In January 2026, Ethereum processed approximately 2.88 million transactions in a single day, setting a historical record, yet the average on-chain transaction fee remained relatively low. This combination of "high throughput + low fees" immediately attracted market attention. This was not a temporary congestion caused by an airdrop or a hot project, but rather a snapshot of deep structural changes in the network as modularization and Layer 2 gradually matured. In this context, the market began to question: does this surge in transaction volume truly represent the release of real economic activity and DeFi demand, or is it a "false prosperity" created by bots, adversarial and speculative behaviors? The following will unfold along three main lines: first, what the on-chain data itself reveals; second, the structural implications of the reallocation of roles between the mainnet and Layer 2; and third, observing how global capital sentiment and risk appetite are reshaped in conjunction with the premium in the U.S. market and USDC redemptions.

On-Chain Portrait of Transaction Peaks and Fee Decoupling

● 2.88 million transactions in historical context: According to data from Deep Tide TechFlow and Odaily Planet Daily, in January 2026, Ethereum's daily transaction volume reached approximately 2.88 million, setting a historical record. By combining this with recent transaction curves, it can be seen that this is not an isolated spike, but rather a phase of sustained high volume after several days, reflecting a further increase in network activity above a higher "baseline activity level," rather than a one-time peak driven by a transient event.

● Low fees compared to the previous bull market: Despite such high throughput, the current average Gas fee on the Ethereum mainnet remains in a relatively moderate range, far from the extreme conditions of soaring transaction costs seen in the last bull market. During that time, small users were often pushed out by high fees, but now, even with transaction volumes hitting historical highs, the pressure on fees remains limited. This contrast of "volume up, price not exploding" has become the technical starting point for this round of discussion.

● Technical logic after fee mechanism reform: After the launch of EIP-1559, Ethereum separated the base fee (Burn) from tips (Tip), introducing a Base Fee that automatically adjusts based on block space congestion, along with Gas limit expansions and subsequent protocol optimizations. This allows the network to handle more transactions without linearly increasing the average transaction fee under higher Gas limits and more flexible fee adjustments. In other words, the relationship between throughput and fees has been reshaped; it is no longer a simple "traffic jam = fee explosion."

● Blind spots beyond quantity: Although the absolute value of 2.88 million transactions is a new high, the total transaction count only indicates "how many interactions" and cannot answer "what these interactions are doing." In the absence of data segmented by application type, address profiles, funding scale, etc., we cannot distinguish the proportions of genuine usage, hedging, arbitrage, and pure volume manipulation, laying the groundwork for further emphasizing that "the quality of on-chain activity is more important than quantity."

Mainnet Transformed into a Settlement Layer and Layer 2 Division of Labor

● The meaning of "neutral settlement and coordination layer": Bitfinex explicitly stated in its report that "the Ethereum mainnet is gradually transforming into a neutral settlement and coordination layer." The so-called settlement layer refers to the mainnet taking on more responsibilities for final settlement and state coordination across applications and Rollups, becoming the "ultimate ledger" for value and data, rather than being an "all-purpose execution venue" where all high-frequency operations are completed directly on Layer 1. This statement itself marks that the market has begun to view Ethereum as a more foundational financial infrastructure.

● Migration brought by modularization and Layer 2 maturity: As the modularization route progresses and Layer 2 solutions like Rollups gradually move towards mass production and scaling, an increasing number of high-frequency, small, and speed-sensitive operations are directly migrated to Layer 2 for execution and then batched back to the mainnet. This division of labor, where L2 is responsible for execution and L1 for final settlement, means that while the number of transactions on the mainnet remains considerable, the structure is already distinctly different from the early days when "everything ran on L1."

● Structural focus behind high throughput and low fees: In this broader context, the current surge of 2.88 million transactions likely indicates that the mainnet is handling more large-scale settlements, cross-chain bridge/cross-Rollup batch settlements, and protocol-level capital reallocations, rather than being primarily stacked by retail small transactions. In other words, high throughput does not necessarily equate to "everyone frequently interacting on the mainnet," but rather that the mainnet serves as a public settlement hub for an increasing number of Layer 2s and applications at a higher level.

