Network Fees

Solana generated about 70% more transaction fees than Ethereum on Sept. 22, 2026, while Ethereum still destroyed more tokens through its burn mechanism, according to a DefiLlama snapshot. For institutional allocators, the split is a reminder that gross fee volume and token-supply economics are separate metrics, neither of which alone determines investor return.

• Solana generated about $1.1 million in 24-hour chain fees versus Ethereum’s $649,423, per DefiLlama’s dashboard.
• Ethereum burned $226,298 in reported chain revenue over the same 24 hours, ahead of Solana’s $117,138.
• Over 30 days, Solana’s $23.6 million in fees nearly doubled Ethereum’s $12 million, yet Ethereum’s $2.8 million burn edged out Solana’s $2.66 million.

• $1.1M Solana’s 24-hour chain fees versus Ethereum’s $649,423
• $335B Ethereum’s market cap versus Solana’s $69B, per the Sept. 22 snapshot
• 30% target disinflation rate under SGP-0002, up from Solana’s current 15%

The two blockchains produced sharply different revenue pictures in DefiLlama’s Sept. 22 (Tuesday) dashboard, a divergence first detailed by CryptoSlate. Solana’s fee total led Ethereum’s on both a 24-hour and 30-day basis, while Ethereum’s burned-token figure, the portion of fees removed from circulating supply, stayed ahead across the same windows. The gap between spending and burning matters because higher fees do not automatically benefit a passive coin holder unless that value is destroyed or distributed as yield.

Solana’s Fee Lead Widens to $23.6M Over 30 Days

DefiLlama’s chain fee table showed Solana generating $5.93 million in fees over seven days against Ethereum’s $3.09 million, extending to $23.58 million versus $12.04 million over 30 days. Solana also outpaced Ethereum on application-level activity: $7.7 million in 24-hour app revenue versus $1.9 million, and $18.2 million in app fees versus $8.5 million.

The revenue side inverted that pattern. DefiLlama’s chain revenue table put Solana’s 30-day burn at $2.66 million against Ethereum’s $2.8 million, a far narrower margin than the daily headline implied.

Exact window endpoints were not disclosed, and Ethereum’s shared revenue table displayed a different daily figure of $229,846 elsewhere in the dashboard, underscoring synchronization limits in cross-chain aggregation. Aggregate leadership over a week or a month does not mean either chain topped the other on every single day within it.

Solana Burns Half Its 5,000-Lamport Base Fee, Ethereum Burns All of It

Under Solana’s fee rules, the base charge is 5,000 lamports per signature, split evenly between burning and the block-producing validator. Priority fees, paid by users for faster inclusion, go entirely to validators rather than being burned, so a spike in priority-fee volume can inflate total fees without moving the burn figure.

Ethereum burns its execution base fee in full and directs only priority tips to validators. DefiLlama’s Ethereum adapter also folds blob fees into both total fees and reported burns, meaning two chains reporting similar headline totals can affect token supply very differently depending on fee composition.

Both estimates rely on proxies rather than exact accounting. Solana’s adapter multiplies transaction count by 5,000 lamports despite the protocol charging per signature, and Ethereum’s adapter uses each block’s minimum effective gas price as a stand-in for the true base fee.

Solana’s SGP-0002 Would Double Disinflation to 30%, Pending SIMD-0550

Burning reduces supply relative to what it otherwise would have been, but it does not credit a holder’s wallet or guarantee that circulating supply is actually falling once new issuance is counted. Solana’s accepted SGP-0002 proposal calls for raising annual disinflation from 15% to 30%, though its effect depends entirely on the separate SIMD-0550 change being adopted and activated.

On the staking side, a July 2, 2025 upgrade from Jito lets validators route priority fees to their delegated stakers, but validator commissions and individual choices mean the sharing is not uniform across the network.

Ethereum’s own Merge documentation cites roughly 1,700 ETH in daily issuance, but that example assumes about 14 million ETH staked and cannot be treated as a current 2026 issuance figure.

Nearly comparable 30-day burns against Solana’s $69 billion market cap, far smaller than Ethereum’s $335 billion, mean the same dollar figure represents a larger share of Solana’s valuation. Without matched-period issuance data for both chains, neither fee table can establish a net supply advantage.

The CCS read. Institutional desks pricing SOL or ETH on fee data alone are missing the denominator. A validator’s fee income is not a staker’s yield until commissions are applied, and a burn figure is not a supply contraction until issuance is netted out, points that matter more for treasury allocators than for retail dashboards, as our coverage of Bitmine’s Ethereum accumulation has shown.

The near-term variable is SIMD-0550, the proposal that must pass before Solana’s disinflation rate can actually move from 15% toward the 30% ceiling set by SGP-0002. Until DefiLlama or another provider publishes matched-period issuance alongside these fee and burn tables, neither network’s holders can translate this week’s fee gap into a defensible return comparison.