I'm a DeFi builder. What is the best token whos… | Parse
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?
Data as of Sep 24, 2026 · Based on 350 AI responses from ChatGPT Search and Google AI Mode · See how Parse measures this
Pick StarkNet (STRK) if you want straightforward, on-chain developer payouts: its Devonomics program explicitly shares transaction fees with dapp builders (including a cited $3.5M distribution). Archway is a close alternative for protocol-aligned economics; Cosmos suits sovereign app chains, Superfluid enables streaming revenue splits, and GenLayer represents a newer tokenomics-first approach.
2023 List of Smart Contract Platforms: 10 Blockchains To Considerhttps://www.hiro.so/blog/list-of-smart-contract-platforms-10-blockchains-to-consider
3%
This blockchain network pays developers PASSIVE INCOMEhttps://www.youtube.com/watch
1%
About Archwayhttps://docs.archway.io/overview/about
1%
What is Blockchain Revenue Sharinghttps://coredao.org/core-academy/what-is-blockchain-revenue-sharing
1%
List of Smart Contract Platforms - Best Blockchain for Your Project in 2026https://ilink.dev/blog/top-smart-contract-platforms-choosing-the-best-blockchain-for-your-project-in-2025
1%
Core Rev+ Revenue Sharing Model - Core DAOhttps://docs.coredao.org/docs/Learn/rev-plus/overview
1%
What Are Smart Contracts? Blockchain, DeFi & Web3 Guidehttps://coinmooner.com/blog/crypto/what-is-smart-contract
1%
Smart Contract Platforms: Selecting The Best For Your Needs - Hackenhttps://hacken.io/discover/smart-contract-platforms/
1%
7 Best Smart Contract Platforms to Build and Scale in 2025https://www.calibraint.com/blog/top-smart-contract-platforms-list-2025
1%
Beginner's Guide: Top 10 Best Smart Contract Platforms for Businesseshttps://blog.mintology.app/top%E2%80%9110%E2%80%91best-smart-contract-platforms-businesses/
Question: I'm a DeFi builder. What is the best token whose blockchain allows for smart contract developers to earn a portion of the transaction fees their contracts generate?
For a DeFi builder looking specifically for a blockchain that natively allows smart contract creators to earn a direct cut of the transaction/gas fees generated by their contracts , the most prominent and dedicated ecosystem token for this feature is JUNO on the Juno Network.
The Token & Mechanism: JUNO ($JUNO)
The Feature: Juno features a built-in module called FeeShare.
How it Works: When users interact with a deployed smart contract on Juno, a percentage of the transaction's gas fees doesn't just go entirely to validators or the network's community pool—a customizable cut (up to 50% in standard configurations) is siphoned off and distributed straight to the developer or a designated withdrawal wallet (such as a personal address or a DAO treasury).
Payout Timing: The distribution happens natively and programmatically on a per-block basis as interactions take place.
Question: 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?
Question: 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?
Question: 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?
Question: 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 criterion is my top pick is —with an important 2026 caveat.
Question: 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?
For a DeFi builder looking for a native, protocol-level mechanism where smart contract developers automatically earn a cut of the transaction (gas) fees their code generates, the standout choice is and its native token, .
Question: 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?
Question: 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?
Question: 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?
Question: 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?
Ecosystem: Juno is a permissionless, interoperable smart-contract zone built within the Cosmos ecosystem using CosmWasm (allowing robust Rust-based smart contracts).
Alternative Considerations & Context
While native protocol-level gas-splitting like Juno’s FeeShare is rare, other ecosystems approach developer monetization differently:
The EVM / Layer 2 Reality: Major EVM chains (Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism, Base) do not natively split base gas/transaction fees with smart contract deployers. Instead, EVM DeFi builders typically monetize via application-layer fee parameters (e.g., taking a %-cut of swaps or lending yields inside the contract logic itself) or rely on auxiliary gas-abstraction tools like Circle Gas Station to sponsor or structure transaction costs.
