−1

Small 7/10+2

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 24 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 51.7% over 52 weeks on an equal-weight index of current members. Over 13 weeks the figure is -9.2%. 4 of 29 covered assets are above their own 200-day average. Tokamak Network leads Bitcoin-relative strength at +36.1%. Price readings are as of 2026-07-24.

-9.2%13w vs BTC

-52%52w vs BTC

4/29Above 200-DMA

TONRS leader · +36%

Assets

canonical functional membership

Activity-covered

12/48

enough native evidence

Top score

71.8/100

Starknet

Calendar quarters

complete; missing stays missing

Global asset selection · top 20 shown

Showing 20 of 48 assets

00 · exact additive research priority

4-Factor Crypto Evidence Score

A within-theme research-priority score for the 48 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. Starknet is highest at 71.8/100 on 96% evidence. It ranks research attention, not portfolio action.

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

Starknet leads the current research queue at 71.8/100 with 96% evidence.

12/48 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. Starknet · STRK

71.8/100 · Illiquid · research only · 96% evidence

Exact sum: 29.8 + 27.4 + 12.0 + 2.6 = 71.8

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

29.8/35Market leadership

RS-BTC 8.6 pp · RS-sector 20.4 pp · 200-DMA above

100% evidence

27.4/30Network & economic traction

Fees 189.2% · revenue 352.4% · users 16.1%

100% evidence

12.0/20Value capture

Fee yield 0.83% · revenue yield 0.82%

80% evidence

2.6/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $0 · vol 70.3%

100% evidence

2. POL (ex-MATIC) · POL

66.5/100 · Illiquid · research only · 58% evidence

Exact sum: 17.5 + 26.6 + 14.1 + 8.3 = 66.5

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

26.6/30Network & economic traction

Fees 204.4% · revenue 239.4% · users 18.7%

100% evidence

14.1/20Value capture

Fee yield 2.95% · revenue yield 2.94%

80% evidence

8.3/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $2,456,352 · vol —

80% evidence

3. Arbitrum · ARB

57.1/100 · Illiquid · research only · 88% evidence

Exact sum: 19.3 + 15.4 + 15.7 + 6.7 = 57.1

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

19.3/35Market leadership

RS-BTC 17.4 pp · RS-sector 2.3 pp · 200-DMA below

77% evidence

15.4/30Network & economic traction

Fees -3.1% · revenue 11% · users -39.9%

100% evidence

15.7/20Value capture

Fee yield 3.8% · revenue yield 3.75%

80% evidence

6.7/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $0 · vol 0%

100% evidence

4. Celo · CELO

53.1/100 · Mixed · market gate closed · 87% evidence

Exact sum: 14.8 + 17.4 + 11.9 + 9.0 = 53.1

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

14.8/35Market leadership

RS-BTC -8.6 pp · RS-sector 3.8 pp · 200-DMA below

100% evidence

17.4/30Network & economic traction

Fees 40.5% · revenue — · users -7.5%

80% evidence

11.9/20Value capture

Fee yield 1.74% · revenue yield 1.69%

65% evidence

9.0/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $5,732,866 · vol 90.9%

100% evidence

5. Mantle · MNT

46.1/100 · Illiquid · research only · 62% evidence

Exact sum: 23.9 + 9.0 + 6.0 + 7.2 = 46.1

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

23.9/35Market leadership

RS-BTC — · RS-sector 12.7 pp · 200-DMA above

43% evidence

9.0/30Network & economic traction

Fees -71.6% · revenue — · users -87%

80% evidence

6.0/20Value capture

Fee yield 0.03% · revenue yield —

40% evidence

7.2/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $15,979 · vol 21.4%

100% evidence

6. Linea · LINEA

45.1/100 · Mixed · market gate closed · 96% evidence

Exact sum: 7.6 + 9.3 + 16.0 + 12.2 = 45.1

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

7.6/35Market leadership

RS-BTC -20.2 pp · RS-sector 4.9 pp · 200-DMA below

100% evidence

9.3/30Network & economic traction

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

100% evidence

16.0/20Value capture

Fee yield 5.26% · revenue yield 5.22%

80% evidence

12.2/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $13,757,134 · vol 41.2%

