<p>L1 今年遭受了嚴重打擊。價格大幅下跌，但這真的是結束了嗎？</p>
<p>12 月 25 日，Schizoxbt 分享的分析顯示主要 Layer-1 代幣表現嚴重不佳。大市值地位幾乎沒有提供保護，因為多個網絡的年度回撤幅度陡峭。</p>
<p>以太坊年末下跌 15.3%，而 Solana 在同一時期下跌 35.9%。Avalanche 和 Sui 分別下降 67.9% 和 67.3%，反映出持續的下行壓力。</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>來源：X</p>
<p>TON 記錄了最劇烈的下跌，在 2025 年下跌 73.8%。只有 BNB 和 TRX 實現了增長，分別上漲 18.2% 和 9.8%，在整體疲軟中表現突出。</p>
<p>這些數據強化了對投資者的嚴峻教訓。僅靠市值並不能保證在提供者風險規避條件下的韌性。</p>
<p>但價格走勢只講述了部分故事。</p>
<h2><strong>收入和費用：網絡貨幣化真的減弱了嗎？</strong></h2>
<p>儘管代幣價格下跌，但鏈上收入數據卻呈現出明顯不同的畫面。Token Terminal 的數據顯示，活動仍然高度集中在少數 Layer-1 網絡上。</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>來源：Token Terminal</p>
<p>Tron 在收入方面領先所有 Layer-1，過去 365 天產生了約 35 億美元的收入。以太坊以 3.053 億美元緊隨其後，而 Solana 在同一時期產生了約 2.068 億美元。</p>
<p>費用生成顯示出類似的模式。Solana 在費用方面領先，達到了 6.999 億美元，而以太坊的累計費用為 5.493 億美元。</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>來源：Token Terminal</p>
<p>儘管價格走勢平淡，BNB Chain 仍然保持經濟相關性，產生了 2.603 億美元的費用。建議使用的一致性並沒有隨着代幣估值的下跌而崩潰。</p>
<h2><strong>用户活動：交易者真的在離開 Layer-1 嗎？</strong></h2>
<p>每月活躍地址數據進一步挑戰了圍繞 Layer-1 的悲觀敍事。用户活動在網絡上保持高位，主導了交易吞吐量。</p>
<p>BNB Chain 以 5980 萬個活躍地址領先，Solana 緊隨其後，達到 3980 萬。NEAR Protocol 記錄了 3870 萬，穩居高使用率網絡之列。</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>來源：Token Terminal</p>
<p>Sei Network 報告了 1060 萬個活躍地址，與比特幣的 1030 萬相媲美。以太坊稍微落後，記錄了 930 萬，反映出穩定但較慢的增長。</p>
<p>這些數字表明，即使在價格調整時，參與度仍然持續。</p>
<h2><strong>基本面與價格走勢</strong></h2>
<p>價格與基本面之間的分歧成為 2025 年的定義主題。Layer-1 代幣似乎經歷了重新定價，而不是結構性惡化。</p>
<p>在許多 Layer-1 在 10 月初接近歷史高點後，損失加深。隨後的 10 月拋售加速了下行動能，並放大了年末的回撤。</p>
<p>然而，資本和活動集中在產生真實使用、費用和收入的網絡上。投機溢價消退，而經濟上有生產力的鏈條保持了相關性。</p>
<hr/>
<h2><strong>最後思考</strong></h2>
<ul>
<li><em>2025 年的回撤突顯了 Layer-1 估值在 10 月的歷史高點後急劇修正。</em></li>
<li><em>然而，鏈上收入和用户數據表明該行業面臨的是重新定價壓力，而非結構性衰退。</em></li>
</ul>

HSDT

<p>在 2025 年，第一層代幣價格大幅下跌，以太坊下跌 15.3%，Solana 下跌 35.9%，Avalanche 下跌 67.9%，Sui 下跌 67.3%。儘管如此，基本面依然強勁，Tron 以 35 億美元的收入領先，Solana 的手續費為 6.999 億美元。用户活動活躍，BNB 鏈有 5980 萬個活躍地址。價格與基本面之間的差異表明這是一次重新定價，而非結構性下滑</p>