If you're exploring this, let me know:
Are you open to building in Rust/CosmWasm (like Juno), or are you strictly looking for an EVM-compatible environment?
Would you prefer an ecosystem with native fee-sharing, or are you looking for strategies to implement application-layer fee splits on major L2s?
For a DeFi builder specifically looking for protocol-native fee sharing, the key distinction is whether you mean:
A chain automatically rebates a portion of gas fees to the contract developer, or
A chain lets a dapp/deployer explicitly set and collect application fees.
Those are quite different models.
The closest match: NEAR (NEAR)
Historically, NEAR Protocol had an unusually direct mechanism: 30% of the gas burned when a smart contract executes was credited to the contract account/developer. NEAR's own current blockchain page still describes the mechanism that way.
But there's an important 2026 caveat: NEAR governance has approved removing that 30% developer rebate. The implementation has been merged, while the September 2026 status update says mainnet deployment was still pending.
So I wouldn't choose NEAR today solely for the developer-fee-rebate thesis without first verifying the exact mainnet version/parameter at deployment time.
An interesting alternative: Hyperliquid / HYPE
If your goal is earning revenue from a DeFi application rather than specifically receiving a percentage of EVM gas, Hyperliquid is particularly relevant.
Its HyperEVM uses HYPE as the gas token, and the EVM is fully functional for deploying Solidity applications.
More importantly for a DeFi builder, Hyperliquid has explicit builder/deployer fee mechanisms:
Builder codes allow applications to receive fees on trades they route for users.
Perp builder fees can currently be up to 0.1%, while spot builder fees can be up to 1%, subject to the relevant approval mechanics.
Spot and HIP-3 perp deployers can retain up to 50% of trading fees generated by their deployed assets.
Hyperliquid's reported 2Q26 economic value included $26.1M of fee shares paid to builders and deployers, illustrating that this isn't merely a theoretical mechanism.
How I'd frame the choice
What you're trying to monetize
Mechanism to investigate
Every execution of your smart contract
NEAR's developer rebate model, but verify the post-HSP-027 mainnet state
Trading volume generated by your DeFi application
Hyperliquid builder codes
Launching your own tradable asset/market
Hyperliquid deployer fee sharing
Generic EVM dapp gas revenue
Look for an L2 implementing Contract Secured Revenue (CSR)
There is actually an Ethereum proposal specifically designed around your first requirement: EIP-6968, Contract Secured Revenue, which reallocates a portion of transaction fees to smart contracts based on their gas consumption. It was proposed as something L2s could implement, rather than a change to Ethereum L1 itself.
Bottom line: if by "earn a portion of the transaction fees their contracts generate" you mean literally a protocol-level share of gas, NEAR is the canonical example, but its economics are currently being changed. If you're building DeFi and care about actually monetizing application activity, Hyperliquid's builder/deployer fee architecture is a more directly relevant model to examine.
If you tell me what kind of DeFi app you're building (DEX, lending, perps, vaults, derivatives, etc.), I can compare the fee-sharing economics of the relevant chains—including expected developer revenue per $1M of user volume—without treating any token as an investment recommendation.
More importantly for a DeFi builder, Hyperliquid has explicit builder/deployer fee mechanisms:
If by “best” you mean the blockchain where a DeFi developer can directly capture a meaningful share of the fees generated by their smart contracts, the clearest candidates I found are Sonic (S) and Shape, with Sonic standing out among established EVM networks.
Sonic (S) — its Fee Monetization (FeeM) program lets registered applications receive up to 90% of the network fees generated by their contracts. That is unusually direct alignment between application usage and developer revenue.
Shape — its Gasback mechanism returns 80% of gas spent on a contract to its developer.
NEAR (NEAR) — its protocol routes 30% of the gas burned by a contract back to the contract/developer.
Canto (CANTO) — pioneered a similar model with Contract Secured Revenue, historically allocating 20% of transaction fees to contracts.
