The direct answer is that the supplied brief does not prove users pay enough to keep these networks running. It only states that ten once-prominent networks still have $12.06 billion in combined market value, are down an average 97.13% from all-time highs, and would need very different recovery multiples, from roughly 21.5x for Avalanche to roughly 323x for Internet Computer. That makes AVAX and ICP research questions, not automatic opportunities.
| Primary source | CryptoSlate |
|---|---|
| Reported at | 2026-07-25T11:35:49.000Z |
| Topic | Analysis |
| Evidence limit | Reported facts are separated from interpretation; current prices and platform terms require independent verification. |
Evaluate BYBIT for your use case
Check regional eligibility, current fees and product availability on the official destination.
Review BYBITWhat The Event Actually Says
According to the supplied event, CryptoSlate reported on a Taurex analysis of ten once-prominent cryptocurrency networks. Those networks now carry a combined market value of $12.06 billion and trade an average 97.13% below their all-time highs.
The brief identifies AVAX and ICP as affected assets. It also says the recovery need across the group ranges from roughly 21.5x for Avalanche, described as the largest of the ten at $2.91 billion, to roughly 323x for Internet Computer.
That is enough to frame the issue, but not enough to decide whether any network is financially self-sustaining, undervalued, overvalued, or likely to recover.
Why Market Value Is Not The Same As Network Durability
A token can retain market value even when its former price narrative has collapsed. Market value reflects what traders are willing to assign to the token at a point in time. It does not, by itself, prove that users are paying enough fees, that applications are active, or that the network has durable demand.
The event’s core tension is therefore useful: a network can still be worth billions after a severe drawdown, while investors still need to ask whether actual user activity supports that value. The supplied brief does not answer that second question with fee, revenue, cost, or usage data.
For AVAX and ICP, the practical reading is simple: drawdown percentage explains the distance from prior highs; it does not explain whether the current ecosystem can justify the remaining market value.
How To Read The AVAX And ICP Comparison
Avalanche is presented as the largest network in the group at $2.91 billion and as needing roughly 21.5x to recover to its former high. Internet Computer is presented at the other end of the recovery range, with a roughly 323x recovery need.
Those figures should not be read as comparable probabilities. A smaller recovery multiple does not guarantee strength, and a larger recovery multiple does not prove failure. The numbers only describe distance from prior highs based on the supplied brief.
The decision-useful question is narrower: what current evidence would make the remaining valuation easier or harder to justify? The brief does not provide that evidence, so a cautious reader should not fill the gap with assumptions.
Practical Checks Before Drawing A Conclusion
Start with user-payment evidence. Look for whether users are paying meaningful fees or other network charges, whether those payments are recurring, and whether they relate to real activity rather than temporary incentives. The supplied event asks this question but does not provide the data needed to answer it.
Then separate usage from token price. A token’s recovery need from all-time high can be dramatic without proving anything about present product-market fit. The better check is whether the network has current users, applications, and economic activity that can be evaluated independently from the past peak.
Finally, compare market value against evidence quality. The event’s source rating and overall rating are both B in the supplied brief, which supports treating it as a useful discovery signal rather than a complete investment thesis.
Evidence Limits And Risk Disclosure
This guide uses only the supplied event and brief. It does not include the full Taurex report, the full list of ten networks, current fee data, validator or infrastructure costs, active-address figures, developer activity, liquidity data, or exchange-specific market availability.
Because those inputs are missing, this article does not rank AVAX, ICP, or the wider group. It also does not claim that any token will recover, that any network will fail, or that any exchange action will produce a specific outcome.
Crypto assets can move sharply in either direction. A 97.13% average drawdown can signal severe repricing, but it does not remove downside risk. Recovery multiples are descriptive math, not investment advice.
Bybit Context For Readers Comparing Markets
The supplied brief includes a Bybit partner URL and code 11350287. That creates a commercial path for readers who already planned to compare crypto markets, but it should not change the research standard.
If you use Bybit or any exchange while reviewing AVAX, ICP, or similar assets, treat the exchange screen as execution context only. The network-level questions still come first: user demand, fee evidence, sustainability, liquidity, and risk tolerance.
The partner link is not proof of token quality, recovery potential, or suitability. It is simply the conversion context supplied with this brief.
Evaluate BYBIT for your use case
Check regional eligibility, current fees and product availability on the official destination.
Review BYBITAffiliate link · Availability varies by region · No guaranteed outcomeQuestions readers ask
Does the supplied brief prove that users pay enough to keep the networks running?
No. The brief raises that question but does not provide user-payment, fee, cost, or revenue data. It supports a drawdown and valuation discussion, not a conclusion about operating sustainability.
What does the 97.13% average decline mean?
It means the ten networks described in the supplied event are trading an average 97.13% below their all-time highs. It does not prove whether the current prices are too high, too low, or fairly valued.
Why are AVAX and ICP highlighted?
The brief lists AVAX and ICP as affected assets. It also says Avalanche is the largest of the ten at $2.91 billion and needs roughly 21.5x to recover, while Internet Computer sits at roughly 323x in the stated recovery range.
Is a 323x recovery need a buy signal?
No. A recovery multiple describes distance from a prior high. It does not show probability, timing, user demand, liquidity, or risk. It should be treated as a prompt for deeper research.
How should a reader use the Bybit partner code in this context?
Use the supplied Bybit code 11350287 only if you already intended to compare markets or create an exchange path. It should not be treated as financial advice, a recommendation, or evidence that AVAX, ICP, or any other token will perform well.