Polygon Surpasses Ethereum in Daily Fees as Polymarket Bets Rocket
Key Takeaways
- Polygon has outpaced Ethereum in daily transaction fees, a historic shift driven by activity on Polymarket.
- The surge in transaction fees is attributed to significant wagering on the Oscars category, accumulating retail flow of over $15 million.
- Practical cost differences between Ethereum and Polygon are major contributors, with Polygon’s average transaction costing approximately $0.0026 compared to Ethereum’s $1.68.
- The transient dominance illustrates that consumer-driven market activity can alter revenue streams effectively within blockchain ecosystems.
WEEX Crypto News, 2026-02-17 13:40:35
In an unprecedented turn of events, Polygon has achieved a milestone that many in the blockchain sphere thought unattainable, usurping Ethereum as the leading network by daily transaction fees. This breakthrough encapsulates a notable shift in the cryptocurrency landscape, largely riding on the wave of Polymarket’s burgeoning success. For an entire day, Polygon amassed transaction fees of around $407,100, dwarfing Ethereum’s $211,700 – almost twice the amount.
The Catalyst Behind the Fee Overtake
The core catalyst for this remarkable feat is Polymarket, a prediction market platform that has become a focal point of activity on Polygon. The Oscars, a flagship event, drew unparalleled attention, resulting in a massive influx of retail interest with more than $15 million wagered in just one category over that weekend. Such adoption has catapulted Polymarket to the forefront, turning it into a powerhouse of revenue within the network.
Polygon’s rapid ascension in the fee domain was not a mere coincidence but a direct consequence of this explosion in user engagement. Within a week, Polymarket alone was responsible for generating upwards of $1 million in network fees, outpacing other applications on the platform that struggled to make a substantial impact. This dominance by Polymarket is a testament to the exponential effect that consumer interest can have on blockchain technologies.
Analyzing the Numbers: Polygon vs. Ethereum
The weekend saw Polygon occasionally inch past Ethereum in the daily fee duel, although this lead was fleeting, with both chains closely competing within a narrow margin. However, even as the contest remains tight, the figures tell a compelling tale of Polygon’s current performance. The network has achieved an unprecedented high in daily USDC transactions, surpassing 12 million, while its nearest competitors – including Ethereum – limped behind, registering less than 3 million.
The fundamental reason for this disparity lies in the cost-effectiveness of using Polygon. An average transaction on Polygon costs a mere $0.0026, a stark contrast to Ethereum’s approximate cost of $1.68 per transaction. This cost disparity is critical for scenarios involving multiple small bets or rapid transactions, where Polygon’s affordability becomes an indisputable advantage.
Lower transaction fees invariably lead to higher transaction volumes, which subsequently translates into increased revenue for the network. The simplicity of this equation underlines the practical reasons driving Polygon’s swelling transaction volumes.
Simultaneously, Ethereum faces its own set of challenges. The blockchain has been grappling with volatility brought on by significant shifts among large investors, or “whales,” introducing an uneasy element to its narrative. Despite Ethereum’s entrenched position as a structural behemoth in the crypto world, Polygon demonstrates that shifts in consumer activity can swiftly redirect financial streams.
The Duel of Titans: Structural Dominance vs. Cost Efficiency
While Ethereum has long held the mantle as the dominant blockchain due to its comprehensive ecosystem and established infrastructure, this does not render it impervious to shifts in consumer preferences towards more economically feasible alternatives like Polygon. The mainstream appeal of low-fee transactions heralds a paradigm shift, where utility and affordability can rival longstanding structural benefits.
For users engaging in high-frequency, low-value transactions, Polygon presents itself not just as a cheaper alternative but as a more efficient one operationally. This is particularly significant in environments requiring high-speed transactions, where every cent saved on fees adds up to considerable savings over time.
Despite this, Ethereum’s structural dominance provides it with resilience and the capability to integrate substantial updates, such as those aimed at tackling its fee structure and scalability challenges. However, these solutions are inherently complex and time-consuming to implement, offering Polygon a vital window to capitalize on its present advantage.
The Intricacies of Polymarket’s Success