100% evidence

7. Optimism · OP

41.6/100 · Lagging · market gate closed · 96% evidence

Exact sum: 10.7 + 10.2 + 9.2 + 11.5 = 41.6

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

10.7/35Market leadership

RS-BTC -8.7 pp · RS-sector -9 pp · 200-DMA below

100% evidence

10.2/30Network & economic traction

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

100% evidence

9.2/20Value capture

Fee yield 0.81% · revenue yield 0.78%

80% evidence

11.5/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $36,450,169 · vol 55.8%

100% evidence

8. Taiko · TAIKO

40.3/100 · Lagging · market gate closed · 90% evidence

Exact sum: 16.4 + 3.2 + 12.5 + 8.2 = 40.3

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

16.4/35Market leadership

RS-BTC -15.9 pp · RS-sector 28.6 pp · 200-DMA below

100% evidence

3.2/30Network & economic traction

Fees -92.4% · revenue — · users -98.3%

80% evidence

12.5/20Value capture

Fee yield 2.01% · revenue yield 0.7%

80% evidence

8.2/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $7,674,771 · vol 654.1%

100% evidence

9. ZKsync · ZK

39.8/100 · Illiquid · research only · 58% evidence

Exact sum: 17.5 + 7.7 + 8.3 + 6.3 = 39.8

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

7.7/30Network & economic traction

Fees -56.2% · revenue -47.9% · users -38.9%

100% evidence

8.3/20Value capture

Fee yield 0.64% · revenue yield 0.6%

80% evidence

6.3/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $961,433 · vol —

80% evidence

10. Metis · METIS

33.1/100 · Illiquid · research only · 82% evidence

Exact sum: 11.9 + 6.4 + 8.2 + 6.6 = 33.1

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

11.9/35Market leadership

RS-BTC -7.7 pp · RS-sector -8.6 pp · 200-DMA below

100% evidence

6.4/30Network & economic traction

Fees -76% · revenue — · users -95.8%

80% evidence

8.2/20Value capture

Fee yield 0.29% · revenue yield —

40% evidence

6.6/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $2,056,568 · vol 52.9%

100% evidence

11. Manta Network · MANTA

32.4/100 · Lagging · market gate closed · 96% evidence

Exact sum: 16.9 + 2.3 + 2.7 + 10.5 = 32.4

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

16.9/35Market leadership

RS-BTC 13.6 pp · RS-sector -25.5 pp · 200-DMA below

100% evidence

2.3/30Network & economic traction

Fees -88.4% · revenue -94.4% · users -96.5%

100% evidence

2.7/20Value capture

Fee yield 0.13% · revenue yield 0.05%

80% evidence

10.5/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $7,798,454 · vol 92.6%

100% evidence

12. Lisk · LSK

24.6/100 · Illiquid · research only · 96% evidence

Exact sum: 7.2 + 2.7 + 6.6 + 8.1 = 24.6

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

7.2/35Market leadership

RS-BTC -19.2 pp · RS-sector -0.4 pp · 200-DMA below

100% evidence

2.7/30Network & economic traction

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

100% evidence

6.6/20Value capture

Fee yield 0.19% · revenue yield 0.17%

80% evidence

8.1/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $2,551,110 · vol 48.7%

100% evidence

13. Tokamak Network · TON

63.1/100 · Illiquid · research only · 50% evidence

Exact sum: 32.5 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 5.6 = 63.1

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

32.5/35Market leadership

RS-BTC 36.1 pp · RS-sector 6.6 pp · 200-DMA above

100% evidence

15.0/30Network & economic traction

Fees — · revenue — · users —

0% evidence

10.0/20Value capture

Fee yield — · revenue yield —

0% evidence

5.6/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $0 · vol 42.6%

100% evidence

14. Prom · PROM

56.5/100 · Illiquid · research only · 55% evidence

Exact sum: 26.3 + 15.4 + 10.0 + 4.8 = 56.5

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

26.3/35Market leadership

