Bitcoin’s move toward $77,000 and Ethereum’s 20% one-day rally have revived speculation that capital could move into selected altcoins, but the market data points to a narrower trade than a broad-based surge across every token. The analysis underlying the figures favored networks with sustained on-chain activity, recurring fees, identifiable token economics and manageable future supply over projects relying mainly on momentum.
Bitcoin traded above its 200-period exponential moving average, or EMA200, after climbing toward $77,000 over three days, according to the report. Ethereum then narrowed the gap to $2,400 following its sharp daily advance. Such moves often improve risk appetite across crypto markets, especially when Bitcoin and Ether stabilize after leading the initial rally.
The report argued that the previous cycle’s pattern — Bitcoin leading upward before a painful market-wide retreat — makes an indiscriminate altcoin rally less likely. Instead, it identified a smaller group of layer-1 networks, decentralized-finance protocols, perpetuals venues and tokenized-asset infrastructure projects with measurable usage and revenue.
Solana leads layer-1 activity metrics
Solana combined one of the strongest short-term price moves with the deepest operating metrics among the layer-1 tokens reviewed. Its token gained 18.48% over three days, while its circulating market value stood near $51.88 billion and fully diluted value, or FDV, was about $56.28 billion, according to the report.
The network held roughly $5.31 billion in total value locked, $15.86 billion in stablecoins and $2.8 billion in 24-hour decentralized-exchange volume. Total value locked measures assets deposited in a protocol ecosystem, while stablecoin balances can indicate available on-chain liquidity.
Solana’s supply profile also appeared relatively mature. About 583 million SOL were circulating, equivalent to 92.2% of the current total supply, the analysis said. The top 10 addresses held approximately 6.58%, a comparatively low concentration among the tokens examined. A smaller difference between circulating market value and FDV reduces the scale of potential future dilution, though it does not remove trading risk.
Sui offered a more speculative version of the layer-1 trade. The token rose 14.82% in three days and had a circulating market value of about $3.03 billion, against a $7.44 billion FDV. Its reported ecosystem activity was far smaller than Solana’s: $427 million in TVL, $466 million in stablecoins and $39 million in daily DEX volume.
The report placed Sui’s released supply at 40.75% and flagged a planned Sept. 1, 2026 unlock of roughly 13.5 million tokens, valued at around $9.93 million under the prices used in the analysis. Releases were expected to continue beyond 2030. Its top 10 addresses held 13.55% of supply, adding another variable for traders assessing liquidity and potential selling pressure.
DeFi tokens show differing links to protocol cash flow
Among DeFi governance tokens, Aave showed the closest alignment between a largely released supply and an established lending business. AAVE rose 13.08% over three days, with a circulating market value of about $1.535 billion and FDV of $1.592 billion, according to the report.
Aave V3 held approximately $16.47 billion in TVL and generated $30.01 million in fees over 30 days, with protocol revenue estimated at $4.08 million. About 97% of AAVE had been released, limiting the remaining dilution overhang. The top 10 addresses held 43.07%, including a staking pool, a V3 contract and an ecosystem reserve.
Uniswap’s UNI token posted a larger three-day gain of 16.98%. The report put its circulating market value at $2.384 billion and FDV at $3.406 billion. Across Uniswap V2, V3 and V4, the protocol had around $3.1 billion in TVL, $79.20 million in 30-day fees and $6.12 million in revenue.
UNI’s ownership structure remains more concentrated. The top 10 addresses accounted for about 52.03% of supply, with governance timelock contracts representing 26.72% and a burn address holding 10.91%, according to the analysis. Those addresses do not carry the same market implications as freely tradeable wallets, but the figures show why raw concentration statistics need context.
Morpho presented a different challenge: substantial lending activity with little direct protocol-layer revenue. Its token gained 8.65% over three days, while Morpho Blue held about $8.93 billion in TVL and produced $16.34 million in 30-day fees, the report said. Protocol revenue was near zero.
The analysis also identified conflicting supply measurements. CoinGecko’s figure showed about 65.7% circulating, while Tokenomist’s tradable or released definition placed the figure closer to 34%. The top 10 addresses held about 64.4%, including a wrapping contract with 39.13% and a seed-round address with 9.01%. For a token whose valuation depends heavily on future governance and value-capture expectations, those supply definitions could shape how traders interpret its FDV.
Hyperliquid’s valuation carries a large unlock overhang
Hyperliquid was the strongest three-day mover in the group, climbing 24.89%, but its valuation leaves it especially exposed to future supply expansion. The report put the token’s circulating market value at $16.41 billion and FDV at $73.75 billion, based on roughly 222 million tokens in circulation, or about 23% of total supply.
The decentralized perpetuals platform reported $1.45 billion in layer-1 TVL, $6.57 billion in stablecoins and $6.27 billion in bridge TVL. It also generated about $48.39 million in 30-day fees and $34.52 million in revenue, placing it among the higher-revenue protocols in the comparison.
Yet 58.1% of supply was allocated across future incentives, core contributors and a foundation, according to the report. A whitepaper-model estimate pointed to a Sept. 5–6 release of roughly 9.92 million tokens. High revenue can support a token’s narrative, but a large gap between current market value and FDV places unusual weight on the pace and destination of unlocks.
Chainlink and Ondo connect token value to on-chain finance
Chainlink rose 15.78% over three days, with a circulating market value of $8.09 billion and an FDV of $10.81 billion. The report said its community staking pool contained 40.88 million LINK and noted that Ondo’s tokenized stocks and ETFs used Chainlink data sources.
That relationship places Chainlink within the infrastructure supporting tokenized financial products rather than solely within the DeFi trading cycle. The report estimated LINK’s circulating rate at 74.8% using CoinGecko data, while Tokenomist’s tradable-float calculation was 58.8%. The top 10 addresses held 30.5%, including official non-circulating wallets and the community staking pool.
Ondo rose 10.19% over three days. Its circulating market value was cited at $1.767 billion, compared with a $3.629 billion FDV. Ondo Yield Assets held about $2.51 billion in TVL, while Ondo Global Markets accounted for around $971 million, according to the analysis.
The supply schedule remains a central consideration. The report estimated 49% to 53% of ONDO had been released and identified a Jan. 18, 2027 unlock of 1.94 billion tokens. Its top 10 addresses held 70.41%, including an official multisignature wallet holding 54.79%.
Across the group, the data favors a more selective market than the “everything rallies” conditions seen in earlier cycles. Protocol fees, stablecoin liquidity, token release schedules and address concentration offer more practical tests of durability than short-term percentage gains alone, particularly for tokens whose largest supply events are still ahead.
For deeper insight into BTC dominance and alt rotations, explore our guide on BTC dominance and its trading impact.
Disclaimer: The content on this page is provided for general informational purposes only and does not represent the views or financial advice of Toobit. We make no guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of this information and shall not be held liable for any errors, omissions, or outcomes resulting from its use. Investing in digital assets involves risk; users should independently evaluate their financial situation and the risks involved. For further details, please consult our Terms of Service and Risk Disclosure.