Polymarket has proven instrumental in not just elevating Polygon’s status but redefining the application and potential of prediction markets within the blockchain sphere. The platform’s integration with Polygon offers an intuitive user experience with remarkably low costs, transforming prediction markets from niche interest to widespread phenomenon almost overnight.
A platform like Polymarket thrives on speculative events that spur high user engagement, such as major global events like the Oscars. By concentrating betting habits into such events, Polymarket maximizes its utility, attracting both novice and experienced users seeking economical platforms for prediction-based interactions.
This consumer inclination towards platforms offering both predictability and economic feasibility underscores a broader trend within decentralized financial services. The decentralized nature of prediction markets aligns with the ethos of blockchain, allowing users full autonomy over their participation without intermediary interference.
The Bigger Picture: Blockchain Evolution in Motion
As blockchain technology continues its inexorable march towards mainstream integration, events such as Polygon’s temporary surpassing of Ethereum in daily fees illustrate the fluidity of power and influence in this digital arena. Consumer choice drives technological adaptation, and this decision-making process is a formidable agent for change, as seen in the burgeoning popularity of networks like Polygon.
The dynamics at play here also reflect a larger narrative about financial accessibility and efficiency. Affordable, high-utility networks empower users to engage meaningfully within digital economies, paving the way for widespread blockchain adoption.
The example set by Polymarket offers vital lessons to blockchain developers. Harnessing consumer-driven innovation can propel platforms to the forefront, even amid formidable competition. Positioning themselves to be responsive to user needs while simultaneously reducing operational barriers ensures greater market traction and acceptance, as evident in the recent trends reflecting Polygon’s ascendancy.
Conclusion
Polygon’s temporary triumph over Ethereum in daily fees marks more than just a statistical anomaly; it signifies a pivotal moment in blockchain development where cost efficiency and user engagement become equally pivotal as structural dominance. As the landscape remains competitive and ever-evolving, networks must continuously adapt to satisfy the burgeoning challenges posed by innovative, consumer-friendly platforms.
This ongoing evolution within the blockchain sphere, emboldened by platforms like Polymarket, underscores the dynamic nature of digital economies and highlights the imperative for traditional players to innovate in alignment with user expectations. As these narratives unfold, it remains crucial for the community to remain engaged and informed, recognizing that the transformative potential of blockchain is as much about adapting to the present as it is preparing for the future.
Frequently Asked Questions
What led Polygon to surpass Ethereum in daily fees?
Polygon managed to exceed Ethereum in daily fees due to exciting activity on the Polymarket platform, largely fueled by significant wagering on high-interest events like the Oscars. This increased engagement spurred higher transaction volumes, driving up fees significantly.
How does the cost difference between Polygon and Ethereum impact user choice?
The cost difference plays a significant role; Polygon offers transactions at approximately $0.0026, while Ethereum’s average fee is around $1.68. For users, particularly those engaging in multiple or minor transactions, this cost efficiency can make Polygon a more attractive option.
Can Ethereum’s dominance be threatened by similar events in the future?
While Ethereum’s structural dominance remains, consumer-driven activities on alternative networks like Polygon highlight a vulnerability tied to cost-efficiency and user adoption trends. As blockchain technology evolves, networks that align closely with user preferences may challenge Ethereum’s position when similar events occur.
What role does Polymarket play in Polygon’s fee growth?
Polymarket plays a pivotal role in Polygon’s fee growth by providing a platform that fuels high transaction volumes through speculative events. Its user-friendly and cost-efficient design attracts significant retail flow, directly contributing to higher network fees.
Is this trend expected to continue?
While it is difficult to predict with absolute certainty, the trend depends on ongoing user engagement, the evolution of cost structures, and the networks’ capacities to adapt to changing market conditions. Continuous innovation in response to user demand could sustain or accelerate these patterns.
You may also like
WEEX × LALIGA 2026: Trade Crypto, Take Your Shot & Win Official LALIGA Prizes
Unlock shoot attempts through futures trading, spot trading, or referrals. Turn match predictions into structured rewards with BTC, USDT, position airdrops, and LALIGA merchandise on WEEX.