RS-BTC 5.9 pp · RS-sector 64.7 pp · 200-DMA above

100% evidence

15.4/30Network & economic traction

Fees — · revenue — · users —

17% evidence

10.0/20Value capture

Fee yield — · revenue yield —

0% evidence

4.8/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $1,090,069 · vol 149.9%

100% evidence

15. Hermez Network · HEZ

54.3/100 · Illiquid · research only · 50% evidence

Exact sum: 22.9 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 6.4 = 54.3

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

22.9/35Market leadership

RS-BTC 11.8 pp · RS-sector 4.6 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

6.4/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $0 · vol 10.3%

100% evidence

16. Capx AI · CAPX

53.4/100 · Illiquid · research only · 50% evidence

Exact sum: 21.1 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 7.3 = 53.4

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

21.1/35Market leadership

RS-BTC 9.7 pp · RS-sector 0.4 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

7.3/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $333,637 · vol 28.4%

100% evidence

17. MegaETH · MEGA

51.7/100 · Illiquid · research only · 12% evidence

Exact sum: 17.5 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 9.2 = 51.7

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

9.2/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $3,699,301 · vol —

80% evidence

18. ADI · ADI

50.0/100 · Tape-led · on-chain proof incomplete · 0% evidence

Exact sum: 17.5 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 7.5 = 50.0

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

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 — · vol —

0% evidence

19. Citrea · CTR

50.0/100 · Tape-led · on-chain proof incomplete · 0% evidence

Exact sum: 17.5 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 7.5 = 50.0

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

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 — · vol —

0% evidence

20. DeGate · DG

50.0/100 · Tape-led · on-chain proof incomplete · 0% evidence

Exact sum: 17.5 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 7.5 = 50.0

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

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 — · vol —

0% evidence

Showing 20 of 48 ranked assets

01 · complete calendar-quarter evidence

Which projects are generating the most network fees?

LeaderPOL (ex-MATIC) · $23.2M

Gap21% versus #2

Persistence3 assets have positive comparable growth

Coverage12/48 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

2Arbitrum ARB$19.2M

3Linea LINEA$3.2M

4Optimism OP$1.9M

5Starknet STRK$1.7M

Fee growthtop five

1POL (ex-MATIC) POL+204%

2Starknet STRK+189%

3Celo CELO+41%

4Arbitrum ARB-3.2%

5Linea LINEA-35%

Network fees · asset comparison

12/48 level · 12/48 change

Latest comparable data · top 20 shown first

Asset	Trailing 12-month fees	Fee growth
starknet	$461.1K	+189%
polygon-ecosystem-token	$8.2M	+204%
arbitrum	$1.8M	-3.2%
celo	$298.0K	+41%
mantle	$64.1K	-72%
linea	$118.0K	-35%
optimism	$149.2K	-75%
taiko	$15.2K	-92%
zksync	$53.1K	-56%
metis-token	$7.7K	-76%
manta-network	$4.6K	-88%
lisk	$1.5K	-90%
tokamak-network	—	—
prometeus	—	—
hermez-network-token	—	—
capx-ai	$224.3K	—
megaeth	$176.2K	—
adi-token	—	—
citrea	—	—
degate	—	—
derive	—	—
soon-2	—	—
zora	—	—
immutable-x	—	—
altlayer	—	—
blast	—	—
blockstack	—	—
magic	—	—
openledger-2	$144.2K	—
bob-build-on-bitcoin	—	—
corn-3	—	—
saakuru-labs	—	—
sophon	—	—
aevo-exchange	—	—
cyberconnect	—	—
aztec	—	—
loopring	—	—
orderly-network	—	—
metal	—	—
status	—	—
cartesi	—	—
pha	—	—
bsquared-network	—	—
coti	—	—
nervos-network	—	—
lumia	—	—
merlin-chain	—	—
islamic-coin	—	—

Showing 20 of 48 assets

02 · complete calendar-quarter evidence

Which projects convert activity into protocol revenue?