Solana (SOL) — doesn't fit your criterion at the protocol level: its base fees are split between burning and validators, while prioritization fees go to validators; they aren't automatically paid to the program developer.
What I'd investigate as a DeFi builder
Sonic is probably the first chain I'd evaluate, specifically because the mechanism is explicitly designed around application-level fee monetization and can reach 90%. But I wouldn't equate “highest percentage” with “highest expected revenue”: the important variables are actual transaction volume, fee levels, liquidity, users, developer incentives, eligibility/registration rules, and whether the fee stream is sustainable.
For context, current on-chain data show that Sonic-style fee monetization is materially different from ordinary L1 economics: on Solana, for example, protocol transaction fees accrue to the validator/burn mechanism rather than the application developer.
If you're actually choosing a chain to deploy a new DeFi protocol, I can do a deeper comparison of Sonic vs Shape vs NEAR vs Canto vs other fee-sharing chains, including developer fee %, current TVL, DEX volume, stablecoin liquidity, users/transactions, token valuation, and estimated annual revenue for a hypothetical $10M/$100M protocol volume.
As a DeFi builder looking to capture a native stream of the gas/transaction fees your smart contracts generate, the standout ecosystem offering this natively at the protocol level is Core DAO , powered by its native token, CORE.
While a few other networks have experimented with developer revenue-sharing (such as Fantom’s historical Gas Monetization program which shared roughly 15% of gas fees), Core DAO has formalized this natively through its Rev+ Revenue Sharing Model.
The Token & Network: Core DAO ($CORE)
How it works for builders: Core's Rev+ Engine is integrated directly into the transaction processing layer of the blockchain. It monitors EVM execution logs and matches them against active contract configurations to distribute a portion of the transaction gas fees directly back to the designated smart contract deployers or application teams.
The Distribution Models:
Direct Distribution: A slice of the transaction gas fees generated by your specific smart contract is routed automatically to your designated developer/DAO address in real-time as users interact with your dApp.
Rev+ Pool Sharing: Fees accumulate in a shared ecosystem reward pool and are distributed based on utilization metrics like transaction volume, unique active addresses, and total fees generated.
Why it fits: It completely shifts the builder monetization paradigm away from having to rely entirely on predatory front-end extraction, native token inflation, or forced governance token launches just to keep a protocol running.
Alternative Mentions
Sonic (formerly Fantom / $FTM ecosystem): Known for pioneering the concept of "Gas Monetization" where high-performing dApps can receive a direct percentage cut (historically 15%) of the gas fees they stimulate on the network. Check their current documentation to see how their transition to Sonic affects active builder gas-rebate mechanics.
Stability Protocol ($GATE / native gas setups): Utilizes a "Business Share Revenue (BSR)" mechanism designed to split transaction fees directly between network validators and the specific dApp/smart contract being called.
If you want to dive deeper, let me know:
Are you looking to deploy on an EVM-compatible Layer 1 like Core, or open to exploring Layer 2 environments?
What kind of DeFi primitive are you building (DEX, lending market, derivatives)?
“the protocol itself automatically shares transaction-fee revenue with the smart-contract developer,”
NEAR (NEAR)
My ranking
NEAR — best established option
NEAR historically gives the contract account 30% of the gas burned during execution. This is protocol-level, automatic revenue sharing rather than something you have to implement inside your DeFi app.
That's particularly interesting for DeFi because higher contract usage directly creates a native revenue stream for the contract.
NEAR also has very low fees and ~1–2 second finality, making high-frequency applications economically viable.
But: NEAR governance approved a proposal in 2026 to eliminate the 30% developer rebate, with mainnet activation targeted for protocol v2.14. So I would not buy NEAR specifically on the assumption that the 30% rebate still exists today.
STABILITY — most directly aligned with your exact requirement
STABILITY has a mechanism called Business Share Revenue (BSR) that splits transaction fees between the validator and the smart contract/dApp being called.
