I'm a DeFi builder. What is the best token whose blockchain allows for smart contract developers to earn a portion of the transaction fees their contracts generate?

If your primary criterion is “I build a smart contract, and the blockchain itself gives me a share of the fees generated by that contract,” my top pick today is Sonic (S).

S

Why Sonic stands out

• 90% fee share: Sonic's Fee Monetization (FeeM) program lets eligible builders earn 90% of the network fees generated by their apps. That's unusually aggressive compared with other chains.
• Actually live: FeeM went live in 2025, and Sonic reported that developers had earned more than 2 million S in app revenue by September 2025.
• EVM compatible: You can deploy Solidity/Vyper applications using the Ethereum tooling ecosystem, so it's a relatively low-friction migration for a DeFi builder.
• S is the native gas/staking token: S is used for transaction fees, staking, governance and network security, so the token has direct utility in the fee-generating ecosystem.
• The model is unusually aligned with builders: Sonic explicitly describes FeeM as rewarding applications according to the traffic they generate, rather than routing essentially all gas revenue to validators/burn.

For context, the competitive landscape is roughly:

Those figures are based on the respective fee-sharing mechanisms and can have eligibility/registration conditions.

The important DeFi-builder caveat

I wouldn't interpret “90%” as 90% of every dollar your protocol charges users. FeeM is a share of the network transaction fees attributable to your app. Your own protocol economics—DEX swap fees, lending spreads, vault fees, liquidation fees, etc.—remain a separate layer.

There's also an interesting wrinkle: Sonic has introduced a FeeM Vault where 90% of fees generated by certain core token contracts (including wS, USDC, USDT, WETH and WBTC) goes to the vault rather than directly to the contract developer; that revenue is then intended to fund the Sonic ecosystem.

So if I were evaluating chains specifically as a DeFi founder, I'd currently rank:

1. Sonic (S) — best pure protocol-level builder-fee economics 2. Shape — very strong 80% Gasback model, but L2 rather than L1 3. Archway/Nibiru — interesting ~50% developer-reward models, especially if Cosmos is strategically useful 4. NEAR — established ecosystem, but only 30% of contract gas reward

If you tell me what kind of DeFi protocol you're building (DEX, lending, perp DEX, vaults, derivatives, etc.), I can compare Sonic vs. the other fee-sharing chains specifically for your business model, including TVL, current chain revenue, liquidity, token valuation, developer incentives, and likely actual dollar revenue per $1M of user volume.

Sonic (S) (formerly known in early development phases or related ecosystems like Fantom's major upgrades) is currently a leading prominent L1 chain offering native developer fee-sharing, where smart contract developers can earn up to 90% of the transaction (gas) fees generated by their decentralized applications. Another notable mention is Stability Protocol (SITY) , which features a native Business Share Revenue (BSR) model splitting fees directly with dApp creators.

Top Fee-Sharing Smart Contract Blockchains

Key Details for Builders

• Sonic (S): Offers sub-second finality (~720ms) and high throughput while redirecting a massive share of collected gas fees straight back to the deploying smart contract address.
• Stability Protocol: Implements Business Share Revenue (BSR) natively at the protocol level, splitting transaction revenue dynamically between network validators and the targeted dApp.

Would you like to explore the technical documentation and integration steps for fee-monetization on Sonic, or do you want to compare their gas monetization models further?

The premier token and ecosystem matching this exact description is Sonic ($S) (the high-performance EVM Layer-1 network built as the spiritual and technological successor to Fantom).

Sonic features a native protocol-level mechanism called Fee Monetization , which directly addresses the traditional L1 paradigm where validators or coin burns absorb 100% of network fees.

How Sonic's Fee Monetization Works for Builders:

• The Revenue Split: Instead of burning base fees or giving 100% to validators, Sonic routes up to 90% of the transaction fees generated by a specific smart contract directly back to the dApp developer/creator, with the remaining 10% going to network validators.
• Native Monetization: You do not need to hack together custom, clunky frontend wrapper fees or issue an independent governance token just to monetize your protocol's basic on-chain footprint. Your smart contract natively accumulates a direct revenue stream based on how much gas usage/transaction volume it drives.
• The Token: $S is the native gas and governance token for the Sonic network, powering transactions and serving as the foundational asset for the ecosystem.