LeaderPOL (ex-MATIC) · $23.1M

Gap22% versus #2

Persistence3 assets have positive comparable growth

Coverage10/48 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

2Arbitrum ARB$19.0M

3Linea LINEA$3.1M

4Optimism OP$1.8M

5Starknet STRK$1.7M

Revenue growthtop five

1Starknet STRK+352%

2POL (ex-MATIC) POL+239%

3Arbitrum ARB+11%

4Linea LINEA-33%

5ZKsync ZK-48%

Protocol revenue · asset comparison

10/48 level · 8/48 change

Latest comparable data · top 20 shown first

Asset	Trailing 12-month revenue	Revenue growth
starknet	$458.9K	+352%
polygon-ecosystem-token	$8.2M	+239%
arbitrum	$1.7M	+11%
celo	$294.1K	—
mantle	—	—
linea	$115.7K	-33%
optimism	$140.2K	-73%
taiko	$4.2K	—
zksync	$49.2K	-48%
metis-token	—	—
manta-network	$1.4K	-94%
lisk	$853	-84%
tokamak-network	—	—
prometeus	—	—
hermez-network-token	—	—
capx-ai	$201.9K	—
megaeth	$171.0K	—
adi-token	—	—
citrea	—	—
degate	—	—
derive	—	—
soon-2	—	—
zora	—	—
immutable-x	—	—
altlayer	—	—
blast	—	—
blockstack	—	—
magic	—	—
openledger-2	$144.2K	—
bob-build-on-bitcoin	—	—
corn-3	—	—
saakuru-labs	—	—
sophon	—	—
aevo-exchange	—	—
cyberconnect	—	—
aztec	—	—
loopring	—	—
orderly-network	—	—
metal	—	—
status	—	—
cartesi	—	—
pha	—	—
bsquared-network	—	—
coti	—	—
nervos-network	—	—
lumia	—	—
merlin-chain	—	—
islamic-coin	—	—

Showing 20 of 48 assets

03 · complete calendar-quarter evidence

Where is capital actually committed on-chain?

LeaderArbitrum · $1.2B

Gap22% versus #2

Persistence2 assets have positive comparable growth

Coverage33/48 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

1Arbitrum ARB$1.2B

2POL (ex-MATIC) POL$977.4M

3Optimism OP$541.2M

4Starknet STRK$174.5M

5Mantle MNT$144.2M

TVL growthtop five

1Starknet STRK+119%

2COTI COTI+53%

3POL (ex-MATIC) POL-9.1%

4Prom PROM-14%

5Stacks STX-27%

Total value locked · asset comparison

33/48 level · 27/48 change

Latest comparable data · top 20 shown first

Asset	Quarter-end TVL	TVL growth
starknet	$174.5M	+119%
polygon-ecosystem-token	$977.4M	-9.1%
arbitrum	$1.2B	-52%
celo	$18.7M	-72%
mantle	$144.2M	-32%
linea	$24.9M	-80%
optimism	$541.2M	-28%
taiko	$2.5M	-99%
zksync	$13.9M	-72%
metis-token	$2.8M	-89%
manta-network	$3.6M	-79%
lisk	$657.8K	-96%
tokamak-network	—	—
prometeus	$510.4K	-14%
hermez-network-token	—	—
capx-ai	$2.2M	—
megaeth	$100.8M	—
adi-token	—	—
citrea	$5.0M	—
degate	$159	-100%
derive	—	—
soon-2	$18.3K	—
zora	—	—
immutable-x	$11.0M	-36%
altlayer	—	—
blast	$28.7M	-71%
blockstack	$79.3M	-27%
magic	$0	—
openledger-2	$0	—
bob-build-on-bitcoin	$9.2M	-93%
corn-3	$3.6K	-100%
saakuru-labs	$84.2K	-40%
sophon	$297.7K	-98%
aevo-exchange	—	—
cyberconnect	—	—
aztec	—	—
loopring	$8.3M	-65%
orderly-network	$208.3K	-36%
metal	—	—
status	—	—
cartesi	—	—
pha	—	—
bsquared-network	$2.0M	-93%
coti	$666.7K	+53%
nervos-network	—	—
lumia	—	—
merlin-chain	$7.1M	-89%
islamic-coin	$11	-100%

Showing 20 of 48 assets

04 · complete calendar-quarter evidence

Which chains are gaining real users?

