Top Layer 2 Tokens (2025): Data, Trade-offs, and What Actually Matters

Layer-2 (L2) networks have moved from a speculative idea to the default venue for most on-chain activity. But not all L2 tokens are alike. Some represent governance and treasury control over the most used rollups; others capture value from sequencer revenue, growth funds, or ecosystem alignment (e.g., OP Stack). In 2025, the right way to rank L2 tokens isn’t by hype alone, but by a blend of usage (TVS/TVL, activity), unit economics (fees, sequencer revenue), technology path (OP vs ZK, DA choices), and go-to-market (builders, distribution, grants).

What this guide covers: We compare the most important L2 tokens—ARB (Arbitrum), OP (Optimism), POL (Polygon 2.0), STRK (Starknet), ZK (zkSync), MNT (Mantle), IMX (Immutable)—and briefly discuss Base as a benchmark network (no token). Numbers and claims are annotated so you can verify them yourself.

Snapshot: Activity, TVS/TVL, Fees (as of Oct 24, 2025)

Across L2s, the aggregate Total Value Secured (TVS) on Ethereum rollups is around the low-$40B range over the last year window, per L2BEAT’s methodology, highlighting durable adoption beyond a single cycle.

*Fees vary by time of day, congestion, and blob gas. EIP-4844 (Dencun) structurally reduced L2 data costs in 2024–25, but volatility remains.

How We Picked: A Practical Scoring Lens

1. Traction & security: TVS/TVL, activity share, stage on L2BEAT, liquidity breadth.
2. Tech path: OP rollups vs ZK rollups; DA choices; prover maturity; upgrade history.
3. Value capture: Does the token govern fees/treasury/incentives? Any sequencer revenue-share today or on the roadmap?
4. Ecosystem leverage: SDK (OP Stack), grants, BD flywheel, presence of household DEX/DeFi names.

The Leaders (by secured value & network effects)

1) Arbitrum (ARB)

Why it’s top-tier: Arbitrum remains the largest general-purpose L2 by secured value and liquidity depth, with Stage 1 status on L2BEAT and ~$18B across assets. That base makes execution slippage and MEV surfaces competitive for DeFi, which in turn pulls more traders and LPs.

• Costs/UX: Median fees for simple txs are pennies; swaps typically a few dimes post-4844, materially below L1.
• Moat: Liquidity begets liquidity. Many protocols list ARB native first; builders value the order flow and grant rails.
• Token value: ARB governs a large treasury and programmatic incentives. Speculative upside hinges on how the DAO routes sequencer economics over time.

Risks: Competition from Base/OP for new listings, and from ZK L2s if proof costs plunge. Fee compression can shrink future cash-like flows.

2) OP Mainnet / Superchain (OP)

Why it matters: OP is less about one chain and more about the OP Stack—a standardized rollup SDK many chains (including Base) use. TVS on OP Mainnet itself sits around the low single-digit billions, but the meta-network leverage is the story.

• Costs/UX: Post-4844 fees are low for transfers and sub-$0.50 for most swaps at normal load.
• Moat: Network of networks—if more rollups adopt OP Stack and share upside (e.g., RetroPGF, alliance programs), OP accrues governance relevance.
• Token value: Governance + ecosystem incentive alignment; investors are betting on Superchain scale rather than a single chain’s TVL.

Risks: If major OP-Stack chains (like Base) stay tokenless or ring-fence economics, OP capture may lag network usage.

3) Base (no token; benchmark)

Base is included as a valuation sanity check. It’s one of the highest-activity L2s, with large USDC/ETH/cbBTC balances (each in the billions). Because there’s no Base token, investors should compare token valuations (FDV/TVS) of other L2s to a tokenless high-usage network as a reality check.

ZK Growth Stories

4) zkSync (ZK)

Thesis: Era is a general-purpose EVM-compatible ZK rollup. While its TVS is smaller than OP rollups for now (~$0.5B), the ZK route promises lower latency finality and better cross-rollup composability longer term as provers mature.

• Costs: Low transfer fees; swap costs depend on batch density and blob market conditions.
• Token value: Governance over upgrades, ecosystem funds, and (eventually) potential shared sequencing models.

Risks: Prover costs and decentralization milestones; builders may prefer OP chains’ distribution until ZK infra is turnkey.

5) Starknet (STRK)

Thesis: A STARK-based ZK rollup with Cairo VM. Category breakdowns show meaningful stablecoin and ETH presence, with a builder base skewed to infra-heavy teams and DeFi primitives. Recent upgrade incidents (e.g., outages around major releases) are the trade-off for rapid iteration.

• Moat: Unique tech stack (Cairo) and strong cryptography team; long-run efficiency of STARKs is compelling for large proofs.
• Token value: Governance + staking path as sequencing decentralizes; rights over ecosystem programs.

Risks: Non-EVM stack limits code portability; dev tooling learning curve versus EVM-first ZK (zkSync) or OP chains.

Multi-Chain Strategy & the Polygon 2.0 Pivot

6) Polygon (POL, ex-MATIC) + Polygon zkEVM

Polygon executed a multi-year transition: MATIC → POL. As of September 2025, the migration is ~99% complete and POL is gas on Polygon PoS; Polygon also runs an EVM-equivalent ZK rollup (Polygon zkEVM), whose TVS today is far smaller than OP rollups but strategically important as part of the 2.0 AggLayer vision.