Alternative Ecosystems with Developer Incentives:

• Astar Network ($ASTR): Features dApp Staking , which functions like a developer-focused reward system where network inflation/rewards are directed to smart contract builders based on how much community $ASTR is staked to their specific dApp contract. However, it's structured via staking allocation rather than a direct cut of live transactional gas fees like Sonic.
• Hyperliquid ($HYPE): Through advanced extensions like HIP-3 , Hyperliquid allows builders to deploy custom builder-led perpetual markets and capture distinct builder revenue hooks, though it is specifically tailored to order-book derivatives infrastructure rather than general-purpose EVM gas fee sharing.

If you are deploying high-throughput DeFi primitives (like AMMs, lending markets, or derivative engines) where user transaction frequency is high, Sonic ($S) provides the most lucrative native alignment by turning your contract's gas consumption directly into sustainable protocol revenue.

If you're considering building on Sonic, would you like me to dive into:

• Technical documentation for registering your contracts with their FeeM system?
• How their throughput (∼1 0,0 0 0 TPS) and sub-second finality impact high-frequency DeFi logic?

If your criterion is “the protocol itself pays the developer when users execute my smart contract”, my top pick today is NEAR (NEAR)—with an important caveat about a live protocol change.

🥇 Best fit: NEAR

NEAR has one of the cleanest implementations of this idea: 30% of the gas burned during smart-contract execution is paid to the contract account. It is protocol-level, automatic, and proportional to actual usage—not a grant or an application-level fee you have to invent yourself.

That is particularly interesting for DeFi because you can monetize high-frequency contract execution without adding an explicit protocol fee on top of the user's transaction.

However, there's a major catch right now, August 26, 2026: NEAR has approved a change to remove the 30% rebate. The nearcore codebase currently has the change in its unreleased code, changing burnt_gas_reward from 30% to 0%. GitHub The planned v2.14 upgrade was targeted for August 2026, so I would not buy NEAR specifically for this feature until you verify that mainnet still has the rebate at the moment you deploy.

🥈 More interesting for an EVM DeFi builder: Mode (MODE)

Mode Network is worth serious consideration if you want to stay in the Ethereum/OP Stack ecosystem. Mode explicitly says it shares sequencer-fee revenue with developers, and that every transaction going through your smart contract earns part of the fees.

That's much closer to your exact business model than ordinary Ethereum L2 incentives.

The distinction is important, though: NEAR's mechanism was a direct gas rebate to the contract, whereas Mode's is sequencer-fee sharing. So I'd want to examine Mode's exact current allocation formula and payout mechanics before treating it as equivalent.

Other contenders

• Core (CORE) — its Rev+ system distributes a portion of transaction gas fees to configured developers/DAOs when specified contract events occur. It's explicitly designed as protocol-level revenue sharing, but you have to apply/configure contracts for the program.
• Stability (STBL) — its Business Share Revenue mechanism splits transaction fees between validators and the smart contract being called; the documented default example is 50/50. This is perhaps the most literal match to your requirement, but BSR is currently beta, making it substantially less proven.
• Helios — has a protocol hook that automatically sends 10% of transaction fees to contract creators, configurable through governance. Interesting mechanism, but considerably less mature/ecosystem-liquid than the major DeFi chains.
• AERE — launched a fee-monetization contract in May 2026 that pays developers for every transaction touching registered contracts. The developer share is represented by an NFT and is currently quite novel, but I'd put it well below the others for a serious DeFi deployment.

My ranking for a DeFi builder

*The 30% NEAR mechanism is currently being removed, so I would not make a new investment decision based on it without checking the mainnet upgrade status.

Bottom line: If you're building an actual DeFi protocol rather than merely looking for the highest nominal developer percentage, I'd investigate Mode first, Core second, and Stability third. Mode gives you the most compelling combination of EVM compatibility + DeFi orientation + explicit developer sequencer-fee sharing.

If you want, I can go one level deeper and rank these chains by expected annual developer revenue for a hypothetical $100M / $1B / $10B annual DeFi volume, including current TVL, fees, token value, liquidity, and the actual developer payout formula.