LeaderPOL (ex-MATIC) · 624,400

Gap33% versus #2

Persistence2 assets have positive comparable growth

Coverage13/48 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

3Arbitrum ARB158,741

4Starknet STRK49,743

5Optimism OP17,646

User growthtop five

1POL (ex-MATIC) POL+19%

2Starknet STRK+16%

3Celo CELO-7.5%

4ZKsync ZK-39%

5Arbitrum ARB-40%

Active users · asset comparison

13/48 level · 12/48 change

Latest comparable data · top 20 shown first

Asset	Average daily active addresses	User growth
starknet	49,743	+16%
polygon-ecosystem-token	624,400	+19%
arbitrum	158,741	-40%
celo	467,973	-7.5%
mantle	1,590	-87%
linea	4,899	-77%
optimism	17,646	-84%
taiko	3,454	-98%
zksync	7,103	-39%
metis-token	389	-96%
manta-network	925	-97%
lisk	382	-94%
tokamak-network	—	—
prometeus	—	—
hermez-network-token	—	—
capx-ai	—	—
megaeth	5,189	—
adi-token	—	—
citrea	—	—
degate	—	—
derive	—	—
soon-2	—	—
zora	—	—
immutable-x	—	—
altlayer	—	—
blast	—	—
blockstack	—	—
magic	—	—
openledger-2	—	—
bob-build-on-bitcoin	—	—
corn-3	—	—
saakuru-labs	—	—
sophon	—	—
aevo-exchange	—	—
cyberconnect	—	—
aztec	—	—
loopring	—	—
orderly-network	—	—
metal	—	—
status	—	—
cartesi	—	—
pha	—	—
bsquared-network	—	—
coti	—	—
nervos-network	—	—
lumia	—	—
merlin-chain	—	—
islamic-coin	—	—

Showing 20 of 48 assets

06 · complete calendar-quarter evidence

Which chains are processing the most transactions?

LeaderPOL (ex-MATIC) · 2,276,969,823

Gap146% versus #2

Persistence5 assets have positive comparable growth

Coverage12/48 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

2Arbitrum ARB926,219,558

3Optimism OP616,494,669

4Celo CELO496,427,817

5Starknet STRK107,499,920

Transaction growthtop five

1Optimism OP+103%

2POL (ex-MATIC) POL+96%

3Starknet STRK+29%

4Arbitrum ARB+27%

5Celo CELO+11%

Transactions · asset comparison

12/48 level · 12/48 change

Latest comparable data · top 20 shown first

Asset	Trailing 12-month transactions	Transaction growth
starknet	21,750,355	+29%
polygon-ecosystem-token	743,480,044	+96%
arbitrum	150,828,098	+27%
celo	110,721,706	+11%
mantle	3,454,769	-76%
linea	2,275,290	-57%
optimism	146,577,945	+103%
taiko	4,075,977	-90%
zksync	1,982,417	-78%
metis-token	924,668	-61%
manta-network	2,816,845	-79%
lisk	555,864	-72%
tokamak-network	—	—
prometeus	—	—
hermez-network-token	—	—
capx-ai	—	—
megaeth	138,918,857	—
adi-token	—	—
citrea	—	—
degate	—	—
derive	—	—
soon-2	—	—
zora	—	—
immutable-x	—	—
altlayer	—	—
blast	—	—
blockstack	—	—
magic	—	—
openledger-2	—	—
bob-build-on-bitcoin	—	—
corn-3	—	—
saakuru-labs	—	—
sophon	—	—
aevo-exchange	—	—
cyberconnect	—	—
aztec	—	—
loopring	—	—
orderly-network	—	—
metal	—	—
status	—	—
cartesi	—	—
pha	—	—
bsquared-network	—	—
coti	—	—
nervos-network	—	—
lumia	—	—
merlin-chain	—	—
islamic-coin	—	—

Showing 20 of 48 assets

06 · let price answer last

Which assets lead on price and relative strength?

