ARK Invest digital asset researcher Lorenzo Valente compared three major blockchain networks using restaurant business models on September 3. According to reports from ARK Invest, Valente likened Ethereum to McDonald's, Solana to Chipotle, and Hyperliquid to In-N-Out to assess their value capture mechanisms. The comparisons address how each blockchain expands, controls its infrastructure and directs revenue toward its native asset. Valente emphasized that each architecture requires separate valuation methods because revenue paths and risks differ materially. As per ARK Invest, these differences mean each blockchain requires unique valuation methods, reflecting their revenue paths and risks.
Ethereum operates through a franchise network model where independent layer 2 networks such as Arbitrum, Base and OP Mainnet process transactions away from the main execution layer. As reported by ARK Invest, these networks periodically submit data or proofs to Ethereum to inherit parts of its security and settlement infrastructure. Valente compared this arrangement to McDonald's franchising model, where Ethereum provides the brand, standards, developer ecosystem and settlement layer while independent teams finance and operate layer 2 networks. However, he argued that Ethereum captures too little of the economic activity generated by those networks, with layer 2 operators collecting transaction fees but paying Ethereum primarily for data availability and settlement. Future developments like Ethereum's blob pricing will test this model's sustainability and fee capture mechanisms.
Solana processes applications directly through its base network instead of making external rollups the main scaling route, creating what Valente described as a vertically integrated model. According to ARK Invest, trades on Jupiter, token launches, stablecoin transfers and other application transactions share the same execution environment, with users paying base and priority fees while validators receive additional value through transaction ordering and Jito tips. This structure keeps more fee flow within the Solana network, with validators and delegators receiving compensation while part of the base fee is burned. The comparison with Chipotle reflects Solana's direct control over execution, fee markets and performance upgrades, though it faces system-wide operational risks during congestion. Future developments like Solana's network upgrades will test this model's ability to maintain fee retention and operational efficiency.
Hyperliquid received the In-N-Out comparison due to its focused product range, internal infrastructure and limited reliance on outside capital. As reported by ARK Invest, the platform built its own consensus system, HyperBFT, and operates trading infrastructure through HyperCore, later adding HyperEVM for general smart contract applications. Hyperliquid's Assistance Fund uses most eligible revenue to purchase HYPE from the market, with the fund having used more than $1.3 billion for purchases since the mechanism began, according to Crypto.news research in May. More recent research found that Hyperliquid and Pump.fun accounted for nearly 90% of tracked crypto token repurchases during 2026, though these figures measure purchases during the examined period. The platform's Assistance Fund represents the most direct fee-to-token purchase model, concentrating revenue through its trading platform and internal mechanisms.
According to ARK Invest, each model produces different concentration risks based on their operational structures. Ethereum's main advantage lies in distribution through independent layer 2 teams, though it faces weaker control over users and execution revenue. Solana retains more activity within one system, strengthening fee capture and product coordination but requiring broader technical support. Hyperliquid offers the most direct relationship between product revenue and token purchases but carries the greatest concentration risk due to its dependence on derivatives trading. Valente warned that builders responsible for large HIP-3 trading shares could seek better fee terms, while revenue may weaken during prolonged declines in derivatives activity. The comparison does not establish which token will outperform, with valuations depending on issuance, liquidity, governance, competition and demand for products running on each network. Future developments including Ethereum's blob pricing, Solana's network upgrades, and Hyperliquid's market expansion will test these models' sustainability and their ability to maintain their respective competitive advantages.
