Ethereum L2 fee revenue data from January 14 indicates growing concentration. Base, Arbitrum, and Starknet account for nearly all economically meaningful activity across Ethereum’s Layer 2 ecosystem.
Ethereum L2 fee revenue figures published by Wu Blockchain, referencing CryptoRank data, show a sharp divide in network activity. Only three Layer 2 chains generated more than $5,000 in daily fees.
The remaining networks recorded minimal revenue. Base led with approximately $147,000 in fees, far exceeding peers.
Arbitrum followed with about $39,000, while Starknet generated roughly $9,000. Combined, all other Ethereum L2s earned slightly above $15,000. Fee revenue reflects direct user demand rather than promotional incentives.
This concentration suggests users are standardizing execution preferences. The broader Layer 2 field remains active, though economically limited during the measured period.
Base Extends Its Lead in Ethereum L2 Fee Revenue
Ethereum L2 fee revenue dominance by Base represented close to 70% of total Layer 2 fees on the day. This share indicates sustained transaction activity across applications.
The scale of the lead was materially significant. According to the Wu Blockchain post, Base earned nearly four times more fees than Arbitrum.
The difference compared with Starknet was even wider. These gaps suggest separation rather than temporary fluctuation.
Base’s fee performance aligns with consistent consumer-oriented usage. The data reflects regular blockspace demand.
Revenue concentration signals growing economic gravity around a single primary network.
Arbitrum and Starknet Remain the Only Other Active Contributors
Ethereum L2 fee revenue placed Arbitrum firmly in second position. Its $39,000 daily fees demonstrate continued relevance within Ethereum’s scaling landscape.
However, its share was substantially lower than Base’s. Starknet remained the only additional network above the $5,000 threshold.
It's roughly $9,000 in fees distinguished it from other zero-knowledge rollups. The data suggests a committed user base generating real transactions.
All remaining Layer 2 networks collectively underperformed. Their combined fees remained lower than Starknet’s output.
The figures reflect a compressed market structure rather than evenly distributed Layer 2 demand.