Tokamak Network leads the Layer 2 tape on Bitcoin-relative strength at +36% over 90 days. 4 of 29 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 Layer 2?

48 priced assets are assigned to Layer 2, 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.

Rank	Asset	Price	90d	RS-BTC	200-DMA	30d vol	Median volume	Price quality	Activity source	Score	Evidence
1	Starknet STRK	$0.0367	-8.9%	+8.6%	Above	70%	$0	usable	chain + protocol + chain TVL	71.8	96%
2	POL (ex-MATIC) POL	$0.0795	—	—	—	—	$2.5M	usable	chain + protocol + chain TVL	66.5	58%
3	Arbitrum ARB	$0.0008	0.0%	+17%	Below	0%	$0	usable	chain + protocol + chain TVL	57.1	88%
4	Celo CELO	$0.0684	-26%	-8.6%	Below	91%	$5.7M	usable	chain + protocol + chain TVL	53.1	87%
5	Mantle MNT	$1.16	—	—	Above	21%	$16.0K	usable	chain + protocol + chain TVL	46.1	62%
6	Linea LINEA	$0.0024	-38%	-20%	Below	41%	$13.8M	usable	chain + chain TVL	45.1	96%
7	Optimism OP	$0.0924	-26%	-8.7%	Below	56%	$36.5M	usable	chain + chain TVL	41.6	96%
8	Taiko TAIKO	$0.0822	-33%	-16%	Below	654%	$7.7M	usable	chain + protocol + chain TVL	40.3	90%
9	ZKsync ZK	$0.0095	—	—	—	—	$961.4K	usable	chain + protocol + chain TVL	39.8	58%
10	Metis METIS	$2.65	-25%	-7.7%	Below	53%	$2.1M	usable	chain + protocol + chain TVL	33.1	82%
11	Manta Network MANTA	$0.0615	-3.8%	+14%	Below	93%	$7.8M	usable	chain + protocol + chain TVL	32.4	96%
12	Lisk LSK	$0.0811	-37%	-19%	Below	49%	$2.6M	usable	chain + protocol + chain TVL	24.6	96%
13	Tokamak Network TON	$0.0073	+19%	+36%	Above	43%	$0	usable	tape only	63.1	50%
14	Prom PROM	$1.78	-12%	+5.9%	Above	150%	$1.1M	usable	chain TVL	56.5	55%
15	Hermez Network HEZ	$3.10	-5.7%	+12%	Below	10%	$0	usable	tape only	54.3	50%
16	Capx AI CAPX	$0.1536	-7.8%	+9.7%	Below	28%	$333.6K	usable	protocol + chain TVL	53.4	50%
17	MegaETH MEGA	$0.0428	—	—	—	—	$3.7M	usable	chain + chain TVL	51.7	12%
18	ADI ADI	—	—	—	—	—	—	usable	chain TVL	50.0	0%
19	Citrea CTR	—	—	—	—	—	—	usable	protocol + chain TVL	50.0	0%
20	DeGate DG	—	—	—	—	—	—	usable	protocol	50.0	0%
21	Derive DRV	—	—	—	—	—	—	usable	tape only	50.0	0%
22	SOON SOON	—	—	—	—	—	—	usable	protocol + chain TVL	50.0	0%
23	Zora ZORA	—	—	—	—	—	—	usable	tape only	50.0	0%
24	Immutable IMX	$0.1281	—	—	—	—	$522.7K	usable	protocol + chain TVL	48.9	17%
25	AltLayer ALT	$0.0063	—	—	—	—	$452.5K	usable	tape only	48.8	12%
26	Blast BLAST	—	—	—	—	—	—	usable	chain TVL	48.8	5%
27	Stacks STX	$0.1662	—	—	—	—	$471.4K	usable	chain TVL	48.6	17%
28	Treasure MAGIC	$0.0427	—	—	—	—	$172.0K	usable	protocol	48.4	12%
29	OpenLedger OPEN	$0.1577	—	—	—	—	$849.1K	usable	protocol + chain TVL	48.2	12%
30	BOB (Build on Bitcoin) BOB	—	—	—	—	—	—	usable	protocol + chain TVL	48.1	5%
31	Corn CORN	—	—	—	—	—	—	usable	chain TVL	47.6	5%
32	Saakuru SKR	$0.0001	—	—	—	—	$0	usable	chain TVL	47.0	17%
33	Sophon SOPH	$0.0008	-14%	+3.1%	Below	59%	$564	usable	chain TVL	46.8	55%
34	Aevo AEVO	$0.0189	-28%	-11%	Below	51%	$3.1M	usable	tape only	46.7	50%
35	CYBER CYBER	$0.0001	-25%	-7.7%	Below	72%	$0	usable	tape only	44.9	50%
36	Aztec AZTEC	$0.0132	-40%	-22%	—	61%	$5.2M	usable	tape only	43.5	43%
37	Loopring LRC	$0.0123	-27%	-10%	Below	155%	$2.6M	usable	protocol	43.0	55%
38	Orderly ORDER	$0.0366	-38%	-20%	Below	68%	$5.0M	usable	protocol	42.7	55%
39	Metal DAO MTL	$0.2185	-27%	-9.7%	Below	34%	$391.3K	usable	tape only	41.9	50%
40	Status SNT	$0.0070	-30%	-12%	Below	44%	$2.1M	usable	tape only	41.9	50%
41	Cartesi CTSI	$0.0222	-34%	-17%	Below	42%	$1.2M	usable	tape only	41.5	50%
42	PHALA PHA	$0.0220	-34%	-17%	Below	73%	$8.7M	usable	tape only	40.2	50%
43	BSquared Network B2	$0.4265	-36%	-19%	Below	152%	$6.1M	usable	protocol + chain TVL	38.5	55%
44	COTI COTI	$0.0072	-49%	-31%	Below	44%	$2.5M	usable	chain TVL	35.7	55%
45	Nervos Network CKB	$0.0009	-42%	-25%	Below	45%	$2.5M	usable	tape only	35.4	50%
46	Lumia LUMIA	$0.0694	-50%	-32%	Below	199%	$4.4M	usable	tape only	35.0	50%
47	Merlin Chain MERL	$0.0172	-52%	-35%	Below	63%	$3.2M	usable	protocol + chain TVL	34.6	55%
48	Islamic Coin ISLM	$0.0053	-55%	-38%	Below	79%	$10.0K	usable	chain TVL	26.4	55%

