One of the most striking and troubling paradoxes of the modern crypto industry is unfolding before us. Ethereum, while transforming into the base layer for global finance, receives disproportionately little for this role. The situation is so telling that it can be considered a systemic problem requiring immediate rethinking.
The imbalance is most clearly demonstrated by the example of Robinhood launching its own Layer 2 (L2) blockchain. Analysis shows that in one day of operation, Robinhood L2 earned about $109,400, while the base Ethereum network received only $716 for supporting this activity. This means that for every dollar sent to the network, the L2 operator keeps approximately $153 for itself. In the first two weeks of operation, Robinhood L2 earned over $800,000, paying Ethereum only about $1,500. This state of affairs figuratively but accurately characterizes Ethereum as a "janitor" paid to maintain the entire system, while the main profits are taken by those building businesses on top of this infrastructure.
The essence of the paradox
It is important to emphasize that these figures reflect net revenue at the network level, excluding off-chain expenses and corporate profits. Nevertheless, this is the most honest "live picture" of a strange problem. From an engineering standpoint, everything worked flawlessly: fees in the main network fell from over $2 to less than $0.02, and on Layer 2 networks by more than 95%. However, it was the high fees in the main network that once made ETH a scarce asset. Now, Ethereum burns about 25 coins per day and issues 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.
The key conclusion from the expert community is that 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 companies, while 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 US government bonds and own almost no ETH themselves.
Who ultimately benefits
The situation exposes an unresolved paradox: institutions want settlements that are cheap, neutral, and seamless, while token holders want "rent" charged for settlements. 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 for it without destroying that neutrality.
There is also a more restrained view: 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. After the promotional period ends, fees will stabilize at a much lower level, only exacerbating the fundamental problem of monetizing the base layer.
My expert opinion: We are witnessing a classic "platform paradox." Ethereum has become so efficient and cheap that its own economic model is now under threat. Solving this dilemma—perhaps through implementing mechanisms to extract part of the value at the protocol level or revising the issuance model—will become a key issue for the network's survival as an independent asset, rather than just a "utility service" for financial applications.