<p>L1 今年遭受了严重打击。价格大幅下跌，但这真的是结束了吗？</p>
<p>12 月 25 日，Schizoxbt 分享的分析显示主要 Layer-1 代币表现严重不佳。大市值地位几乎没有提供保护，因为多个网络的年度回撤幅度陡峭。</p>
<p>以太坊年末下跌 15.3%，而 Solana 在同一时期下跌 35.9%。Avalanche 和 Sui 分别下降 67.9% 和 67.3%，反映出持续的下行压力。</p>
<p><img src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://ambcrypto.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/UPDATED-L1S-e1766660877513.png?x-oss-process=image/auto-orient,1/interlace,1/resize,w_1440,h_1440/quality,q_95/format,jpg" alt="" original-src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://ambcrypto.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/UPDATED-L1S-e1766660877513.png"/></p>
<p>来源：X</p>
<p>TON 记录了最剧烈的下跌，在 2025 年下跌 73.8%。只有 BNB 和 TRX 实现了增长，分别上涨 18.2% 和 9.8%，在整体疲软中表现突出。</p>
<p>这些数据强化了对投资者的严峻教训。仅靠市值并不能保证在提供者风险规避条件下的韧性。</p>
<p>但价格走势只讲述了部分故事。</p>
<h2><strong>收入和费用：网络货币化真的减弱了吗？</strong></h2>
<p>尽管代币价格下跌，但链上收入数据却呈现出明显不同的画面。Token Terminal 的数据显示，活动仍然高度集中在少数 Layer-1 网络上。</p>
<p><img src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://ambcrypto.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/REVENUE.png?x-oss-process=image/auto-orient,1/interlace,1/resize,w_1440,h_1440/quality,q_95/format,jpg" alt="" original-src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://ambcrypto.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/REVENUE.png"/></p>
<p>来源：Token Terminal</p>
<p>Tron 在收入方面领先所有 Layer-1，过去 365 天产生了约 35 亿美元的收入。以太坊以 3.053 亿美元紧随其后，而 Solana 在同一时期产生了约 2.068 亿美元。</p>
<p>费用生成显示出类似的模式。Solana 在费用方面领先，达到了 6.999 亿美元，而以太坊的累计费用为 5.493 亿美元。</p>
<p><img src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://ambcrypto.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/FEES.png?x-oss-process=image/auto-orient,1/interlace,1/resize,w_1440,h_1440/quality,q_95/format,jpg" alt="" original-src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://ambcrypto.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/FEES.png"/></p>
<p>来源：Token Terminal</p>
<p>尽管价格走势平淡，BNB Chain 仍然保持经济相关性，产生了 2.603 亿美元的费用。建议使用的一致性并没有随着代币估值的下跌而崩溃。</p>
<h2><strong>用户活动：交易者真的在离开 Layer-1 吗？</strong></h2>
<p>每月活跃地址数据进一步挑战了围绕 Layer-1 的悲观叙事。用户活动在网络上保持高位，主导了交易吞吐量。</p>
<p>BNB Chain 以 5980 万个活跃地址领先，Solana 紧随其后，达到 3980 万。NEAR Protocol 记录了 3870 万，稳居高使用率网络之列。</p>
<p><img src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://ambcrypto.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/ACTIVE-ADDRESSES.png?x-oss-process=image/auto-orient,1/interlace,1/resize,w_1440,h_1440/quality,q_95/format,jpg" alt="" original-src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://ambcrypto.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/ACTIVE-ADDRESSES.png"/></p>
<p>来源：Token Terminal</p>
<p>Sei Network 报告了 1060 万个活跃地址，与比特币的 1030 万相媲美。以太坊稍微落后，记录了 930 万，反映出稳定但较慢的增长。</p>
<p>这些数字表明，即使在价格调整时，参与度仍然持续。</p>
<h2><strong>基本面与价格走势</strong></h2>
<p>价格与基本面之间的分歧成为 2025 年的定义主题。Layer-1 代币似乎经历了重新定价，而不是结构性恶化。</p>
<p>在许多 Layer-1 在 10 月初接近历史高点后，损失加深。随后的 10 月抛售加速了下行动能，并放大了年末的回撤。</p>
<p>然而，资本和活动集中在产生真实使用、费用和收入的网络上。投机溢价消退，而经济上有生产力的链条保持了相关性。</p>
<hr/>
<h2><strong>最后思考</strong></h2>
<ul>
<li><em>2025 年的回撤突显了 Layer-1 估值在 10 月的历史高点后急剧修正。</em></li>
<li><em>然而，链上收入和用户数据表明该行业面临的是重新定价压力，而非结构性衰退。</em></li>
</ul>

HSDT

<p>在 2025 年，第一层代币价格大幅下跌，以太坊下跌 15.3%，Solana 下跌 35.9%，Avalanche 下跌 67.9%，Sui 下跌 67.3%。尽管如此，基本面依然强劲，Tron 以 35 亿美元的收入领先，Solana 的手续费为 6.999 亿美元。用户活动活跃，BNB 链有 5980 万个活跃地址。价格与基本面之间的差异表明这是一次重新定价，而非结构性下滑</p>

<p>L1s got absolutely pulverized this year. Prices collapsed hard, but was that really the end?</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>L1 今年遭受了严重打击。价格大幅下跌，但这真的是结束了吗？</p>