• What POL represents: the unifying token across Polygon’s multi-chain design (staking, governance, validator roles).
• Data point: Polygon zkEVM TVS sits in the tens of millions, so investment conviction relies on AggLayer execution more than current TVS.

Risks: Market still conflates Polygon PoS (a sidechain) with L2s; investors should separate near-term usage on PoS from long-term ZK rollup adoption.

Other Notables

7) Mantle (MNT)

Thesis: An OP-style rollup with modular DA flexibility (e.g., EigenDA options), a sizable treasury, and incentive-led liquidity bootstrapping. Fees are generally low; DA economics can be tuned as markets evolve.

8) Immutable zkEVM (IMX)

Thesis: A game-focused ZK rollup. Token value aligns with creator incentives, marketplace take rates, and the onboarding of non-crypto gamers. Fees and UX are tuned for frequent, low-value actions (crafting, trading).

Fees After EIP-4844 (Why Swaps Cost What They Cost)

EIP-4844 (proto-danksharding) introduced blob-carrying transactions, creating a separate fee market for rollup data. For end-users this manifests as cheaper L2 batches, especially during off-peak hours. Still, blob gas is volatile; busy days can lift L2 fees multiples higher than midnight lows. Expect simple transfers to sit in the sub-$0.10 range on popular L2s, with most swaps in the $0.20–$0.50 band under normal conditions.

Empirically, trackers and research notes show L2s processing millions of daily transactions at sub-penny to a few-cents median for transfers, with token swaps a bit higher due to calldata size and AMM execution.

Investor Lens: What Actually Accrues to the Token?

• Governance over a large treasury (ARB, OP, POL, STRK, ZK, MNT) can be valuable when it translates into smart deployment (grants, liquidity, retroactive rewards). Poor governance, conversely, becomes a liability.
• Sequencer revenue & MEV policy are evolving. Some networks discuss shared or burned revenue; others route proceeds to public goods. Treat today’s policy as a variable, not a constant.
• SDK leverage: OP gains from the Superchain meme—if many high-usage chains standardize on OP Stack, OP’s meta-governance premium grows even if OP Mainnet’s TVS trails Arbitrum’s.
• ZK optionality: If ZK proof costs and latency drop, STRK/ZK/POL (zkEVM) could see a step-change in builder preference—especially for cross-rollup atomicity.

Risks & How to Underwrite Them

1. Fee compression: As blobs get cheaper or competition intensifies, sequencer revenue may compress. Re-rate tokens on sustainable value capture, not peak fee prints.
2. Tech incidents: Major upgrades can introduce temporary instabilities (Starknet had an outage during a version upgrade). Build incident tolerance into positions.
3. Tokenless benchmarks: A chain like Base (no token) with high activity forces investors to ask: are you paying a premium for governance that doesn’t monetize the underlying usage?
4. False aggregation: Don’t lump Polygon PoS usage with zkEVM adoption; the investment case for POL rests on Polygon 2.0’s AggLayer execution, not just PoS throughput today.

Who’s “Top” in 2025? Our Tiered View

Tier A — Network Effects Today

• ARB: Deepest liquidity & broadest DeFi set, largest TVS; default L2 for many traders.
• OP: Governance premium via OP Stack; credible alignment flywheel as more Superchain participants arrive.

Tier B — Strategic Optionality

• POL: Multi-chain aggregator vision; zkEVM small today but could compound if AggLayer becomes the router for value.
• ZK & STRK: ZK rollups with different approaches (EVM-eq vs Cairo). If ZK economics flip the script, these re-rate quickly.

Tier C — Thematic Bets

• MNT: Modular DA + treasury incentives; risk is sustainability after grant cycles.
• IMX: Vertical (gaming) with clearer buyer utility but narrower TAM; upside tied to hit titles.

Due-Diligence Checklist (Cut Through the Noise)

1. Read the L2BEAT page for the project: Stage (0/1/2), upgrade keys, DA model, and security footnotes.
2. Check fees at l2fees.info during the time you trade; fees vary intraday with blob gas.
3. Cross-reference activity—look at the L2BEAT activity dashboard and, where helpful, TokenTerminal’s fee/tx medians.
4. Token policy: Is there a formal commitment to share/redirect sequencer revenue? Or is it governance-only today?
5. Incentives timeline: Grants, airdrops, emissions—when do they cliff? Who are the real users if incentives pause?

Bottom Line

“Top L2 tokens” in 2025 aren’t just the ones you’ve heard of—they’re the tokens with credible control over networks that people actually use. By that standard, ARB and OP sit at the front of the pack on usage and governance leverage; POL is a multi-chain bet on Polygon 2.0 execution; ZK and STRK are ZK-era optionality; and MNT/IMX are focused plays with real but narrower flywheels. Always benchmark token valuations against Base—a high-usage network with no token—to avoid paying for usage that may never accrue to holders.

Appendix: Sources & Notes

• L2BEAT—Arbitrum, Optimism, Base TVS/Breakdowns, Starknet and zkSync pages; aggregate TVS.
• Fees—l2fees.info live snapshots; TokenTerminal fee medians; Galaxy research on Base fee dynamics post-4844.
• Polygon 2.0—MATIC → POL migration details and status; Polygon zkEVM metrics.
• EIP-4844 primers—how blob markets affect L2 costs.

Data points are indicative and change rapidly; figures referenced are those visible on Oct 24, 2025 in Asia/Ho_Chi_Minh time.

Further Reading and Resources

Crypto & Market | Exchanges | Apps & Wallets