● The necessity of restraint in details: It is important to emphasize that current public data does not provide performance metrics for Layer 2 segmented by project or precise flow ratios, and research briefs explicitly prohibit fabricating unverified L2 performance data. Therefore, when analyzing the division of labor between the mainnet and Layer 2, we can only make structural judgments based on publicly available route designs and network evolution directions, rather than delving into unverified details like "how much TPS a certain Rollup handles."

Interweaving of Genuine Demand and Adversarial Traffic

● Types of adversarial trading and junk traffic: Adversarial trading typically includes arbitrage bots exploiting price and information discrepancies, high-frequency squeeze trading, volume manipulation to create a "false sense of prosperity," and malicious address marking or junk token dumping through small transfers. These interactions are technically no different from "normal transactions," also counted in transaction numbers, but do not necessarily represent healthy application demand growth.

● Data gaps limit precise quantification: Currently, publicly available on-chain data lacks authoritative statistics segmented by transaction type and systematic quantitative indicators for address poisoning and MEV-related bot behaviors. Research briefs also clearly do not attempt to estimate the proportion of address poisoning, MEV, and arbitrage bots in transaction volume, so we can only conceptually acknowledge the significant existence of these behaviors without providing precise figures on how much "water" is in this round of high throughput—whether it is 10%, 30%, or higher.

● The incentive effect of low fees on bots: From an economic incentive perspective, when the average transaction fee on the mainnet is low, the marginal cost for bots and high-frequency adversarial strategies significantly decreases, allowing many small, exploratory, and volume-manipulating operations that previously lacked positive profit margins in a high-fee environment to be rapidly amplified in a low-fee context. This means that the same "on-chain activity" metric, under different fee rate ranges, carries different real economic implications and requires more cautious interpretation.

● Working hypothesis under cumulative effects: Based on the currently limited data, a more reasonable working hypothesis is that this surge in transaction volume is likely a composite result of genuine economic activities (transfers, DeFi operations), protocol-level operations, and various adversarial trades. In the absence of more refined classifications, simply equating these 2.88 million transactions to "a comprehensive explosion of adoption" or "entirely bots manipulating volume" is an oversimplification. Readers should consider this structural noise when interpreting metrics like "on-chain activity."

The Contrast Between Cooling U.S. Market Sentiment and Warming On-Chain Activity

● Coinbase premium has been negative for 10 consecutive days: According to data from Deep Tide TechFlow, the Coinbase Bitcoin premium index has been in negative territory for 10 consecutive days, indicating that U.S. BTC quotes have consistently been weaker than the global average. This phenomenon directly reflects that, recently, U.S. exchanges do not exhibit a significant "premium for grabbing shares" compared to other global markets, but rather show a certain degree of discount pressure.

● The meaning of a negative premium: Historically, a negative premium often indicates heavier local selling pressure or that buyers are more inclined to wait, with institutional and retail funds unwilling to enter at costs above global prices. Combined with transaction structures, this usually corresponds to funds leaning towards outflows, reducing positions, or waiting for clearer signals, rather than blindly increasing positions under dual optimism in price and policy.

● The cooling of market sentiment versus on-chain activity: On one hand, the U.S. market's BTC premium has been negative for several days, while on the other hand, Ethereum's on-chain transaction numbers are setting historical records. This dislocation of "cooling market sentiment vs. warming on-chain activity" suggests that we cannot simply use a single market sentiment to explain the dynamics of the entire crypto ecosystem. The rise in on-chain activity is more a reflection of network structure and protocol-level behaviors, rather than necessarily corresponding to a return of greed among U.S. investors.

● The dislocation of short-term cooling and long-term logic: It should be added that this short-term cooling of sentiment has not changed the overall trend towards a more positive regulatory attitude in the U.S. Currently, we are still in a period of macroeconomic policy expectation adjustments, with institutional funds weighing interest rate paths and risk asset pricing, leading to a cautious pace in crypto asset allocations. Meanwhile, the medium- to long-term path of "compliance and institutionalization" has not been reversed; it is merely being reassessed in terms of pace and discount rates.