</div><p>An analysis shared on the 25th of December by Schizoxbt showed severe underperformance across major Layer-1 tokens. Large-cap status offered little protection as multiple networks posted steep yearly drawdowns.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>12 月 25 日，Schizoxbt 分享的分析显示主要 Layer-1 代币表现严重不佳。大市值地位几乎没有提供保护，因为多个网络的年度回撤幅度陡峭。</p>
</div><p>Ethereum ended the year down 15.3%, while Solana fell 35.9% over the same period. Avalanche and Sui declined 67.9% and 67.3%, respectively, reflecting sustained downside pressure.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>以太坊年末下跌 15.3%，而 Solana 在同一时期下跌 35.9%。Avalanche 和 Sui 分别下降 67.9% 和 67.3%，反映出持续的下行压力。</p>
</div><p><img src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://ambcrypto.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/UPDATED-L1S-e1766660877513.png" alt="" original-src="https://ambcrypto.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/UPDATED-L1S-e1766660877513.png"/></p>
<p>Source: X</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>来源：X</p>
</div><p>TON recorded the sharpest drop, falling 73.8% during 2025. Only BNB and TRX posted gains, rising 18.2% and 9.8%, respectively, against broader weakness.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>TON 记录了最剧烈的下跌，在 2025 年下跌 73.8%。只有 BNB 和 TRX 实现了增长，分别上涨 18.2% 和 9.8%，在整体疲软中表现突出。</p>
</div><p>The data reinforced a harsh lesson for investors. Market capitalization alone did not guarantee resilience during provider risk-off conditions.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>这些数据强化了对投资者的严峻教训。仅靠市值并不能保证在提供者风险规避条件下的韧性。</p>
</div><p>But price action told only part of the story.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>但价格走势只讲述了部分故事。</p>
</div><h2><strong>Revenue and Fees: Did network monetization really weaken?</strong></h2>
<div class="lb-trans"><h2><strong>收入和费用：网络货币化真的减弱了吗？</strong></h2>
</div><p>While token prices fell, on-chain revenue data painted a noticeably different picture. Token Terminal data showed activity remained heavily concentrated across a handful of Layer-1 networks.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>尽管代币价格下跌，但链上收入数据却呈现出明显不同的画面。Token Terminal 的数据显示，活动仍然高度集中在少数 Layer-1 网络上。</p>
</div><p><img src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://ambcrypto.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/REVENUE.png" alt="" original-src="https://ambcrypto.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/REVENUE.png"/></p>
<p>Source: Token Terminal</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>来源：Token Terminal</p>
</div><p>Tron led all Layer-1s in revenue, generating approximately $3.5 B over the past 365 days. Ethereum followed with $305.3 M, while Solana generated roughly $206.8 M during the same period.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>Tron 在收入方面领先所有 Layer-1，过去 365 天产生了约 35 亿美元的收入。以太坊以 3.053 亿美元紧随其后，而 Solana 在同一时期产生了约 2.068 亿美元。</p>
</div><p>Fee generation showed a similar pattern. Solana led in fees with $699.9 M, while Ethereum recorded $549.3 M in cumulative fees.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>费用生成显示出类似的模式。Solana 在费用方面领先，达到了 6.999 亿美元，而以太坊的累计费用为 5.493 亿美元。</p>
</div><p><img src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://ambcrypto.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/FEES.png" alt="" original-src="https://ambcrypto.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/FEES.png"/></p>
<p>Source: Token Terminal</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>来源：Token Terminal</p>
