Assessing the Economic Value and Investment Implications of Major Blockchain Tokens
January 20, 2026
Finance

Assessing the Economic Value and Investment Implications of Major Blockchain Tokens

Understanding Why Ownership of Blockchain Native Coins Differs from Traditional Equity and Its Impact on XRP, Ethereum, and Solana Investors

Summary

Investors purchasing native coins of prominent blockchains such as XRP, Ethereum, and Solana often expect direct economic benefits or governance rights akin to stock ownership. However, these cryptocurrencies typically do not channel economic value directly to token holders through mechanisms like dividends. Instead, value capture occurs via supply contraction, staking rewards, demand for working capital, and monetary premiums, mechanisms that differ substantively from traditional equity models. Appreciating these nuances is crucial for investment decision-making in this evolving sector.

Key Points

Ownership of native blockchain tokens like XRP, Ethereum, and Solana does not equate to receiving direct economic returns such as dividends typical of stock ownership.
Most blockchain-generated economic activity fees are charged in tokens other than the native coin or stablecoins, limiting direct value transfer to native token holders.
Alternative mechanisms, such as token supply burning, staking rewards, demand for token reserves, and monetary premium, offer pathways for investor returns distinct from traditional equity models.

Many investors approach native cryptocurrency tokens from major blockchains with the expectation that owning such coins equates to holding a slice of the blockchain's economic activity or governance, analogous to stock ownership in traditional markets. This expectation frequently results in misunderstandings around what owning tokens like XRP, Ethereum (ETH), or Solana (SOL) truly entails.

It is a fundamental misapprehension to assume that holding these native coins guarantees a direct share in the economic output of their respective blockchains or provides governance rights comparable to corporate stockholders. Such interpretations neglect the crucial differences in value distribution between cryptocurrency ecosystems and conventional equity models.

Most blockchains do not transfer the majority of the economic value generated on their platforms directly to coinholders as dividends or similar payouts. Instead, decentralized applications (dApps) operating on these chains often impose fees which are denominated in various forms — including their proprietary tokens, stablecoins, or alternative tokens — that do not consistently translate into continuous buying pressure or earning streams for holders of the native blockchain coin.

To illustrate, data from January 16 revealed that Ethereum accrued approximately $316,815 in chain-related fees over the prior 24 hours, alongside $15.3 million in application-level fees. Solana reported around $1 million in chain fees and about $12.1 million in application fees during the same interval. However, token holders of these blockchains do not receive direct portions of these fees, nor is there established industry anticipation for such payouts to be instituted.

This fee-to-holder disconnect indicates the absence of a traditional value capture mechanism, challenging investment theses predicated solely on the belief that elevated on-chain activity will lead to commensurate tokenholder returns.

Despite this, it would be premature to divest entirely from these assets on that reasoning alone. Rather than functioning like conventional equities, these cryptocurrencies exhibit characteristics more akin to a hybrid form comprising commodities, platform toll tokens, and monetary assets. Consequently, investors may realize returns through alternative channels.

Specifically, the return potential for investors in blockchain tokens can manifest through four principal mechanisms: reduction in token supply, rewards from staking, working capital demand by institutional users, and a potential monetary premium if a blockchain becomes the dominant venue for certain financial or smart contract activities.

Ethereum exemplifies these value capture mechanisms most clearly. Every transaction on Ethereum imposes a base fee that is "burned" — permanently removed from circulation. Although this mechanism does not function like a dividend in that no individual retains these fees, the aggregate effect over time reduces token supply, effectively enhancing each remaining coin's stake in the network's future utility.

Complementing fee burning, Ethereum's staking system allows holders to lock up tokens to support network security in exchange for yield payments. This arrangement constitutes an alternative income stream, enabling participants to earn from their holdings rather than merely possessing them passively.

Solana employs similar principles, where staking both incentivizes holders and supply reduction occurs through token burns, combining to create intertwined value capture avenues.

XRP, however, operates differently within this landscape. The XRP Ledger (XRPL) incurs transaction costs that are destroyed rather than rewarded to validators, precluding staking yields as a return mechanism. Additionally, the amount of XRP destroyed per on-chain activity is modest, limiting the impact of supply contraction over time.

Nevertheless, the XRPL incorporates a structural demand factor via reserve requirements. Users must maintain minimum XRP balances to fund accounts and specific ledger objects, creating a baseline holding necessity that induces persistent demand for XRP. If usage of the XRPL expands, this reserve-induced demand has the potential to increase accordingly.

Given these diverse and sometimes non-intuitive mechanisms, it is critical for investors to allocate capital in these cryptocurrencies with a clear understanding of how value accrues to token holders. Clarity on return drivers helps avoid misinterpretations that could lead to premature divestments or overestimated expectations of returns from native coin ownership.

Risks
  • The absence of direct fee distribution mechanisms to native token holders complicates value capture and may not meet some investors' expectations.
  • Staking rewards and supply contraction effects depend on sustained network activity and policy dynamics, which may vary over time.
  • XRP's lack of staking yields and relatively small supply burn implied it may have less direct economic return, relying primarily on reserve demand which can fluctuate with network use.
Disclosure
This article presents an analytical perspective on value mechanisms within selected blockchains and is not intended as investment advice.
Search Articles
Category
Finance

Financial News

Ticker Sentiment
XRP - neutral ETH - neutral SOL - neutral
Related Articles
Cryptocurrency Market Holds Steady Amid Anticipation of US-Iran Developments

The cryptocurrency market demonstrates a cautious stance as Bitcoin approaches the $69,000 mark. Oth...

Ripple Joins Forces with UAE Digital Bank Zand for Stablecoin Integration Amid XRP Decline

Ripple has announced a partnership with UAE-based digital bank Zand to collaborate on stablecoin ini...

Amazon's Investment Propels Beta Technologies Stock in After-Hours Trading

Beta Technologies Inc, an aerospace company specializing in electric aircraft and propulsion systems...

Treasury Secretary Highlights Urgency for Crypto Regulatory Clarity Amidst Coinbase Opposition

In light of recent fluctuations in cryptocurrency markets, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent emp...

Significant Declines in Dogecoin and Shiba Inu Prompt Technical Analysis on Key Support Levels

Dogecoin and Shiba Inu experienced notable price drops recently, with both cryptocurrencies losing g...

XRP's Market Prospects in 2026: Assessing the Path Toward $1

The cryptocurrency sector is experiencing significant downturns at the beginning of 2026, with XRP, ...