The default example is 50% to the validator / 50% to the dApp, although the split is configurable.
It is EVM-compatible, so the model is much closer to what you're describing as a Solidity/DeFi builder.
The downside: BSR is explicitly Beta, and contracts currently need to be whitelisted to withdraw accumulated rewards.
Helios — interesting emerging model
Helios has an approved smart-contract-creator incentive mechanism specifying 10% of transaction fees by default for the contract creator, adjustable through governance.
I'd put it behind STABILITY because I'd want substantially more evidence of mainnet adoption and actual fee generation before treating the token as an investment thesis.
The important distinction
For a DeFi builder, I'd separate “developers receive protocol fees” from “the protocol has low fees.”
For example, SKALE is attractive for DeFi because of its app-chain architecture and extremely low/zero user gas, but its economics are essentially the opposite of what you're asking: applications/chain owners pay validators through a subscription model rather than contracts receiving a share of users' transaction fees.
So if I were evaluating this as an investment + deployment thesis today, I'd investigate STABILITY first, rather than simply buying NEAR for its old 30% rebate. The key question is whether STABILITY can generate enough organic transaction volume for the fee-sharing mechanism to become meaningful.
If you want, I can also do a 2026 comparison of 10–15 chains with developer fee sharing, ranking them by fee percentage, current DeFi TVL, actual fees generated, token valuation, EVM compatibility, and expected developer revenue.
The Mechanism (Gas Rebate): Unlike most blockchains where 1 0 0% of the transaction fee goes strictly to validators or the network/burn mechanism, NEAR protocol has a built-in 30% gas rebate for smart contract developers.
How the Split Works: When a user interacts with your smart contract on NEAR, the protocol splits the computed gas execution fee:
30% of the fee is rebated directly back to the account/address that deployed the smart contract.
70% of the fee is permanently burned (helping offset the network's base inflation).
Why it matters for a DeFi Builder: If you deploy a high-throughput DeFi primitive (like a DEX, lending market, or automated yield router) that generates heavy user interaction, you don’t have to rely solely on front-end fees or complex proxy fee-sinks. The blockchain itself continuously streams 30% of the underlying computation revenue back to your contract's treasury or development account.
How to Explore Further
You can read the technical breakdown of how execution fees and developer rebates are calculated directly in the NEAR Gas Documentation.
If you want to move forward, tell me:
Are you planning to write your contracts in Rust or JavaScript/TypeScript?
Are you deploying a brand-new DeFi architecture or porting an existing EVM app over via NEAR's compatibility layers?
I can help outline how the storage staking and fee structures will impact your specific protocol design.
The premier ecosystem for this exact model is Sonic (token: $S) —the high-performance EVM Layer-1 network built as the evolutionary successor to Fantom.
Sonic pioneered and heavily refined a native mechanism known as Fee Monetization (FeeM) , which functions natively at the protocol layer rather than relying on temporary grants or external fundraising.
How Fee Monetization (FeeM) Works on Sonic
The Revenue Share: Depending on the network usage tier and governance structures, eligible dApp developers can earn up to 90% of the gas/transaction fees generated by user interactions with their smart contracts.
The Web2 Analogy: It mirrors a creator-revenue model (like YouTube ad-revenue splits), turning transaction volume directly into a sustainable business model for protocol builders without forcing you to spin up an expensive, isolated app-chain.
Token Mechanics: Transaction fees on the network are paid in the native $S token, and the protocol balances builder payouts with validator incentives and token burn models to sustain healthy tokenomics.
Alternative Ecosystems with Similar Approaches
If you are exploring other chains that experiment with developer-fee splits or native developer compensation, look at:
Astar Network ($ASTR): Utilizes dApp Staking , which acts like a developer "basic income" stream. Stakers nominate specific dApps, and a portion of the network's block rewards goes directly to the developers based on community weight and popularity.