</div><p>BNB Chain also remained economically relevant, producing $260.3 M in fees despite muted price action. The consistency of suggested usage did not collapse alongside token valuations.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>尽管价格走势平淡，BNB Chain 仍然保持经济相关性，产生了 2.603 亿美元的费用。建议使用的一致性并没有随着代币估值的下跌而崩溃。</p>
</div><h2><strong>User activity: Were traders actually leaving Layer-1s?</strong></h2>
<div class="lb-trans"><h2><strong>用户活动：交易者真的在离开 Layer-1 吗？</strong></h2>
</div><p>Monthly active address data further challenged the bearish narrative surrounding Layer-1s. User activity remained elevated on networks, dominating transaction throughput.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>每月活跃地址数据进一步挑战了围绕 Layer-1 的悲观叙事。用户活动在网络上保持高位，主导了交易吞吐量。</p>
</div><p>BNB Chain led with 59.8 M active addresses, while Solana followed at 39.8 M. NEAR Protocol recorded 38.7 M, placing it firmly among high-usage networks.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>BNB Chain 以 5980 万个活跃地址领先，Solana 紧随其后，达到 3980 万。NEAR Protocol 记录了 3870 万，稳居高使用率网络之列。</p>
</div><p><img src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://ambcrypto.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/ACTIVE-ADDRESSES.png" alt="" original-src="https://ambcrypto.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/ACTIVE-ADDRESSES.png"/></p>
<p>Source: Token Terminal</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>来源：Token Terminal</p>
</div><p>Sei Network reported 10.6 M active addresses, rivaling Bitcoin at 10.3 M. Ethereum trailed slightly with 9.3 M, reflecting steady but slower growth.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>Sei Network 报告了 1060 万个活跃地址，与比特币的 1030 万相媲美。以太坊稍微落后，记录了 930 万，反映出稳定但较慢的增长。</p>
</div><p>The numbers suggested participation persisted even as prices corrected.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>这些数字表明，即使在价格调整时，参与度仍然持续。</p>
</div><h2><strong>Fundamentals vs. price action</strong></h2>
<div class="lb-trans"><h2><strong>基本面与价格走势</strong></h2>
</div><p>The divergence between prices and fundamentals became the defining theme of 2025. Layer-1 tokens appeared to undergo repricing rather than structural deterioration.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>价格与基本面之间的分歧成为 2025 年的定义主题。Layer-1 代币似乎经历了重新定价，而不是结构性恶化。</p>
</div><p>Losses deepened after many Layer-1s peaked near all-time highs in early October. The subsequent October sell-off accelerated downside momentum and amplified year-end drawdowns.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>在许多 Layer-1 在 10 月初接近历史高点后，损失加深。随后的 10 月抛售加速了下行动能，并放大了年末的回撤。</p>
</div><p>However, capital and activity consolidated around networks generating real usage, fees, and revenue. Speculative premiums faded, while economically productive chains retained relevance.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>然而，资本和活动集中在产生真实使用、费用和收入的网络上。投机溢价消退，而经济上有生产力的链条保持了相关性。</p>
</div><hr/>
<div class="lb-trans"><hr/>
</div><h2><strong>Final Thoughts</strong></h2>
<div class="lb-trans"><h2><strong>最后思考</strong></h2>
</div><ul>
<li><em>The 2025 drawdown highlighted how Layer-1 valuations corrected sharply after October’s all-time highs.</em></li>
<li><em>However, on-chain revenue and user data suggested the sector faced repricing pressure, not structural decline.</em></li>
</ul>
<div class="lb-trans"><ul>
<li><em>2025 年的回撤突显了 Layer-1 估值在 10 月的历史高点后急剧修正。</em></li>
<li><em>然而，链上收入和用户数据表明该行业面临的是重新定价压力，而非结构性衰退。</em></li>
</ul>
</div>

L1 价格在 2025 年崩溃，但基本面依然稳固——究竟发生了什么变化？