Ethereum is rapidly transforming into an operating system for global finance, yet it receives laughably little compensation for this role. I conducted my own analysis of the situation, and the figures that emerge make one ponder the future of the entire ecosystem.
A clear example is the Robinhood blockchain. In a single day, this layer-2 (L2) network earned approximately $109,400, while Ethereum itself received only $716 from it. Simple math: for every dollar paid to the network, Robinhood keeps about $153 for itself. In the first two weeks after its launch, Robinhood L2 earned over $800,000, "kicking back" roughly $1,500 to Ethereum. As independent analyst Shanaka Anselma Perera aptly noted, Ethereum in this scheme is the "janitor," paid to maintain the entire system while businesses take the lion's share of the profits.
What is the essence of the paradox?
Perera emphasizes that these estimates are at the network level for a single day, excluding off-chain costs and corporate profits. Nevertheless, this is the most honest "live picture" of the cryptocurrency's strange problem. The specialist traces the roots back to July 1, 2026, when the non-profit structure Ethereum Institutional became the "front door" for banks and sovereign funds, gathering executives from companies managing assets worth approximately $250 trillion.
On the same day, Robinhood launched its L2 network based on Ethereum for tokenized stocks in over 120 countries. Ethereum, in the analyst's words, opened a "courthouse," and Robinhood opened "shops" around it, taking all the margin and customers for itself. Meanwhile, the company did nothing wrong—it simply followed Ethereum's roadmap. As early as March, the Ethereum Foundation acknowledged that layer-2 networks had turned into "zones of control."
From an engineering standpoint, everything worked flawlessly: fees on the main network dropped from over $2 to less than $0.02, and on L2 by more than 95%. However, it was precisely the expensive fees on the main network that once made ETH scarce. Now, according to my calculations, Ethereum burns about 25 coins per day, while issuing approximately 20,000 per week to stakers. As a result, supply is growing by nearly 0.85% per year, exceeding the level at the time of the network's transition to Proof-of-Stake.
Who ultimately benefits?
The expert's main conclusion: value has not disappeared but has changed recipients. Previously, Ethereum burned fees, and scarcity rewarded all holders equally. Now, the margin goes to layer-2 network companies, and the new issuance goes to stakers. The passive ETH holder has become the only participant in the system whose share is being diluted.
Meanwhile, the largest businesses "on Ethereum's rails"—stablecoin issuers—hold reserves in U.S. government bonds and own almost no ETH themselves. The analyst demonstrated with a concrete example: on July 14, the company BitMine disclosed that it holds more than 5.77 ETH—about 4.8% of all existing coins—and its share in staking equals approximately 12% of all locked ETH.
"Beneath all this lies an unresolved paradox. Institutions want settlements that are cheap, neutral, and invisible, while token holders want a 'rent' charged for settlements," Perera stated.
As the analyst explained, if the price is high, activity leaves; if it is near zero, the network becomes indispensable but not profitable. The better Ethereum becomes as neutral infrastructure, the harder it is to charge a fee without destroying that neutrality.
A more restrained view was expressed by Mikko Otaamaa, co-founder of Trading Protocol. According to him, the hype around Robinhood will soon fade: currently, 40% of transactions are spam and failed operations, and "due to free fees, there is no real economy." In his forecast, after the promotional period ends, fees will stabilize at a much lower level.
My conclusion: Ethereum has become a hostage to its own success. The more invisible and cheap the network becomes, the less value it extracts for its holders. While L2 solutions and stablecoin issuers reap the rewards, the average ETH investor risks being left with a diluting share and no significant price catalyst. This is a structural problem that the community will have to address if it wants to preserve Ethereum not only as infrastructure but also as an investment asset.