Although Layer 2's performance in the secondary market can be described as quite poor—airdrops halved upon opening, old projects gradually fading into silence, and new projects frequently missing deadlines—when viewed from the perspective of on-chain data and technological iteration, the L2 space is far from dead; rather, it is quietly accumulating energy for the next explosion. It is less accurate to say L2 has cooled off than to say it has entered deep waters.
Next, I will focus on four L2 projects that have not yet publicly issued tokens—Inkchain, Unichain, Soneium, and Linea—conducting a comprehensive analysis of their on-chain data performance, funding background, user behavior, and growth trends for a horizontal comparison.
One, Overview of Funding Background: The preferred direction of capital bets.
From the perspective of capital structure, Inkchain is the only independent project that has disclosed its complete round and amount of funding.
Soneium has not disclosed specific amounts, but it is backed by Japanese institutions like Sony and Startale.
Unichain and Linea rely on their parent companies' massive funding pools, coming from Uniswap and ConsenSys respectively.
Two, Transaction Cost Comparison: Line vs. Reality, who is the true 'low-fee winner'?
By comparing on-chain data from May 7, 2025, we observe the transaction cost trends of the four chains:
The transaction fees for Ink, Uni, and Soneium have all dropped to the 0.000x dollar level, making them among the most cost-effective L2s currently.
In contrast, despite having the backing of ConsenSys technology, Linea's fees remain high.
Three, Active Address Comparison: Who truly possesses on-chain vitality?
Soneium 184,165 +53% leads in active user numbers, showing extremely strong short-term explosive potential.
Inkchain 75,955 -27.8% while there has been a decline, the fundamental activity level remains strong.
Unichain 35,644 +17% showing a significant upward trend recently.
Linea 19,722 -87.7% serious user loss.
Four, Stablecoin Market Share Comparison: The 'real capital signal' beyond TVL.
Stablecoins are very popular in DeFi applications (such as lending, trading, and payments). Because stablecoins are typically pegged to real-world assets at a 1:1 ratio, this metric is harder to exaggerate than the 'Total Value Secured' that includes all types of tokens.
Unichain's explosive growth in the stablecoin sector is very noticeable, almost showing a vertical increase since the beginning of 2025.
Inkchain is one of the most 'DeFi-native' chains, with a stablecoin market cap nearly equal to its TVL, indicating an extremely high efficiency in on-chain fund utilization.
Linea has seen a significant decrease in stablecoin support due to user and project losses.
Five, TVL Comparison: A reflection of the sum of on-chain asset security and ecological attractiveness.
Unichain's TVL growth is astonishing, rapidly breaking through to nearly $800 million from a low point.
Soneium, although not growing quickly, shows a stable upward trend in natural ecological expansion.
Linea's asset lock-up has seen a significant decline over the past year.
Six, Comprehensive Scoring and Development Potential Assessment.
Finally, based on several dimensions—cost efficiency, user activity, ecological fund density, technology stack maturity, and the scale of backing capital—I conclude (haphazardly, looking at charts and rubbing my temples) that this is for reference only and does not constitute investment advice (nor can it serve as a liquidation suggestion 😂).