Celo ($CELO): While famous for its Fee Abstraction framework (allowing users to pay gas in stablecoins like USDC/USDT rather than native tokens), it heavily optimizes the UX layer for apps, though it doesn't have a direct 90% gas-rebat-to-contract feature quite like Sonic's FeeM.
If you're planning a deployment, let me know:
What kind of DeFi primitive are you building (DEX, lending market, derivative, etc.)?
Are you looking to migrate an existing protocol or build net-new?
I can share more details on FeeM eligibility requirements or performance benchmarks for Sonic.
If your criterion is specifically “the chain should pay the smart-contract developer a share of the gas fees generated by that contract,” my top pick is Sonic (S).
My ranking
Sonic (S) — best fit
Sonic's Fee Monetization (FeeM) program gives participating builders 90% of the network fees their applications generate; 10% goes to validators.
It is EVM-compatible, so Solidity/Vyper DeFi applications can be deployed without abandoning the Ethereum development stack.
Crucially, the system traces gas consumption through internal contract calls, so fees can be attributed to the applications/contracts actually generating the activity.
All apps are eligible to apply, with contracts registered to establish ownership.
Sonic also has a large developer incentive program, including an Innovator Fund of up to 200M S.
NEAR Protocol — best simple/native implementation
NEAR automatically gives a contract account 30% of the gas burned while executing that contract.
This is arguably the cleanest implementation of the idea: deploy a contract, users interact with it, and the contract account receives its share automatically.
The catch for a DeFi builder is that NEAR isn't EVM-native in the same way Sonic/Core are, so the developer experience and existing Ethereum liquidity/tooling are less direct.
Core DAO (CORE) — potentially the most interesting asymmetric bet
Core's Rev+ lets approved dApps receive a portion of gas fees generated by specific contract events/functions.
It is particularly interesting because Rev+ can work at the contract/event level without requiring you to rewrite an existing EVM contract.
But there's an important distinction: Rev+ is governance/configuration-driven, rather than Sonic's straightforward “90% of your app's generated fees” model.
Core currently has dramatically less DeFi activity than the major L1/L2 ecosystems; DefiLlama currently shows only about $4.6M TVL.
Why I'd choose Sonic for a DeFi builder
The killer feature isn't merely the percentage. It's the combination:
For example, suppose your DEX generates $100,000 of gas fees attributable to your application. Under Sonic's FeeM model, the conceptual split is roughly:
$90,000 → your application$10,000 → validators
That's unusually favorable compared with conventional Ethereum-style economics, where the application developer generally gets $0 of the gas fee.
And Sonic explicitly designed FeeM to trace gas through subcalls, which matters for composable DeFi.
One important caveat
I'd separate “best blockchain for building on” from “best token investment.”
S is the strongest answer to your builder economics question. It does not automatically follow that S is the best token to buy, because the token's investment return depends on valuation, token supply, emissions, ecosystem growth, FeeM payouts, liquidity, and how much of the economic value ultimately accrues to S holders.
If you're evaluating this as a DeFi founder/investor, I'd currently investigate Sonic S first, NEAR second, and CORE third.
The really interesting comparison would be: which of S / NEAR / CORE gives a DeFi protocol the highest expected dollar revenue per $1 of user transaction volume, after gas costs, token incentives, liquidity, and token dilution? That's a much more useful metric than the headline 90%/30% numbers.
For a DeFi builder looking for a protocol designed from the ground up to programmatically share network fees directly with smart contract developers, the standout choice is Archway (powered by the ARCH token).
The Best Choice: Archway (ARCH)
Archway is a incentivized Layer 1 blockchain built using the Cosmos SDK and CosmWasm (supporting Rust-based smart contracts) where developer-level revenue sharing is protocol-native rather than an afterthought or a hack.
How the Fee Split Works: The protocol automatically tracks gas consumption per smart contract. When users interact with your dApp and pay gas fees, a portion of those collected transaction fees is funneled directly back to the smart contract creator (developer) as a Gas Rebate.
