In the evolving world of Web3, few topics spark as much debate as Layer1 (L1) blockchain profitability. How do we assess the financial health of major networks like Ethereum and Solana? Is token issuance a real cost, or just a redistribution mechanism? And how should investors interpret these dynamics when evaluating long-term value?
This article unpacks the complex relationship between L1 valuation, blockchain profitability, and token issuance, offering clarity amid conflicting narratives from leading voices in crypto.
Understanding Blockchain Profitability: The Traditional Framework
When assessing any business, analysts often use a simple formula:
Profit = Revenue – Costs
Applied to blockchains, this translates to:
- Revenue: Total transaction fees paid by users
- Costs: Token issuance (inflation) used to incentivize validators or miners
Using this model, early Proof-of-Work (PoW) Ethereum appeared fundamentally unprofitable. All gas fees went directly to miners, leaving zero revenue for the network itself. Meanwhile, high ETH issuance diluted holders—making the chain economically unsustainable by traditional metrics.
👉 Discover how modern blockchains are redefining profitability with new economic models.
But times have changed. The post-merge Ethereum operates under a completely different paradigm.
The Post-Merge Ethereum: A Profitability Turnaround
Three key upgrades transformed Ethereum’s economics:
- EIP-1559 (August 2021): Introduced fee burning. A portion of every transaction fee (the base fee) is permanently removed from circulation, making ETH deflationary during periods of high usage.
- The Merge (September 2022): Transitioned from PoW to Proof-of-Stake (PoS), slashing annual issuance by over 80%.
- MEV-Boost: Enabled validators to earn additional revenue from Maximal Extractable Value (MEV), increasing their income without raising user costs.
Today, Ethereum’s profitability hinges on four variables:
- Base fees – Burned, reducing supply
- Priority fees (tips) – Paid to validators
- MEV rewards – Captured by validators
- ETH issuance – Incentivizes staking but adds inflationary pressure
Despite ongoing issuance, Ethereum became net-positive in 2023, meaning more ETH is burned than issued during peak activity. This shift marks a milestone: Ethereum now runs a profitable protocol—at least under the traditional revenue-minus-costs lens.
Is Token Issuance Really a Cost?
Here's where the debate intensifies.
Critics like Jon Charbonneau and Anatoly Yakovenko argue that treating token issuance as a "cost" misunderstands PoS economics. Unlike PoW, where miners sell newly minted tokens (creating sell pressure), PoS allows holders to stake and earn inflation rewards directly.
Imagine a central bank printing money—but distributing it equally to all citizens. No one is diluted; everyone gains nominally, though real purchasing power depends on broader economic factors. In PoS systems like Ethereum, stakers receive their share of new tokens—effectively neutralizing dilution.
Thus, the argument goes: if you can participate in inflation via staking, why treat issuance as a loss?
But there's a catch: non-stakers are diluted.
Anyone holding unstaked ETH—whether for security (cold wallets), DeFi strategies, or convenience—experiences relative value erosion compared to stakers. While the system isn’t zero-sum due to EIP-1559 burns, it creates a two-tier ownership structure:
- Stakers: Gain issuance + tips + MEV
- Non-stakers: Only benefit from price appreciation and deflationary burns
This leads to an important insight: blockchain profitability isn't just about net income—it's about value distribution.
👉 See how staking transforms passive holdings into active income streams.
Solana’s Economic Model: High Issuance, Low Fees
Now consider Solana, a high-throughput L1 known for ultra-low transaction costs.
Unlike Ethereum, Solana does not burn fees. Its current model includes:
- Transaction fees: Split between validators ("leaders") and burned (after recent governance changes, 100% now goes to validators)
- High token issuance: Used to secure the network through staking incentives
Under the traditional profit formula, Solana appears deeply unprofitable—issuance far exceeds fee revenue.
Yet Solana supporters argue this misses the point. For them, value accrues through participation, not scarcity. SOL holders who stake receive inflation rewards and validator payouts, offsetting dilution.
However, challenges remain:
- Extremely low fees encourage spam attacks, requiring ongoing protocol adjustments
- High inflation pressures non-stakers more severely than on Ethereum
- Lower burn mechanics mean less deflationary counterbalance
Still, Solana’s approach reflects a different philosophy: prioritize scalability and user growth over immediate profitability.
PoW vs. PoS: Divergent Value Accrual Models
It's crucial to recognize that value accumulation differs fundamentally across consensus mechanisms.
In PoW chains like Bitcoin:
- No native staking mechanism exists
- Miners receive 100% of new BTC and all transaction fees
- They must sell rewards to cover electricity and hardware costs → consistent market sell pressure
- Holders gain nothing from issuance → pure dilution
Bitcoin maximalists counter that BTC shouldn’t be evaluated like an equity or protocol—it's digital gold, valued for scarcity and monetary premium, not cash flow.
But economically, PoW lacks built-in value return mechanisms for holders. Profitability metrics don’t apply cleanly because there’s no way for users to capture network income.
In contrast, PoS enables direct value capture via staking—making profitability discussions far more relevant.
FAQ: Common Questions About L1 Profitability
Q: Can a blockchain truly be "profitable"?
A: Yes—but only in net-burn terms (like post-EIP-1559 Ethereum). True profitability occurs when fee revenue exceeds validator rewards and issuance.
Q: Should I care if my L1 is profitable?
A: If you're a passive holder, yes. Profitable chains tend to be deflationary or low-inflation, protecting your stake from dilution.
Q: Does staking eliminate inflation risk?
A: Only if you participate. Unstaked holders are still diluted relative to stakers and the overall supply growth.
Q: Why don’t all chains burn fees like Ethereum?
A: Burn models require strong fee markets. Chains with low fees (e.g., Solana) can’t sustain burns without risking validator underpayment.
Q: Is lower issuance always better?
A: Not necessarily. Some issuance is needed for security. The goal is efficient issuance—enough to secure the chain without excessive dilution.
Q: How does MEV affect profitability?
A: MEV boosts validator income but doesn’t directly benefit non-stakers. However, it strengthens network security by increasing staking yields.
Final Thoughts: Toward Sustainable L1 Economics
In an ideal world, token issuance would approach zero—achieved through robust fee markets and efficient consensus design. Ethereum is moving in this direction, aiming for long-term deflation through continued upgrades.
Meanwhile, alternative L1s like Solana prioritize growth and accessibility, accepting higher inflation as a trade-off.
The core takeaway?
There is no one-size-fits-all model. Investors must evaluate each chain based on:
- Fee capture efficiency
- Inflation distribution fairness
- Staking participation incentives
- Long-term sustainability
And while “blockchain profitability” may sound like a Wall Street concept forced onto decentralized systems, it’s increasingly central to understanding which networks can endure—and thrive—over time.
👉 Explore next-gen blockchain economics and find platforms aligning with sustainable value growth.