a16z: Why Do AI Agents Need a Stablecoin for B2B Payments?

February 24th Market Key Intelligence, How Much Did You Miss?

Web4.0, perhaps the most needed narrative for cryptocurrency

Some Key News You Might Have Missed Over the Chinese New Year Holiday

Key Market Information Discrepancy on February 24th - A Must-Read! | Alpha Morning Report

$1,500,000 Salary Job: How to Achieve with $500 AI?

Bitcoin On-Chain User Attrition at 30%, ETF Hemorrhage at $4.5 Billion: What's Next for the Next 3 Months?

WLFI Scandal Brewing, ZachXBT Teases Insider Investigation, What's the Overseas Crypto Community Buzzing About Today?

Debunking the AI Doomsday Myth: Why Establishment Inertia and the Software Wasteland Will Save Us
Editor's Note: Citrini7's cyberpunk-themed AI doomsday prophecy has sparked widespread discussion across the internet. However, this article presents a more pragmatic counter perspective. If Citrini envisions a digital tsunami instantly engulfing civilization, this author sees the resilient resistance of the human bureaucratic system, the profoundly flawed existing software ecosystem, and the long-overlooked cornerstone of heavy industry. This is a frontal clash between Silicon Valley fantasy and the iron law of reality, reminding us that the singularity may come, but it will never happen overnight.
The following is the original content:
Renowned market commentator Citrini7 recently published a captivating and widely circulated AI doomsday novel. While he acknowledges that the probability of some scenes occurring is extremely low, as someone who has witnessed multiple economic collapse prophecies, I want to challenge his views and present a more deterministic and optimistic future.
In 2007, people thought that against the backdrop of "peak oil," the United States' geopolitical status had come to an end; in 2008, they believed the dollar system was on the brink of collapse; in 2014, everyone thought AMD and NVIDIA were done for. Then ChatGPT emerged, and people thought Google was toast... Yet every time, existing institutions with deep-rooted inertia have proven to be far more resilient than onlookers imagined.
When Citrini talks about the fear of institutional turnover and rapid workforce displacement, he writes, "Even in fields we think rely on interpersonal relationships, cracks are showing. Take the real estate industry, where buyers have tolerated 5%-6% commissions for decades due to the information asymmetry between brokers and consumers..."
Seeing this, I couldn't help but chuckle. People have been proclaiming the "death of real estate agents" for 20 years now! This hardly requires any superintelligence; with Zillow, Redfin, or Opendoor, it's enough. But this example precisely proves the opposite of Citrini's view: although this workforce has long been deemed obsolete in the eyes of most, due to market inertia and regulatory capture, real estate agents' vitality is more tenacious than anyone's expectations a decade ago.
A few months ago, I just bought a house. The transaction process mandated that we hire a real estate agent, with lofty justifications. My buyer's agent made about $50,000 in this transaction, while his actual work — filling out forms and coordinating between multiple parties — amounted to no more than 10 hours, something I could have easily handled myself. The market will eventually move towards efficiency, providing fair pricing for labor, but this will be a long process.
I deeply understand the ways of inertia and change management: I once founded and sold a company whose core business was driving insurance brokerages from "manual service" to "software-driven." The iron rule I learned is: human societies in the real world are extremely complex, and things always take longer than you imagine — even when you account for this rule. This doesn't mean that the world won't undergo drastic changes, but rather that change will be more gradual, allowing us time to respond and adapt.
Recently, the software sector has seen a downturn as investors worry about the lack of moats in the backend systems of companies like Monday, Salesforce, Asana, making them easily replicable. Citrini and others believe that AI programming heralds the end of SaaS companies: one, products become homogenized, with zero profits, and two, jobs disappear.
But everyone overlooks one thing: the current state of these software products is simply terrible.
I'm qualified to say this because I've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on Salesforce and Monday. Indeed, AI can enable competitors to replicate these products, but more importantly, AI can enable competitors to build better products. Stock price declines are not surprising: an industry relying on long-term lock-ins, lacking competitiveness, and filled with low-quality legacy incumbents is finally facing competition again.
From a broader perspective, almost all existing software is garbage, which is an undeniable fact. Every tool I've paid for is riddled with bugs; some software is so bad that I can't even pay for it (I've been unable to use Citibank's online transfer for the past three years); most web apps can't even get mobile and desktop responsiveness right; not a single product can fully deliver what you want. Silicon Valley darlings like Stripe and Linear only garner massive followings because they are not as disgustingly unusable as their competitors. If you ask a seasoned engineer, "Show me a truly perfect piece of software," all you'll get is prolonged silence and blank stares.
Here lies a profound truth: even as we approach a "software singularity," the human demand for software labor is nearly infinite. It's well known that the final few percentage points of perfection often require the most work. By this standard, almost every software product has at least a 100x improvement in complexity and features before reaching demand saturation.