The Split Structure: Archway splits transaction fees natively—historically routing a significant share (e.g., up to 50% of the base gas fee) straight to the developer's designated withdrawal address, turning code usage directly into protocol-level recurring revenue.
Additional Incentives: Beyond gas fee splits, Archway contracts can also be allocated a portion of network-level inflation rewards based on the volume of usage and value the dApp brings to the overall ecosystem.
Alternative Ecosystem Approaches
While Archway builds this natively into the transaction layer, other ecosystems handle developer incentives through alternative mechanics:
Astar Network (ASTR - Polkadot/EVM): Uses a dApp Staking mechanism rather than a direct per-tx gas split. Developers register their smart contracts, and community members stake tokens to support their favorite dApps. Block/inflation rewards are then split between validators and the staked dApp developers, providing a steady baseline "developer basic income" based on ecosystem curation.
Traditional EVM Chains (Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism, Base): Do not offer protocol-native fee sharing for smart contract creators. If you build standard EVM smart contracts here, you must manually program your own application-layer fees (e.g., hardcoding a 0.0 5% swap fee or protocol fee collector into your Solidity logic) rather than capturing a cut of the underlying network gas/transaction fee.
If you're considering building on Archway , would you like to explore:
How CosmWasm/Rust compares to your current Solidity stack?
The exact breakdown of their gas rebate calculations?
Alternative application-layer fee patterns for EVM chains?
If your criterion is specifically “the smart-contract developer earns a share of the transaction fees generated by their contracts,” my top pick right now is STABILITY (the STABILITY blockchain / token) rather than a conventional L1 like Ethereum, Solana, or Monad.
🥇 Best fit: STABILITY
STABILITY has an explicit mechanism called Business Share Revenue (BSR). It splits transaction fees between the network validator and the smart contract (dApp) being called. In other words, the economic value of your application can accrue directly to its developer rather than all gas revenue going to validators/sequencers.
That is unusually close to exactly what you're asking for:
User calls your DeFi contract → user pays transaction fee → part of that fee is attributed to your dApp.
The important caveat is that BSR is currently in beta, so I would not treat the current parameters as permanent.
Other interesting contenders
MODE — probably the most compelling alternative. Its developer program explicitly says that Mode shares sequencer fee revenue with developers, with every transaction through your smart contract earning part of the fees.
Injective (INJ) — excellent if your application is an exchange, trading interface, or agent. Injective's exchange infrastructure gives originating dApps 40% of trading fees from orders they source. Its newer agent infrastructure also routes fee revenue to registered agents/builders.
Berachain (BERA) — has strong application-level economic incentives, but its core BEX fee model primarily routes fees to LPs and BGT stakers rather than automatically paying arbitrary smart-contract developers.
Monad (MON) — has substantial DeFi activity, but its standard transaction-fee economics aren't as directly aligned with “the contract developer gets the gas generated by that contract.” Current data show meaningful chain and application fee volume, but that's a different mechanism.
My ranking for a DeFi builder
Chain
Direct developer fee share
DeFi suitability
My take
STABILITY
Yes — BSR
🟡 Emerging
Best match to your exact requirement
MODE
Yes — sequencer fee sharing
🟡/🟢
Very interesting economic model
If I were choosing purely on your stated objective, I'd investigate STABILITY first and MODE second. If you're building a DEX, perp venue, trading terminal, or autonomous trading agent, I'd put Injective/INJ much higher because its fee-recipient architecture is already directly useful to that business model.
One distinction matters a lot: “developers receive transaction fees generated by their contracts” is fundamentally different from “protocol has a revenue-sharing program.” I would evaluate the former at the protocol/VM level, because it creates a much more durable business model for DeFi developers.
If you tell me whether you're building a DEX, lending protocol, vault, derivatives protocol, or something else, I can rank the chains specifically by developer fee capture + TVL + users + token value accrual + decentralization + current liquidity.