The distinction is important, though: NEAR's mechanism was a direct gas rebate to the contract, whereas Mode's is sequencer-fee sharing. So I'd want to examine Mode's exact current allocation formula and payout mechanics before treating it as equivalent.

Other contenders

Here are top web results for exploring this topic:

Gate.com·https://www.gate.com**Top** 5 Tokens Recommended for DeFi Investment | Gate Wiki DeFi, short for Decentralized Finance, is an innovative financial system that facilitates transactions without the need for intermediaries or central authorities. Built on blockchain (distributed ledg AADS·https://aads.com**Top** 6 DeFi Tokens to Buy | AADS Blog The purpose of DeFi is to decrease the risks and find the balance between volatility and return. That's where DeFi helps to eliminate the risk of losing everything at once. DeFi tokens, in turn, are a MoonPay·https://www.moonpay.com**Top DeFi** coins in 2025 | A list of popular DeFi tokens - MoonPay YFI token. Yearn Finance launched YFI in 2021 and gave away all 30,000 tokens to its users. YFI can be used for governance and allows its token holders to receive a portion of the trading fees the pla Kraken·https://www.kraken.com**Top Smart Contract** Platform Coins by Market Cap - Kraken Smart contract platforms are blockchain networks that enable self-executing contracts where terms are written in code. Unlike traditional contracts, these smart contracts automatically enforce agreeme CoinMarketCap·https://coinmarketcap.com**Top Smart Contracts Tokens** by Market Capitalization | CoinMarketCap Smart contracts are immutable and distributed among the blockchain, providing a simple and secure mechanism for multiple parties to do business, or execute any agreement. The distributed aspect of the YouTube·https://www.youtube.com**DeFi** is Back: Top 6 DeFi Tokens for Bull Market Gains - YouTube Your browser can't play this video. Learn more · Sign in. This content isn't available. Newsletter: https://newsletter.dyn... Twitter: https://x.com/patfscott Dynamo DeFi Twitter: https://x.com/Dynamo[](https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/6-top-cryptocurrencies-with-smart-contracts-2021-09-21) Nasdaq·https://www.nasdaq.com 6 Top Cryptocurrencies With Smart Contracts - Nasdaq Ethereum was the first cryptocurrency to launch smart contract functionality. As a result, it powers the lion's share of applications. According to State of the dApps, about 80% of DeFi applications r Reddit·https://www.reddit.com**Best** /Cheapest Chains for a complete Beginner? : r/defi - Reddit Arbitrum: An Ethereum Layer 2 (L2) solution, Arbitrum is well-known for its pricing. Compared to the Ethereum mainnet1, it provides faster and less expensive transactions. Another L2 solution that has Koinly·https://koinly.io 10 Best DeFi Crypto Projects 2026 - Koinly Ether.fi. What? Restaking, lending & on-chain capital allocator. Built: 2023. TVL: $5.2 billion. Blockchain: Ethereum. Token: ETHFI · What? Restaking, lending & on-chain capital allocator. Built: 2023 OKX·https://www.okx.com**Best Crypto** for DeFi Projects: A Guide to the Ecosystems - OKX Ethereum is where DeFi was born. It was the first platform to introduce smart contracts, and it continues to host the largest and most diverse DeFi ecosystem by a significant margin. The vast majority

If your criterion is specifically “the blockchain routes transaction/gas revenue back to the smart-contract developers who generate it,” my top pick is Blast (BLAST).

🥇 Best fit: Blast / BLAST

Blast has an unusually direct developer-revenue mechanism:

• Contracts can opt into “Claimable” gas mode.
• The gas spent on a contract is attributed to that contract, including proportional allocation when transactions make nested calls.
• The claim rate starts at 50% and matures to 100% over 30 days on mainnet, net of L1 data-availability costs.
• The contract's governor can claim the accumulated gas revenue.
• Blast explicitly positions this as a way for developers either to keep the revenue or use it to subsidize users' gas.

That's almost exactly the economic primitive you're describing: your DeFi protocol creates transaction demand → your contracts consume gas → the chain shares the resulting sequencer revenue with you.

An important competitor: Mode

Mode (MODE) has an arguably even more aggressive percentage model. Its Sequencer Fee Sharing mechanism has been described as returning 80% of net sequencer revenue to applications, proportional to the gas they generate.