<p>L1s got absolutely pulverized this year. Prices collapsed hard, but was that really the end?</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>L1 今年遭受了嚴重打擊。價格大幅下跌，但這真的是結束了嗎？</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 分享的分析顯示主要 Layer-1 代幣表現嚴重不佳。大市值地位幾乎沒有提供保護，因為多個網絡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 在同一時期下跌 35.9%。Avalanche 和 Sui 分別下降 67.9% 和 67.3%，反映出持續的下行壓力。</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>來源：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 記錄了最劇烈的下跌，在 2025 年下跌 73.8%。只有 BNB 和 TRX 實現了增長，分別上漲 18.2% 和 9.8%，在整體疲軟中表現突出。</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>這些數據強化了對投資者的嚴峻教訓。僅靠市值並不能保證在提供者風險規避條件下的韌性。</p>
</div><p>But price action told only part of the story.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>但價格走勢只講述了部分故事。</p>
</div><h2><strong>Revenue and Fees: Did network monetization really weaken?</strong></h2>
<div class="lb-trans"><h2><strong>收入和費用：網絡貨幣化真的減弱了嗎？</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>儘管代幣價格下跌，但鏈上收入數據卻呈現出明顯不同的畫面。Token Terminal 的數據顯示，活動仍然高度集中在少數 Layer-1 網絡上。</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>來源：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 在收入方面領先所有 Layer-1，過去 365 天產生了約 35 億美元的收入。以太坊以 3.053 億美元緊隨其後，而 Solana 在同一時期產生了約 2.068 億美元。</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>費用生成顯示出類似的模式。Solana 在費用方面領先，達到了 6.999 億美元，而以太坊的累計費用為 5.493 億美元。</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>來源：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>儘管價格走勢平淡，BNB Chain 仍然保持經濟相關性，產生了 2.603 億美元的費用。建議使用的一致性並沒有隨着代幣估值的下跌而崩潰。</p>
</div><h2><strong>User activity: Were traders actually leaving Layer-1s?</strong></h2>
<div class="lb-trans"><h2><strong>用户活動：交易者真的在離開 Layer-1 嗎？</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>每月活躍地址數據進一步挑戰了圍繞 Layer-1 的悲觀敍事。用户活動在網絡上保持高位，主導了交易吞吐量。</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 萬個活躍地址領先，Solana 緊隨其後，達到 3980 萬。NEAR Protocol 記錄了 3870 萬，穩居高使用率網絡之列。</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>來源：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 報告了 1060 萬個活躍地址，與比特幣的 1030 萬相媲美。以太坊稍微落後，記錄了 930 萬，反映出穩定但較慢的增長。</p>
</div><p>The numbers suggested participation persisted even as prices corrected.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>這些數字表明，即使在價格調整時，參與度仍然持續。</p>
</div><h2><strong>Fundamentals vs. price action</strong></h2>
<div class="lb-trans"><h2><strong>基本面與價格走勢</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>價格與基本面之間的分歧成為 2025 年的定義主題。Layer-1 代幣似乎經歷了重新定價，而不是結構性惡化。</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>在許多 Layer-1 在 10 月初接近歷史高點後，損失加深。隨後的 10 月拋售加速了下行動能，並放大了年末的回撤。</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，資本和活動集中在產生真實使用、費用和收入的網絡上。投機溢價消退，而經濟上有生產力的鏈條保持了相關性。</p>
</div><hr/>
<div class="lb-trans"><hr/>
</div><h2><strong>Final Thoughts</strong></h2>
<div class="lb-trans"><h2><strong>最後思考</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 年的回撤突顯了 Layer-1 估值在 10 月的歷史高點後急劇修正。</em></li>
<li><em>然而，鏈上收入和用户數據表明該行業面臨的是重新定價壓力，而非結構性衰退。</em></li>
</ul>
</div>

L1 價格在 2025 年崩潰，但基本面依然穩固——究竟發生了什麼變化？