Ethereum, Solana and Hyperliquid are all layer-1 blockchains, but their business structures and revenue models are fundamentally different, an analysis said. CoinPost, a blockchain media outlet, reported on Saturday that Ark Invest crypto research director Lorenzo Valente (로렌초 발렌테) compared the three projects to fast-food chains in a post on X on Sept. 2.

Valente likened Ethereum to McDonald's, Solana to Chipotle and Hyperliquid to In-N-Out. The point is that even if they are the same L1, each network should be seen as having a different business model, like restaurant chains with different store ownership, operating structures and ways of capturing revenue.

He assessed Ethereum as closer to a franchise and holding-company model. Ethereum provides the brand, the EVM and developer community, and blockspace and final settlement, while L2 operators such as Arbitrum and Base build and run infrastructure on top, he explained. He pointed out that after EIP-4844, blob fees paid by L2s fell to levels close to marginal cost, leaving Ethereum with very little rent-like revenue. He also said much of the value flows to L2s and the application layer on top of them.

He classified Solana as a Chipotle-style fully company-owned model. Because all transactions are processed on L1, economic value created through base fees, priority fees and maximum extractable value (MEV) tips remains inside the network, he said. Some goes to validators and stakers, and some base fees are burned. But because all processing is handled in a single layer, an outage could halt the entire system, and the pace of scaling depends heavily on its own engineering capability and financial resources, he said.

He described Hyperliquid as an In-N-Out-style concentrated model. It does not rely on external venture capital funding, and a small elite team focuses on its core product of on-chain order book-based perpetual futures. Most trading fees automatically flow into an assistance fund and are used to continuously buy HYPE tokens in the market. He cited scalability limits compared with other L1s and concentration risk around the team and specific core applications as burdens.

Valente said it matters more than which L1 wins which business model is chosen and executed without ambiguity. Different strategies can still succeed, but if a business model becomes unclear, growth potential, profitability and competitiveness can weaken together, he said.