Ethereum, Solana and Hyperliquid Can All Win, ARK Researcher Says

Highlights:

• ARK Invest researcher Lorenzo Valente says Ethereum, Solana and Hyperliquid use different models for value capture.
• Ethereum expands through Layer 2 networks, while Solana keeps more activity and fees within its ecosystem.
• Valente sees Hyperliquid offering the most direct link between platform revenue and demand for HYPE tokens.

ARK Invest digital asset researcher Lorenzo Valente says Ethereum, Solana and Hyperliquid should not be judged as if they follow the same business model. Instead, each network generates fees differently, expands its ecosystem and passes economic value back to its native asset.

Valente shared his analysis in a September 2 post on X, comparing Ethereum to McDonald’s, Solana to Chipotle and Hyperliquid to In-N-Out. His main argument is that all three networks can succeed, but investors need to understand how their models work differently. “Things changed in the last 10 years. This piece looks at the trade-offs between ETH, SOL, and HYPE,” Valente wrote.

ARK Researcher Likens Ethereum to McDonald’s, Solana to Chipotle and Hyperliquid to In-N-Out

ARK Invest researcher Lorenzo Valente compared Ethereum, Solana and Hyperliquid to McDonald’s, Chipotle and In-N-Out, arguing that the three networks represent fundamentally different L1… pic.twitter.com/qKRhvg2MTp

— Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) September 3, 2026

Ethereum Expands Through Layer 2 Networks but Captures Less Revenue

Valente compared Ethereum with McDonald’s because both rely heavily on outside operators to expand. Ethereum has increasingly moved transaction activity to Layer 2 networks such as Base, Arbitrum and OP Mainnet. These networks process transactions separately before sending data back to Ethereum for settlement.

The approach allows Ethereum to support more activity without handling every transaction directly. However, Valente believes Ethereum does not capture enough fees from the Layer 2 ecosystem it supports.

He argued that Ethereum has built a highly successful “franchise” system but charges relatively little for using its settlement infrastructure. The issue became more noticeable after EIP-4844 lowered the cost of sending Layer 2 data to Ethereum through blobs. As a result, Layer 2 networks can grow their own businesses and collect fees while paying comparatively low costs to Ethereum.

Solana Keeps More Activity and Fees Inside Its Network

Solana follows a different approach. Valente compared the blockchain with Chipotle because more of its operations remain within one integrated system. Applications generally run directly on Solana rather than depending on a separate network for transaction execution. Consequently, transaction fees, priority fees and other sources of network value remain closer to the Solana ecosystem.

Valente also pointed to maximal extractable value, commonly called MEV. MEV refers to additional value validators or other network participants can capture by controlling how transactions are ordered. Because Solana keeps execution within its base network, Valente believes it can retain more of this economic activity than Ethereum’s Layer 2-focused structure.

However, the approach also concentrates more responsibility on Solana itself. The network has to handle the infrastructure and risks that come with keeping activity inside one system.

Hyperliquid Creates a More Direct Path From Fees to HYPE

Valente compared Hyperliquid with In-N-Out because its model is more focused and vertically integrated. Hyperliquid built its ecosystem mainly around trading, while its Assistance Fund uses eligible protocol revenue to buy HYPE tokens from the market. That creates a relatively short path between platform activity and demand for HYPE.

Valente also highlighted Hyperliquid’s lack of traditional venture capital backing and its tightly integrated infrastructure. HIP-3 has since allowed outside builders to launch markets while Hyperliquid continues to provide the underlying trading infrastructure. Still, the model carries greater concentration risk. Hyperliquid depends more heavily on one ecosystem, its core team and trading-related revenue than the broader Ethereum model.

Valente’s broader point is that Ethereum, Solana and Hyperliquid represent different approaches to blockchain value capture. Ethereum prioritizes ecosystem expansion, Solana keeps more execution inside its own network, while Hyperliquid links platform revenue more directly with HYPE purchases. Rather than declaring one model the clear winner, Valente argued that all three can work when executed clearly and effectively.