Solana flips Ethereum in fees, while ETH holds the burn lead

According to a Sept. 22 dashboard snapshot from data provider DefiLlama, Solana generated higher user fees than Ethereum, whereas Ethereum burned a greater amount in fees. This divergence highlights how user spending can flow to validators and applications without directly benefiting individuals who merely hold the network’s native coin.

The dashboard for Solana registered roughly $1.1 million in chain fees over a 24-hour period alongside $117,138 in reported chain revenue. Meanwhile, Ethereum’s metrics indicated $649,423 in fees and $226,298 in revenue.

For both platforms, the revenue metric measures fees flagged as burned, meaning tokens are removed from circulation without distributing cash to holders.

Solana also outpaced Ethereum across displayed seven-day and 30-day fee totals, while Ethereum maintained a smaller advantage in reported burns. Nonetheless, these dollar figures do not definitively establish which asset presents a superior economic profile, as variables such as new token issuance, network valuation, and the proportion of validator earnings shared with stakers complicate the analysis.

Over a 30-day window, DefiLlama’s chain fee table recorded $23.6 million for Solana versus $12 million for Ethereum. In the corresponding chain revenue table, the burn comparison showed $2.66 million for Solana and $2.8 million for Ethereum.

Because exact start and end times for these windows were not specified, and Ethereum’s shared revenue table listed a distinct daily figure of $229,846, the comparison is limited to the displayed aggregates and carries synchronization constraints.

Longer timeframes also soften the impact of single-day figures. Ethereum’s 30-day reported burn exceeded Solana’s by only a narrow margin, even though its 24-hour overview displayed a much wider gap. Furthermore, leading in aggregate over seven or 30 days does not signify that either network held the top spot on every individual day.

How fees reach validators, stakers and apps

Solana’s fee structure sets a base cost of 5,000 lamports per signature. Half of this base fee is burned, while the other half goes to the block-producing validator. Additionally, validators collect 100% of the priority fees paid by users to expedite transactions.

This breakdown makes fee composition critical. An increase in priority fees boosts validator earnings without increasing the amount burned, meaning higher overall fees can exist alongside a relatively modest burn total.

Ethereum burns execution base fees, whereas priority tips are routed directly to validators. DefiLlama’s data-collection script for Ethereum factors blob fees into both total fees and reported burns. Consequently, two similar figures for total user spending can impact token supply differently based on the underlying fee types.

These data-collection tools, or adapters, rely on estimates for portions of the reported burns. DefiLlama’s Solana adapter calculates estimated base fees by multiplying transaction volume by 5,000 lamports, although the protocol actually bills per signature.

For Ethereum, the adapter uses the lowest effective gas price in each block as a proxy for the execution base fee, pulling blob data separately from Dune. Neither estimate should be viewed as an exact, fully reconciled count of destroyed tokens.

While burning limits supply expansion compared to what it would have been otherwise, it does not credit individual wallets, prove that overall supply is shrinking, or guarantee price appreciation. These factors are distinct from the amount users spend on transactions.

When staking through a validator, the validator’s earnings do not automatically translate to earnings for every participant. Solana’s official staking documentation outlines how inflationary rewards are divided among validators and delegated stake accounts, with validator commissions altering the final payout received by delegators.

Yields also fluctuate based on overall network stake and validator performance. These newly minted rewards remain separate from user fee revenue.

On July 2, 2025, the Solana staking infrastructure project Jito launched an upgrade enabling validators to share priority fees with their stakers. Because this distribution relies entirely on validator discretion and commission rates, the sharing mechanism does not convert all chain fees into a uniform return for SOL stakers.

For a standard token holder, an important distinction exists between simply owning the asset and participating in a specific reward program.

Passive holders do not earn validator payouts just because chain fees increase, and stakers must verify which rewards are included and what deductions apply before relying on a quoted yield as fee income.

Applications serve as another hub for economic activity. The Sept. 22 overviews tracked $7.7 million in 24-hour app revenue on Solana compared to $1.9 million on Ethereum, with corresponding app fees totaling $18.2 million and $8.5 million.

DefiLlama distinguishes application metrics from standard gas fees. It also defines chain REV as chain fees combined with maximal extractable value (MEV) tips. While REV captures a broader view of transaction spending, adding it directly to chain fees would result in double-counting.

Valuation and issuance change the investment question

Ethereum’s larger dollar-denominated burn coincides with a significantly higher market valuation. In the same Sept. 22 snapshots, market capitalizations stood at $335 billion for ETH and $69 billion for SOL. Because their 30-day reported burns are nearly comparable, Solana’s burn accounts for a much larger share of its displayed market capitalization.

Calculating a holder’s yield requires a separate formula that weighs estimated periodic burns against a single point-in-time valuation, omitting any consideration of tokens minted during that timeframe. A higher gross burn relative to market value can still occur alongside new issuance that outpaces the burn.

Ethereum’s supply design makes this balance clear: net supply is a function of both issuance and burning. An example in its Merge documentation citing roughly 1,700 ETH burned per day assumes about 14 million staked ETH, meaning it cannot be used as a current September 2026 issuance figure.

Without matched-period issuance data for both networks, these fee breakdowns cannot prove whether either chain holds a net supply advantage or offers superior investment returns.

Solana’s approved SGP-0002 proposal aims to raise the annual disinflation rate from 15% to 30%, though this change is strictly dependent on the acceptance and activation of SIMD-0550. Its actual monetary impact will depend on how it is implemented.

For investors comparing SOL and ETH, the critical missing data points are a matched-period accounting of issued and burned tokens, alongside the actual fees distributed after commissions.

Ultimately, the September data reveals stronger fee generation on Solana alongside a higher reported dollar burn on Ethereum. Translating either finding into an investment return requires accounting for what actually reaches the holder, how much new supply is introduced, and the valuation paid by the buyer.