Avalanche
AVAX ✓ VerifiedPrice
$6.50
24h
-2.44%
Mkt cap
$3.07B
Volume
$2.4M
We read this asset as:Cash-flow lensFees accrue to token holders — read via P/F, P/S and premium.
Today's backdroppolicy rate (EFFR) 3.63% · 10Y–2Y +0.28 (upward-sloping) · gold $4,587 · WTI $100shared macro environment — context, not a driver of this price
0.00% of this price is anchored to realized cash flow today — the base-fee burn, capitalized. The remaining 100.00% is the market's future expectations: adoption, growth, network value. Whether those expectations are reasonable or excessive is for the reader to judge.
Price decomposition — measured anchor vs the future expectations priced on top
0.00%measured anchor
future expectations: 100.00% of price
future expectations: 100.00% of price
Cash-flow value (E/r) measuredNo floor — structural (PoS)Future expectations residual▏price = 100%
The measured-anchor bar is drawn at a minimum width for visibility — the true measured anchor is 0.00% of price, not to scale.
The current price implies a perpetual growth rate of 733% — at or above the discount rate (g ≥ r). We report what the price implies; we do not say it is justified.
Proof-of-stake assets have no production-cost floor — not a measurement gap, but a structural consequence of proof-of-stake. How we verified this →
Block
This asset
% of price
If it were a stock
No floor — structural (PoS)
net-burn stock — needs our own node (not estimated)
N/A
—
Exogenous, holder-attributable floor
Cash-flow value (E/r)
base-fee burn capitalized at r — total gas needs a node
$0.0002
0.00%
Realized cash flow, capitalized
Future expectations
residual = price − measured anchor (not split, not justified)
$6.50
100.00%
Priced over the measured anchor
Discount-rate dial — r = risk-free (10Y) + crypto risk premium. Higher r shrinks the capitalized fundamental; discounting, not causation
Measured anchor: 0.00% of price (tiny here — the residual flow is small; the mechanism is shown honestly)
P = C (floor) + E/r (cash-flow value) + future expectations (Ohlson frame). r = 12.4% (10Y + crypto premium). Measured inputs are self-computed keyless; the residual is shown bare, never dressed as a measured block. Full method →
4Overview
Avalanche L1. C-Chain gas fees use EIP-1559, so the base fee is burned — the same holder-accrual mechanism as Ethereum. We attribute only that base-fee burn (residual income); at current utilization it is small. Circulating supply is read directly from the P-Chain (getCurrentSupply), keyless and node-free — which is why AVAX is a clean cash-flow major.
5Official links & addresses
garnish · public source · official · 2026-06-28
Addresses not yet listed
Trust official addresses only — beware impersonator tokens
Share this asset
6Market · supply
garnish · public source · kraken + getCurrentSupply (P-Chain) · —
Price
$6.50
24h change
-2.44%
24h volume
$2.4M
Market cap
$3.07B
FDV (fully diluted)
—
Circulating supply
472.6M
Total supply
472.6M
Max supply
—
Circulating ratio (circ÷max)
—
ATH
—
ATL
—
How the world reads this pricethe frames the market uses — value · timing · sentiment · what is honestly N/A
Valuation our-lens support
Measured anchor (% of price)value
0.00%
Buyback multiple (mcap ÷ base-fee burn)value
270,954.2×
burn = buyback, not earnings; issuance not netted
P/F (mcap ÷ fees)value
32,280.1×
'fees' today = base-fee burn sample, not full gas revenue (understated)
Supply & issuance
Circulating / total supplyvalue
472.6M / 472.6M
Net issuance (issuance − burn)value
see note
C-Chain EIP-1559 base fees are burned; circulating supply is read directly from the P-Chain (getCurrentSupply). Burn is small at current utilization.