Showing 20 of 48 assets

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 — 12 of 48 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 Layer 2 crypto?

Layer 2 crypto refers to cryptocurrency projects grouped by what they actually do rather than by market fashion. This page tracks 48 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 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 -51.7% versus Bitcoin over 52 weeks and -9.2% over 13 weeks on an equal-weight current-member index. 4/29 covered assets are above their 200-day averages as of 2026-07-24.

Which Layer 2 asset has the strongest research score?

Starknet ranks first at 71.8/100: 29.8 + 27.4 + 12.0 + 2.6 = 71.8. It is labelled “Illiquid · research only” with 96% overall evidence and 92% native-economics evidence.

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 2026-07-24; 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 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, 21% ahead of Arbitrum. 3 of 12 assets with comparable change data are growing. Coverage is 12 of the 48 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, 22% ahead of Arbitrum. 3 of 8 assets with comparable change data are growing, fastest at Starknet. Coverage is 10 of the 48 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?

Arbitrum leads Layer 2 crypto on Quarter-end TVL at $1.2B, 22% ahead of POL (ex-MATIC). 2 of 27 assets with comparable change data are growing, fastest at Starknet. Coverage is 33 of the 48 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. 2 of 12 assets with comparable change data are growing. Coverage is 13 of the 48 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, 146% ahead of Arbitrum. 5 of 12 assets with comparable change data are growing, fastest at Optimism. Coverage is 12 of the 48 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 12/48; this is network activity, not automatically token-holder income.