As per ARK Invest Digital Assets Research Director Lorenzo Valente, blockchain networks such as Solana, Hyperliquid and Ethereum may all serve a general purpose but do not function under the same economic model.
In an X post, he compared the three blockchain networks with fast-food chains to put forward how different blockchain architectures can rise, generate income and gain value.
In the post he compares Ethereum with McDonald, Solana with Chipotle and Hyperliquid with In-N-Out were actively compared to create a distinction. The distinction emphasizes why blockchain networks necessitate different valuation frameworks relying on their business structures.
Ethereum Mirrors McDonald’s Franchise Model
Valente’s article states that Ethereum is relevant to McDonald’s. They are viewed as systems that hand out an underlying platform for sole operators. McDonald’s owns its brand, operating systems and real estate to support its vast network. Franchises operate individual restaurants while giving the corporation fees and rent.
Ethereum follows a somewhat similar pattern through its rollup-based approach. Ethereum’s blockchain network provides the underlying settlement layer, security, EVM and development system. Later, blockchain networks such as Base, OP Mainnet, Arbitrum and Unichain function autonomously.
As per Valente, L2’s fund their own development, infrastructure, audits, ecosystem growth while using Ethereum as their core settlement layer. This creates permissionless franchising with better upfront payment to Ethereum for launching an L2.
The crucial difference is the amount Ethereum charges for the underlying block space. McDonald’s collects both royalties and rents from franchisees, while Ethereum’s income from L2 activity has plunged following the introduction of blocks through EIP-4844.
Valente argues that block fees have moved towards the protocol minimum as supply surplus passes demand, leaving Ethereum with fewer economic captures from the activity taking place across its rising franchisee network. He believes Ethereum could capture a bigger share of the value generated by settlement layers if block space were priced differently.
The Research Director also points to the rising independence of major L2s as a potential drawback. Base, Arbitrum and other blockchain networks control the users, monitor the activity, and applications. In this framework, Ethereum may have helped create successive franchises without retaining enough of the revenue generated by it.
Solana and Hyperliquid Take Different Routes to Value Capture
In Valente’s framework, Solana represents a different model. He compares it with Chipotle, where restaurant chains are company-owned rather than operated by franchisees. Under this model, Solana keeps execution activity within its own embedded environment.
Transactions, decentralized exchange activity, token launches, and stablecoin all happen on the blockchain network, with fees flowing into the same monetary system. Valente argues that this gives Solana autonomy over its product and allows it to gain the value generated by blockchain network activity. Base fees, priority fees, and MEV-related payments all form part of the network’s monetary activity.
The value is distributed among validators, stakers, and SOL holders through mechanisms including fee votes. The trade-off is that Solana also holds the cost and risk of maintaining the entire system. In the Solana ecosystem, validators need expensive infrastructure and network development and ecosystem expansion must be internally supported. Valente compares this with Chipotle funding its own restaurants rather than depending on franchisees.
Hyperliquid is compared to an even more clustered model. Valente compares it with In-N-Out, which has remained privately held, company-owned, and limited in magnitude. Hyperliquid was built by a small team and took no venture capital funding or private token sale before distributing a massive portion of HYPE directly to the users.
The network’s core product is an on-chain perpetual futures order book, with the platform maintaining control over its consensus, execution, and matching infrastructure. Valente argues that the majority of Hyperliquid’s fees flow towards the system fund, which uses the proceeds to buy HYPE.
This creates a link between platform activity and token value capture without an independent L2 or settlement layer taking a share. The introduction of HIP3 changes the model slightly by allowing builders to create their own perpetual markets with Hyperliquid’s infrastructure. Valente compares this development with Chick-fil-A’s approach to franchising, where operators can run individual locations but remain dependent on the parent company’s infrastructure, customer, and regulations.
In his view, franchising offers the greatest potential for raw scale, because expansion can be pushed by independent operators. Company-owned models can scale more slowly but potentially reach greater autonomy and monetary gains.
Highly concentrated models such as Hyperliquid can prioritize margins, product quality, and pricing power, but sacrifice this breadth. The same framework also emphasizes different drawbacks. Ethereum faces the probability of franchisees becoming competitors, while Solana carries failure risk affecting its entire embedded system. Meanwhile, Hyperliquid has greater concentration around its core product, leadership, and monetary stream.
Rather than focusing on which layer captures value, stakeholders should examine how an L1 scales, drives execution and settlement, distributes economics, and its applications, handles user acquisition, and decides what activities to keep within the protocol.
The broader conclusion is that Ethereum, Solana, and Hyperliquid must succeed through different structures. According to Valente, the key is not necessarily choosing the same model, but choosing a model that provides clarity, prices its product appropriately, and executes it without uncertainty.
