Ethereum held about $120 billion in staked ETH and layer-2 networks recorded a daily average total value locked of $40.4 billion in a 21 September snapshot from the cryptocurrency’s institutional data hub.
However, the figures represent different parts of the Ethereum ecosystem and should not be combined as evidence of new demand for ETH. Staked coins are committed to network security, while the layer-2 total measures assets held across connected networks.
At the same time, US-traded Ethereum exchange-traded funds (ETFs) recorded more than $140 million in net outflows between 15 and 18 September. That shows how substantial staking and layer-2 activity can exist alongside withdrawals from a specific investment route.
Staking does not automatically mean new buying
Staking requires ETH to be deposited to activate validators, which help secure Ethereum in return for rewards. An investor may stake coins already in their possession, meaning the increase in staking does not necessarily represent a new purchase.
Some ETH may instead be bought specifically for staking. The staking figure alone cannot show how much additional capital entered the market, particularly because its dollar value changes with the price of ETH.
Liquid staking tokens add another layer to the picture. They can represent deposited ETH and allow investors to transfer their exposure, while the underlying coins remain committed to validator activity and the token holder retains a route to liquidity.
The more relevant question for demand is how much ETH was acquired before it was staked. Farside Investors’ Ethereum ETF table provides a dated record of activity through one investment channel, although it does not capture the whole market.
The previous week began with $121.1 million in inflows on 14 September. The funds then recorded $405.4 million in outflows from 14 to 17 September, before US-traded spot Ethereum ETFs ended the week on 18 September with $143.7 million in fresh inflows.
ETF data cannot determine total ETH demand either, because it only records money moving through those funds.
Layer-2 assets are not the same as Ethereum fees
The $40.4 billion layer-2 figure describes assets held on those networks. Their relationship with ETH holders depends on what the networks pay to use Ethereum’s services.
L2BEAT’s on-chain-costs measure tracks payments by layer-2 operators for posting transaction data, proofs and state updates. Its categories include calldata, blobs, compute and overhead. These costs are separate from the fees charged directly to users, while spending on blobs alone does not represent the full settlement cost.
Even total operator payments cannot be treated as identical to ETH burned. Ethereum burns its execution base fee, while priority fees are paid to validators. Blob fees are handled in a separate market and are also burned.
As a result, increasing layer-2 activity does not automatically create a proportional benefit for every ETH holder. Assets held, user fees, payments to Ethereum and reductions in supply are distinct measures.
Ultrasound.money showed a gas reading of 1.8 gwei on 21 September. Lower execution base fees reduce the amount of ETH burned for each unit of gas used, although they may also reflect successful scaling that has made transactions cheaper.
Total burning depends on gas consumption and the relevant execution and blob fees. The net change in supply also depends on the amount of ETH issued.
Staking gives ETH a role in securing the network, while settlement gives it a role in paying for Ethereum’s services. Whether those functions lead to more purchases or a falling supply depends on acquisition flows and fee levels over time.