USDC Destruction and Capital Reallocation Under the Crypto Center Narrative

● The meaning of USDC daily destruction and capital inflow: According to Deep Tide TechFlow, the USDC Treasury destroyed approximately 50 million USDC in a single day during the same period. Mechanically, USDC destruction typically corresponds to holders redeeming for fiat, indicating that funds are leaving the chain or flowing back to the traditional financial system. Although the scale is not as high as historical extremes, the occurrence of considerable redemptions alongside rising on-chain transactions suggests that some funds are choosing to cash out or shift risk exposure.

● Risk-return rebalancing of stable funds: Considering the differentiation in institutional investor behavior and macro policy expectation adjustments, it can be seen that "stable funds" represented by USDC place greater emphasis on risk-return ratios and regulatory visibility, and will not massively increase positions just because on-chain transaction volumes are rising. On the contrary, they often choose to reduce or shift positions during periods of increased network and price volatility, waiting for more cost-effective re-entry opportunities, and this caution is also reflected in the marginal contraction of USDC supply.

● The long-term narrative of "the world's cryptocurrency capital": Meanwhile, CFTC Chairman Mike Selig publicly stated that "there is no better place for entrepreneurship than 'the world's cryptocurrency capital'", and similar statements are shaping new expectations for the U.S. to remain open to the crypto industry and compete for a central position in the industry. Regulatory discourse is shifting from a singular focus on "risk prevention" to "competing for innovation in a controlled risk environment," providing a policy narrative foundation for medium- to long-term capital to return or continue to be deployed.

● Not a one-way flight, but a reallocation of existing positions: Observing USDC destruction alongside regulatory discourse, a more reasonable explanation is that the current stage resembles the reallocation of existing positions and risk repricing, rather than a one-way panic exit of funds or mindless influx. The choice of stable funds to partially withdraw while on-chain activity heats up is a rational response to volatility and uncertainty, and is also reserving ammunition for potentially more attractive risk-return windows that may arise in the next phase.

The True Meaning of High Throughput and Low Fees: Don't Rush to Conclude the Cycle

● Structural evolution rather than simple bull-bear signals: Integrating on-chain data and technological evolution, the daily throughput of 2.88 million transactions combined with low fees appears more like a structural milestone in Ethereum's transition from "everything directly connected at the execution layer" to a "settlement layer + Layer 2 expansion pattern," rather than a clear-cut signal of a bull-bear switch. The upgrade of the mainnet's role and the enhancement of Layer 2's capacity have jointly reshaped the old relationship between transaction numbers and fees.

● Beware of extreme narratives of "all true/all false": Due to the lack of key data support such as transaction type details and quantitative indicators for adversarial activities, any extreme assertion defining this round of volume increase as "all genuine adoption explosion" or "all false prosperity created" cannot stand firm. The reality is more likely a gray area of overlapping behaviors, and analysis and decision-making should acknowledge this partial information incompleteness, rather than taking sides driven by emotions.

● Capital and policy are reshaping risk appetite: From the cooling U.S. market premium, the increase in USDC redemptions, and the shift towards a more positive regulatory discourse, it appears that global capital is currently reassessing the risk premium of crypto assets under a new round of macro expectations and regulatory frameworks. The intertwining of on-chain structural upgrades, policy signals, and the reallocation of existing capital has made the relationship between price and on-chain activity more complex and multidimensional.

● A more robust observation framework: In such an uncertain context, a more actionable path is to continuously track four core indicators: first, the activity and fee ranges of mainstream Layer 2s; second, the number of settlements and the structural changes in transaction amounts on the Ethereum mainnet; third, regional premium indices, including Coinbase; and fourth, the on-chain supply and destruction rhythm of major stablecoins like USDC. Compared to a single metric of "total transaction volume" or "Gas price," these combined indicators are more helpful in determining whether Ethereum's fundamentals are being uplifted by genuine demand or amplified by short-term adversarial traffic.

Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh

OKX benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。