Ethereum is rapidly transforming into the operating system of global finance, yet the reward the network receives for its services is at a catastrophically low level. A vivid illustration of this imbalance is the launch of its own Layer 2 (L2) blockchain by Robinhood.
Data analysis reveals a glaring injustice: in one day of operation, Robinhood earned approximately $109,400, while the underlying Ethereum network received only $716 for enabling this activity. Simply put, for every dollar passed to the network, Robinhood keeps about $153 for itself. In the first two weeks after the launch of Robinhood L2, it generated over $800,000 in revenue, paying Ethereum only about $1,500. This situation suggests that the Layer 1 network acts as a "janitor," receiving pennies for maintaining the entire system, while the main profits accumulate at the application layer.
The Essence of the Paradox: From Scarcity to Value Dilution
The root of the problem lies in the changing model of value distribution. Previously, high fees on the Ethereum mainnet made ETH a scarce asset, burning significant amounts of coins. However, with the mass migration of activity to L2 networks, the situation has changed dramatically. Fees on the mainnet have fallen from over $2 to less than $0.02, and on the L2s themselves, by more than 95%.
Currently, Ethereum burns only about 25 coins per day, while issuance to stakers is approximately 20,000 ETH per week. As a result, the supply of ETH is growing by almost 0.85% per year, significantly exceeding the level recorded after the transition to Proof-of-Stake. The passive ETH holder has become the only participant in the system whose share is constantly being diluted. The largest businesses built "on the rails" of Ethereum—stablecoin issuers—hold their reserves in US Treasury bonds and own virtually no ETH themselves.
Who Benefits from Neutrality?
A concrete example shows how power is distributed. The company BitMine owns more than 5.77 million ETH (about 4.8% of all existing coins) and controls approximately 12% of all ETH locked in staking. This demonstrates that the benefits of the current model accrue to large validators and L2 operators, not the broad base of token holders.
There is an unresolved paradox: institutions want cheap, neutral, and seamless settlements, while token holders want to charge "rent" for these settlements. The better Ethereum performs its role as a neutral infrastructure, the harder it becomes to charge a fee without destroying that neutrality. High price—activity leaves; low price—the network is indispensable but not profitable.
Some experts predict that the hype around Robinhood L2 will soon fade: 40% of transactions there are spam and failed operations, and due to zero fees, there is no real economy. After the promotional period ends, fees will stabilize at a much lower level.
My expert opinion: Ethereum has fallen into the trap of its own success. Having become an indispensable base for the decentralized economy, it has lost the ability to monetize this indispensability. The solution lies not in raising fees, but in rethinking tokenomics and finding new mechanisms to extract value from that very "neutrality" which is its main asset. Otherwise, ETH risks remaining merely expensive fuel for other people's profitable machines.