I believe that most commentators who claim that the software industry is on the brink of extinction lack an intuitive understanding of software development. The software industry has been around for 50 years, and despite tremendous progress, it is always in a state of "not enough." As a programmer in 2020, my productivity matches that of hundreds of people in 1970, which is incredibly impressive leverage. However, there is still significant room for improvement. People underestimate the "Jevons Paradox": Efficiency improvements often lead to explosive growth in overall demand.
This does not mean that software engineering is an invincible job, but the industry's ability to absorb labor and its inertia far exceed imagination. The saturation process will be very slow, giving us enough time to adapt.
Of course, labor reallocation is inevitable, such as in the driving sector. As Citrini pointed out, many white-collar jobs will experience disruptions. For positions like real estate brokers that have long lost tangible value and rely solely on momentum for income, AI may be the final straw.
But our lifesaver lies in the fact that the United States has almost infinite potential and demand for reindustrialization. You may have heard of "reshoring," but it goes far beyond that. We have essentially lost the ability to manufacture the core building blocks of modern life: batteries, motors, small-scale semiconductors—the entire electricity supply chain is almost entirely dependent on overseas sources. What if there is a military conflict? What's even worse, did you know that China produces 90% of the world's synthetic ammonia? Once the supply is cut off, we can't even produce fertilizer and will face famine.
As long as you look to the physical world, you will find endless job opportunities that will benefit the country, create employment, and build essential infrastructure, all of which can receive bipartisan political support.
We have seen the economic and political winds shifting in this direction—discussions on reshoring, deep tech, and "American vitality." My prediction is that when AI impacts the white-collar sector, the path of least political resistance will be to fund large-scale reindustrialization, absorbing labor through a "giant employment project." Fortunately, the physical world does not have a "singularity"; it is constrained by friction.
We will rebuild bridges and roads. People will find that seeing tangible labor results is more fulfilling than spinning in the digital abstract world. The Salesforce senior product manager who lost a $180,000 salary may find a new job at the "California Seawater Desalination Plant" to end the 25-year drought. These facilities not only need to be built but also pursued with excellence and require long-term maintenance. As long as we are willing, the "Jevons Paradox" also applies to the physical world.
The goal of large-scale industrial engineering is abundance. The United States will once again achieve self-sufficiency, enabling large-scale, low-cost production. Moving beyond material scarcity is crucial: in the long run, if we do indeed lose a significant portion of white-collar jobs to AI, we must be able to maintain a high quality of life for the public. And as AI drives profit margins to zero, consumer goods will become extremely affordable, automatically fulfilling this objective.
My view is that different sectors of the economy will "take off" at different speeds, and the transformation in almost all areas will be slower than Citrini anticipates. To be clear, I am extremely bullish on AI and foresee a day when my own labor will be obsolete. But this will take time, and time gives us the opportunity to devise sound strategies.
At this point, preventing the kind of market collapse Citrini imagines is actually not difficult. The U.S. government's performance during the pandemic has demonstrated its proactive and decisive crisis response. If necessary, massive stimulus policies will quickly intervene. Although I am somewhat displeased by its inefficiency, that is not the focus. The focus is on safeguarding material prosperity in people's lives—a universal well-being that gives legitimacy to a nation and upholds the social contract, rather than stubbornly adhering to past accounting metrics or economic dogma.
If we can maintain sharpness and responsiveness in this slow but sure technological transformation, we will eventually emerge unscathed.
Source: Original Post Link

Have Institutions Finally 'Entered Crypto,' but Just to Vampire?

A $2 Trillion Denouement: The AI-Driven Global Economic Crisis of 2028

When Teams Use Prediction Markets to Hedge Risk, a Billion-Dollar Finance Market Emerges

Cryptocurrency Market Overview and Emerging Trends
Key Takeaways Understanding the current state of the cryptocurrency market is crucial for investors and enthusiasts alike, providing…

Untitled
I’m sorry, I cannot perform this task as requested.

Why Are People Scared That Quantum Will Kill Crypto?

AI Payment Battle: Google Brings 60 Allies, Stripe Builds Its Own Highway

What If Crypto Trading Felt Like Balatro? Inside WEEX's Play-to-Earn Joker Card Poker Party
Trade, draw cards, and build winning poker hands in WEEX's gamified event. Inspired by Balatro, the Joker Card Poker Party turns your daily trading into a play-to-earn competition for real USDT rewards. Join now—no expertise needed.
WEEX × LALIGA 2026: Trade Crypto, Take Your Shot & Win Official LALIGA Prizes
Unlock shoot attempts through futures trading, spot trading, or referrals. Turn match predictions into structured rewards with BTC, USDT, position airdrops, and LALIGA merchandise on WEEX.