Solana’s ecosystem sectors are underperforming SOL despite strong narratives. Meanwhile, EtherFi’s “neobank” thesis faces valuation compression, and Ore’s recent move highlights why context matters.
Updated Oct 30, 2025, 5:16 p.m. Published Oct 30, 2025, 5:00 p.m.
Over the past 90 days, most sectors within the Solana ecosystem have underperformed SOL itself.
Source: dashboards.wtf
DEX volumes across Solana have stagnated since early Q3 2025. At the same time, average FDV-to-revenue ratios for Solana DEXs have compressed – reflecting a market that’s repricing in line with muted fundamentals. If valuations aren’t cheap relative to growth or usage, there’s little basis for sector-level outperformance versus SOL.
The same logic applies outside Solana. EtherFi, a leading player in the “neobank” meta, has seen solid traction – with daily card spend volumes averaging around $1 million.
Yet, its token (ETHFI) has fallen roughly 66% versus BTC over the past year, largely due to heavy unlock schedules, with around $1 million worth of ETHFI unlocking daily.
That translates to ~1% of its daily volume, as per CoinDesk Data – generating a persistent source of sell pressure. Even assuming a 1% take rate on card activity, EtherFi’s implied annualized card revenue is just $3.6 million before accounting for cashback incentives.
In other words, the fundamentals don’t justify price resilience – especially when the core revenue stream remains restaking-related (restaking still accounts for >90% of Ether.fi’s revenue). If investors aren’t bullish on that segment, a lower price-to-revenue ratio alone doesn’t make the token “cheap.” In other words, context is what gives fundamental metrics meaning.
Contrast this with Ore, a proof-of-work-style protocol on Solana that has climbed to 7th place in network revenue, according to DefiLlama. Ore launched as a fair-launch experiment in 2024, letting users earn ORE tokens by solving lightweight on-chain hash puzzles – mimicking the fairness of PoW mining but without the energy cost. The initial version was purely inflationary and contributed to network congestion on Solana.
Source: DefiLlama
The protocol recently updated its mining mechanism, introducing a reward pool that distributes SOL from each mining round into automatic ORE buybacks – with 90% of the purchased tokens burned and 10% distributed to stakers. Each round functions like a mini lottery, where miners compete to solve puzzles for variable rewards. This has boosted activity and hence revenue – which more or less fits within Solana’s ‘gambling meta’ i.e. a reflexive system betting on speculation.
Comparing Ore v/s other ‘gambling meta’ proxies, it screens well – with lower multiples relative to peers like Pump and Meteora (i.e. the other tokenized plays that act as memecoin beta proxies on Solana) on an FDV-to-revenue basis.
Moreover, Ore’s emission-to-buyback ratio is net negative, meaning buy pressure exceeds dilution. Here, fundamentals actually explain outperformance, providing a rational basis for the token’s rally.
Valuation ratios alone rarely explain performance. Once token unlocks, revenue mix, and emission mechanics are considered, sector-level underperformance versus base tokens like SOL looks justified.
Even when fundamentals do align with price action – as in Ore’s case – sustainability is another question. The relatively recent “gambling meta” led by Pokémon TCG’s CARDS peaked near $700M FDV before fading within a month. Similarly more recently gambling/flywheel driven plays like PNKSTR (play on NFTs) peaked at ~$300m FDV within a few weeks of gaining traction, showing how short-lived these rotations can be.
In essence, context helps explain performance but doesn’t ensure it lasts. Fundamentals can justify a move, but they rarely anchor it – especially when momentum and meta shifts dominate market structure.