However, I'd be much more cautious about calling MODE the best token investment. As of August 2026, MODE's market activity is extremely small; CoinGecko reports a market cap of only roughly $300K and very low daily trading volume. www.coingecko.com That's a huge liquidity/execution risk for a token thesis.

My ranking for a DeFi builder

One subtle but important distinction: Blast isn't giving you the “fees your DEX charges users.” Your own protocol fees are still yours. It's giving your contracts a share of the gas/sequencer revenue generated by users interacting with them. That makes the model particularly interesting for high-volume, low-margin DeFi applications.

So if you're choosing a token specifically around this thesis, I'd investigate BLAST first, with MODE as the more asymmetric/high-risk alternative. I would not buy either token solely because of fee sharing—the crucial next step is determining whether the chain actually has enough organic transaction volume for developer rebates to become economically significant.

If you want, I can also do a 2026 deep dive comparing BLAST vs MODE vs CANTO vs other fee-sharing chains, including current TVL, daily fees, developer revenue, token market cap, token unlocks, and the implied developer-revenue / token-valuation ratio.

If your criterion is specifically “I deploy smart contracts, and I want the chain itself to pay me a share of the gas generated by those contracts,” my top pick is Sonic (S).

🥇 Best fit: Sonic (S)

Sonic has a native Fee Monetization (FeeM) mechanism that is unusually well aligned with a DeFi builder's economics. Eligible developers can receive up to 90% of the network fees generated by their applications.

That is materially different from the usual L1 model:

User pays gas → validator/network captures most of it

On Sonic, the intended model is closer to:

User pays gas → your contract generated the activity → you receive a large share of that gas

Sonic's own 2026 update says builders had earned more than 2.6 million S through FeeM, while noting that the 90% model was still active and under evaluation for possible future tiering.

The native token is S, which pays transaction fees and is also used for staking and validator participation.

Why I'd pick Sonic over alternatives

Sonic is also explicitly positioning FeeM as an application-level economic model rather than merely a temporary grant program: the chain says apps can earn up to 90% of the fees they generate.

One important wrinkle

I wouldn't interpret “90%” as an unconditional permanent entitlement. Sonic has already discussed moving from the flat 90% rebate toward a tiered FeeM structure, and external reporting says the proposed tiers range from 15% to 90% depending on network usage.

So, as a builder, I'd value Sonic's proposition as:

“One of the strongest current L1s for contract-level fee monetization,” rather than “S token holders permanently receive 90% of gas.”

Also, don't confuse this with Uniswap v4 hook fees. Uniswap lets hook developers impose custom fees, but that's a fee mechanism implemented by your application—not the blockchain automatically sharing its base transaction fees with your contract.

Bottom line: If you're choosing a token/chain specifically because you expect your DeFi contracts to generate substantial transaction volume, S (Sonic) is probably the clearest answer today. The interesting investment question, though, is whether Sonic's FeeM creates enough net value for S after accounting for token emissions, dilution, liquidity, and the possibility of changing the rebate schedule.

If you want, I can also do a builder-focused comparison of S vs ETH, SOL, HYPE, BERA, MON and other fee-sharing chains, including actual developer revenue per $1M of transaction volume.

The standout network matching your criteria is Blast ($BLAST), an Ethereum Layer 2 network that pioneered native gas fee revenue sharing for smart contract builders.

The Best Choice: Blast ($BLAST)

• How it works: Unlike standard L2s (like Optimism or Arbitrum) or Layer 1s that keep 100% of the sequencer and priority fees for themselves, Blast programmatically routes a portion of the net gas fees back to the smart contracts that generated them.
• The Gas Mode: Developers can configure their deployed contracts into different gas modes. By setting a contract's gas mode to Claimable , the base and priority fees spent interacting with that specific contract can be claimed directly by you as the builder (net of L1 data costs).
• EVM Compatibility: Because it is an EVM-compatible Optimistic Rollup utilizing the OP Stack, you can deploy your standard Solidity codebases using familiar tooling (Foundry, Hardhat) without learning a new language.

