User-paid fees
observed$855.1K
LP fees plus network fee captured by the adapter. [1]
Trailing 30 days ending 15 Jul 2026 (UTC) · retrieved 2026-07-16
Cross-chain intent exchange · Chainflip State Chain
Chainflip
Chainflip coordinates native cross-chain swaps through its State Chain and just-in-time liquidity. Traders pay LP and network fees; the network fee is converted into FLIP and burned.
Economic brief
Three answers before the ledger.
- What users pay for
- Users create value by executing cross-chain swaps.
- What the token gets
- The network fee creates direct market demand for FLIP and burns the purchased tokens.
- What gross flow hides
- The fee route is simple and usage-linked; the unresolved question is whether organic burn consistently offsets the cost of validator security.
Protocol-directed
observed$171.7K
Usage-linked flow assigned to FLIP buy/burn. [1][2]
Trailing 30 days ending 15 Jul 2026 (UTC) · retrieved 2026-07-16
Holder-linked
observed$171.7K
Buy-and-burn value, not a cash distribution. [1][2]
Trailing 30 days ending 15 Jul 2026 (UTC) · retrieved 2026-07-16
Net revenue
source conflictNot available
Validator emissions are documented in FLIP but no complete period-matched USD cost is applied. [1][3]
Trailing 30 days ending 15 Jul 2026 (UTC) · retrieved 2026-07-16
Money flow
$100 observed trailing-30-day fee allocation
Derived from period-matched normalized fee and recipient series. Validator emissions are outside this fee split and remain a separate subsidy.
The diagram and table use the same values. Color is reinforced by labels and classifications.
01 · PayerCross-chain swappers
Users create value by executing cross-chain swaps.
02 · Fee base$855.1K
Trailing 30 days ending 15 Jul 2026 (UTC)
observedLiquidity providers79.9%
Participant income · $683.2K of the normalized fee base
FLIP buy + burn20.1%
Token burn · $171.9K of the normalized fee base
| Recipient | Share | Per $100 | Classification |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liquidity providers | 79.9% | $79.9 | Participant income |
| FLIP buy + burn | 20.1% | $20.1 | Token burn |
Normalized statement
Every number keeps its boundary.
Trailing 30 days ending 15 Jul 2026 (UTC). USD. Review and retrieval: 2026-07-16. Missing data is never displayed as zero.
User-paid fees
observedLP fees plus network fee captured by the adapter. [1]
Method, period & unit
DefiLlama trailing-30-day fees adapter total.
Trailing 30 days ending 15 Jul 2026 (UTC) · USD · retrieved 2026-07-16
Protocol-directed flow
observedNet protocol revenue
source conflictHolder-linked value
observedLP / supply-side income
observedValidator / node income
source conflictOfficial docs describe current monthly FLIP emissions, but a period-matched USD validator-income series is unavailable. [3]
Method, period & unit
Sources or definitions do not support one comparable 30-day value.
Trailing 30 days ending 15 Jul 2026 (UTC) · USD · retrieved 2026-07-16
Token incentives
source conflictTreasury income
unavailableNo equivalent retained treasury-income series was identified. [2]
Method, period & unit
No defensible period-matched figure available.
Trailing 30 days ending 15 Jul 2026 (UTC) · USD · retrieved 2026-07-16
Unclassified residual
derivedReconciles at displayed precision. [1]
Method, period & unit
$855,090 fees − $683,343 LP income − $171,747 protocol/holder flow.
Trailing 30 days ending 15 Jul 2026 (UTC) · USD · retrieved 2026-07-16
Economic profit
unavailableToken value capture
What the token actually gets
The network fee creates direct market demand for FLIP and burns the purchased tokens. Net supply change still depends on validator emissions and other token flows.
Sustainability
What gross flow still hides
The fee route is simple and usage-linked; the unresolved question is whether organic burn consistently offsets the cost of validator security.
Recipients
Who receives value
- LPs receive trading-fee income.
- FLIP holders benefit indirectly from fee-funded buy-and-burn.
- Validators receive emission-funded rewards, not the same fee revenue.
- Brokers and affiliates may have separate operational economics not represented here.
Governance
What can change
- Network fee rates change burn intensity.
- Validator emission schedules determine security cost and net supply pressure.
- Liquidity and broker parameters change routing quality and participant economics.
Risk register
What can break the thesis
- Burn can be outweighed by FLIP emissions.
- Cross-chain validator/security failures can impose losses beyond normal operating costs.
- Fee totals depend on adapter coverage and swap mix.
- A falling FLIP price changes the token quantity burned for the same dollar fee.
Model history
How the economics changed
- The network fee was designed as a usage-linked FLIP buy-and-burn.
- Current 2025+ token-economics documentation revised validator emission expectations.
- The normalized snapshot keeps emission cost source-conflicted rather than assuming zero.
Source ledger
Follow every material claim.
Primary sources establish mechanisms. DefiLlama supplies a consistent cross-protocol time series and is labeled as third-party normalization.
- Normalized third-party data
Chainflip metrics ↗
- Retrieved
- 2026-07-16
- Source updated
- Trailing snapshot through 15 Jul 2026
- Official documentation
Current token economics 2025 and beyond ↗
- Retrieved
- 2026-07-16
- Source updated
- Updated 22 Jun 2026
- Official documentation
Incentive design: emissions and burning ↗
- Retrieved
- 2026-07-16
- Source updated
- Living documentation
- Official documentation
How swapping works ↗
- Retrieved
- 2026-07-16
- Source updated
- Living documentation
- Official documentation
Liquidity providers ↗
- Retrieved
- 2026-07-16
- Source updated
- Living documentation