Cycle & timing timing, not value
Drawdown from all-time hightiming
—
Mayer Multiple · 200-day/200-week MAtiming
N/A · needs price history
Puell / Hash Ribbonstiming
N/A · PoS (no mining)
Sentiment sentiment, not value
Crypto Fear & Greed (market)sentiment
15 · Extreme Fear Source: Alternative.me
market-wide / BTC-centric, not per-asset
Per-asset sentimentsentiment
N/A · no keyless per-asset index
Network & adoption
DEX liquidity (top pools)value
—
on-chain depth across the token's DEX pairs
Active addresses · tx/day · Metcalfevalue
N/A · needs our own node
On-chain cost-basis node-only
MVRV · realized cap · NUPL · SOPRvalue
N/A · needs our own node
account-model chains still need full UTXO/cost-basis indexing — outside our keyless infrastructure
▦How the world reads this price · perspectives, not a verdict
The frameworks and narratives the world uses to argue about this price — each as an attributed claim placed beside its rebuttal, side by side. This is a map of perspectives, not our verdict; no forecast, no recommendation.
Bull ↔ skeptic perspectives
two-sided · attributed · how the market argues this price, not our verdict
Architecture — Subnets / L1snetwork
The claim (proponents): App-specific Subnets ('L1s') let projects run custom, sovereign chains — flexible horizontal scaling.
The other side: Fragments liquidity across many chains, and subnet activity need not accrue value to the C-Chain or AVAX.
Grounding: supporters argue Subnets/'L1s' give sovereign, custom chains; skeptics note this fragments liquidity and that subnet activity need not accrue to AVAX (the app-chain vs monolithic debate).
Fees / burnsupply
The claim (proponents): EIP-1559 base-fee burn on the C-Chain — AVAX is burned on every transaction — a usage-linked sink.
The other side: C-Chain fees are small, so the burn is minor, and most subnet activity doesn't burn AVAX.
Grounding: supporters cite the C-Chain EIP-1559 base-fee burn; skeptics note it is small — consistent with the near-~0.00% coverage this site reads for AVAX. Connects to our coverage/burn reading.
Ecosystem / adoptionadoption
The claim (proponents): Gaming, enterprise, and RWA/institutional activity and partnerships as differentiated traction.
The other side: Intense L1 competition; usage is concentrated; some adoption is announcement-led, not sustained.
Grounding: supporters cite gaming/enterprise/RWA traction; skeptics cite intense L1 competition and announcement-led adoption (the adoption-vs-hype debate).
Consensus / technetwork
The claim (proponents): Avalanche/Snowman consensus with sub-second finality and a comparatively large validator set.
The other side: Questions over validator-stake concentration and real decentralization; less battle-tested over time.
Grounding: supporters highlight Snowman sub-second finality and a large validator set; skeptics question stake concentration and note it is less battle-tested than Bitcoin or Ethereum.
Tokenomics / supplysupply
The claim (proponents): A hard cap (720M AVAX), burn, and staking lock-up as a predictable, disciplined supply.
The other side: Emission/unlock schedules (foundation/team/investor vesting) and staking issuance as ongoing dilution against the cap.
Grounding: supporters cite the hard cap (720M) and burn — and our engine reads supply cleanly via getCurrentSupply; skeptics point to unlock/vesting schedules and staking issuance as dilution. Connects to our supply data.
Institutional / RWAadoption
The claim (proponents): An enterprise/RWA focus (institutional subnets, tokenization) positioned for regulated real-world finance flows.
The other side: Narrative-forward — pilots and partnerships not yet translated into large, durable on-chain revenue.
Grounding: supporters argue the enterprise/RWA focus positions AVAX for regulated finance; skeptics note it is narrative-forward — pilots not yet durable on-chain revenue (mirrors the ETH institutional axis).
Full data & breakdownon-chain · events · derivatives · peers · governance · risk — expand for the institutional detail
7On-chain · holders
data wiring — next increment
9Futures · derivatives
Derivatives data (open interest, funding) is N/A. Perpetual/futures feeds require a commercial market-data subscription we don't use, so we show N/A rather than an unverified number. Methodology →
10Protocol fundamentals
Cash-flow metrics do not apply under this lens.
12Governance · development
on-chain governance — not on Snapshot
16Our metrics over time
No trend metric for this lens yet.
On-chain owned coverage
Not yet computed from our own RPC. For cash-flow assets without our own fee data yet, the premium decomposition is shown as building — never a fake number.