Alternative Context & Historical Notes

• NEAR Protocol ($NEAR): Historically, NEAR offered a prominent 30% Developer Gas Rebate where smart contracts received a direct cut of burned gas fees during execution. However, governance voted to sunset this feature, transitioning the rebate rate to 0% to route 100% of fees to protocol-level token burns instead.
• Other L1/L2 Fee Abstraction Models: Networks like zkSync Era or Starknet heavily support Gas Sponsorship and Account Abstraction (ERC-4337 / ERC-7702) , which allows your dApp to subsidize or abstract user fees, but they don't natively grant protocol gas revenue back to the developer's pocket the way Blast's claimable gas architecture does.

If you're planning a deployment, let me know:

• What kind of DeFi primitive are you building (e.g., DEX, lending, perpetuals)?
• Are you set on an EVM environment , or open to other runtimes?

I can provide more technical details on configuring Blast's Claimable Gas Mode or optimizing your contract architecture for it.

If you are a DeFi builder optimizing for protocol-level developer revenue, the strongest candidates today are not necessarily the biggest market-cap chains. You are looking for chains with native fee-sharing / contract revenue mechanisms. The standout options are:

My ranking for a DeFi founder

1. Sonic (S) — best overall builder economics

• The model is closest to what DeFi founders want: you deploy a successful protocol → users create gas activity → you capture a large portion of that economic activity.
• This resembles Web2 platform economics more than traditional crypto incentives.
• Good fit for:
  • DEXs
  • lending markets
  • perpetuals
  • yield protocols
  • consumer DeFi apps

2. Canto (CANTO) — strongest "public infrastructure" philosophy

• CSR is very aligned with the idea that smart contracts are productive assets.
• The tradeoff is ecosystem size/liquidity versus larger EVM ecosystems.

3. Core (CORE) — potentially attractive for stablecoin and payments DeFi

• Rev+ is broader than just individual contracts and may fit protocols tied to large transaction flows.

Important caveat

A fee-share mechanism alone does not guarantee success. For a DeFi builder I would weight:

1. Liquidity availability
2. User acquisition
3. Bridge and stablecoin depth
4. Oracle infrastructure
5. Developer tooling
6. Revenue capture

A chain where you earn 90% of tiny fees may be worse than one where you earn 10% of massive volume.

If I were choosing purely as a DeFi entrepreneur:

• High-risk/high-upside: Sonic
• Experimenting with novel DeFi primitives: Canto
• Stablecoin/payment-focused DeFi: Core
• Long-term thesis: watch chains implementing EIP-6968-style Contract Secured Revenue concepts, because developer fee capture may become a competitive differentiator among L1s/L2s.

For a serious DeFi launch, I would currently shortlist Sonic first, then compare against Base/Arbitrum/Optimism-style ecosystems where distribution and liquidity may outweigh direct fee capture.

Several leading layer-1 and layer-2 blockchains have introduced native fee-sharing or developer-incentive mechanisms that allow smart contract creators to capture a percentage of the gas or transaction fees generated by their contracts.

The top ecosystems offering smart contract fee-sharing include:

• Avalanche (AVAX) : Through its Avalanche Multiverse and specific upgrade proposals like AVAX fee-sharing/subnets , certain architectures and subnets allow developers to customize fee structures, though native C-Chain fee monetization has traditionally relied on custom dapp-level fee logic. However, the ecosystem has heavily supported gas-rebate and developer incentive programs.
• Canto (CANTO) : Known for pioneering Contract Secured Revenue (CSR) , Canto allows smart contracts to register and claim a percentage of the network transaction fees (gas fees) generated by user interactions with their contracts. The native token is CANTO.
• Shardeum (SHM) : Designed with an auto-scaling architecture, Shardeum's protocol features a built-in mechanism for developer fee-sharing, allocating a portion of transaction fees directly to the smart contract creator to foster a sustainable dApp development environment.
• Astar Network (ASTR) : Operating on Polkadot (and expanding via EVM/zkEVM layers), Astar features dApp Staking , which acts as a form of developer revenue by rewarding registered smart contracts and their builders with newly minted native tokens based on community nominations and usage.

If you want to narrow this down, let me know:

• Are you deploying an EVM-compatible contract or building on a specific virtual machine?
• Do you prefer a native gas-fee split (like Canto's CSR) or an inflationary/staking reward model (like Astar)?

I can dive deeper into the tokenomics, integration steps, and revenue yields for your preferred chain.