Unveiling the Truth Behind Network Valuations: A Deep Dive into Mercenary Volume
The recent tweet from Solana’s official account has sparked a heated debate about the authenticity of network valuations. The tweet, which has been deemed a “sh*tpost,” called for users to “submit” Starknet “straight to 0.” While the tweet’s numbers were later found to be incorrect, with Starknet’s fully diluted valuation being around $900 million, not $15 billion, it raises a crucial question: how do we measure the gap between a network’s value and its actual delivery?
The answer lies in understanding the metrics that matter. Market capitalization, fully diluted valuation (FDV), and activity metrics such as spot DEX volume and perpetual futures volume are essential in evaluating a network’s performance. However, these metrics can be inflated by fictitious volume, making it challenging to determine a network’s true value. Real Economic Value (REV), which combines chain fees and MEV tips, provides a clearer signal of real demand, separating it from mercenary volume driven by incentives rather than economic activity.
The Metrics Stack that Matters
DefiLlama defines REV as chain fees plus MEV tips, providing a more accurate measure of a network’s economic activity. By analyzing data from mid-January 2026, we can see that Solana reports $121.8 billion in spot and $32.4 billion in perpetual futures, representing a combined trading activity of $154.2 billion against an FDV of $90.7 billion, a ratio of 0.59. In contrast, Starknet’s $208 million in spot and $36.4 billion in perpetual futures, totaling $36.6 billion, with an FDV of $900 million, raises concerns about the authenticity of its volume.
Arbitrum’s $15 billion in spot and $37.8 billion in perpetual futures, for a total value of $52.8 billion against an FDV of $2.2 billion, also warrants scrutiny. The concentration of volume on a single perpetual exchange, Variational, which accounts for $24.9 billion of this volume, and the launch of a points program, suggests that the volume may be driven by mercenary capital rather than organic demand.
Low Gear Ratios Indicate Durability Issues, Not Warranties
A low FDV-to-volume ratio does not necessarily indicate undervaluation or a buying opportunity. Instead, it raises questions about durability: will the valuation rise as volume proves sticky and monetizable, or will volume revert to the mean as incentives fade and mercenary capital moves on? The answer depends on whether the activity is organic or incentivized and whether it is concentrated or spread across multiple venues and use cases.
Solana’s ratio of 0.59, with volume spread across dozens of venues and daily REV consistently exceeding that of most Layer 2 blockchains, indicates continued organic demand. In contrast, Starknet’s 0.025 ratio, with volume dominated by a single perpetual exchange and explicit farming incentives, faces a tougher test. The persistence of volume after the points season ends will determine whether the ratio reflects a real opportunity or a temporary distortion.
REV provides the clearest signal separating real demand from churn. If a chain posts $50 billion in monthly perpetual volume but collects $10,000 in fees daily, the volume is driving points accumulation rather than economic demand. In contrast, networks that monetize throughput display this in fee data that scales with activity levels.
Concentration serves as an important future indicator because if more than 50% of a chain’s volume is tied to a single venue, it is more a case of the cycle of a single protocol than broad ecosystem adoption. Points programs create short-term spikes that distort metrics for months until the real test comes after token launch, where farmers reassess execution quality and fee structure without additional incentives.
Solana shows healthier patterns with volume spread across major DEXs and perpetual activity split across multiple venues, suggesting true product-market fit. In contrast, Starknet generates a monthly REV of around $250,000 on a trading volume of $36.6 billion, while Solana generates a REV of over $30 million.
Cosmos (ATOM) represents a structural edge case with an FDV of nearly $4 billion, but ecosystem activity occurs on app chains like Osmosis and dYdX rather than the hub itself. This means that low DEX and perpetual volume does not capture the real utility, which is focused on interchain communication and shared security infrastructure, where token value comes from coordination rather than direct trading throughput.
In conclusion, the tweet from Solana’s official account may have been theater, but it raised a crucial question about network valuations. By analyzing the metrics that matter, including REV, concentration, and durability, we can separate real demand from mercenary volume and make more informed decisions about the true value of a network. For more information, visit https://cryptoslate.com/solanas-public-attack-on-starknet-exposes-how-billions-in-mercenary-volume-are-artificially-pumping-network-valuations-right-now/
