The supplied brief does not prove that users pay enough to keep these networks running. It shows a valuation survival problem: the group still has a large combined market value, but the recovery math is severe, ranging from roughly 21.5x for Avalanche to roughly 323x for Internet Computer. That gap makes user-paid demand, network activity, liquidity, and operating durability the practical checks to watch before treating a drawdown as an opportunity.
| 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 BACKPACK for your use case
Check regional eligibility, current fees and product availability on the official destination.
Review BACKPACKDirect Answer
Based only on the supplied event summary, the answer is unresolved. The data says these ten altcoins are still collectively valued at $12.06 billion after an average 97.13% fall from their all-time highs. It does not show whether user payments, fees, or other direct demand are enough to support each network.
That distinction matters. A token can retain market value because investors expect a future recovery, because liquidity remains available, or because the project still has recognition. None of those alone proves that users are paying enough for the network to be economically durable.
What The Numbers Say
The most concrete point in the brief is the size of the remaining valuation. A combined $12.06 billion market value is still meaningful, even after the reported average 97.13% drawdown. The market has not priced these assets at zero, but it has priced them far below former peaks.
The recovery range also shows that the group should not be treated as one uniform basket. Avalanche is cited as the largest of the ten at $2.91 billion and needing roughly 21.5x to return to its prior high. Internet Computer is cited with a much larger recovery requirement of roughly 323x. Those are very different risk profiles, even if both appear in the same drawdown story.
Why User Payments Matter
The user-payment question is a useful filter because it asks whether a network has demand that goes beyond token speculation. If users pay for transactions, applications, storage, execution, or other network activity, that may indicate practical use. If market value remains high while paid usage is weak, the valuation depends more heavily on expectations than demonstrated demand.
The supplied brief does not provide the usage data needed to settle that question. It does not include revenue, fee capture, active wallet counts, retained users, developer activity, treasury runway, or operating costs. Without those inputs, the safer conclusion is that the market-cap data raises the question rather than answers it.
AVAX And ICP Read-Through
For AVAX, the brief highlights scale. Avalanche is described as the largest of the ten, with a $2.91 billion market value and a roughly 21.5x recovery requirement. That does not make it safe or cheap by itself. It only means the recovery hurdle cited in the brief is far smaller than the one cited for ICP.
For ICP, the brief highlights distance from the peak. A roughly 323x recovery requirement is not just a normal rebound target; it implies an extreme gap between current market value and former all-time-high pricing. Any analysis of ICP therefore needs more than the chart. It needs evidence that users, builders, and capital are still giving the network a reason to persist.
Practical Checks Before Acting
A practical review should start with observable demand. Check whether users are paying to use the network, whether applications still have activity, whether liquidity is deep enough for your intended trade size, and whether the project has current technical and operational momentum. The supplied event does not provide those answers, so they should be verified separately before any decision.
The second check is recovery math. A 21.5x requirement and a 323x requirement are not small differences in degree; they imply different assumptions about capital inflows, adoption, and market cycles. A token that has fallen sharply can still fall further, and a large historical peak does not create a right to revisit that peak.
Risk Disclosure And Backpack Context
This is not financial advice. The supplied facts support a cautious analysis, not a buy or sell recommendation. Crypto assets can remain volatile, liquidity can change quickly, and a historical all-time high should not be treated as a target price or a probability.
If you already use Backpack to monitor crypto markets, this story is a reminder to look past headline drawdowns and compare market value with real activity. Eligible users who choose to explore Backpack can use referral code 11350287 at BACKPACK official destination, but no reward, fee, ranking, or trading outcome is claimed here.
Evidence Limits
This article uses only the supplied CryptoSlate event summary and brief as factual source material. It does not independently verify the full Taurex report, live market caps, all-time-high prices, fee revenue, active users, or current exchange availability.
Because those data points are missing, the responsible conclusion is narrow: the event shows a severe drawdown and a still-large combined valuation, but it does not prove whether users pay enough to keep the networks running.
Evaluate BACKPACK for your use case
Check regional eligibility, current fees and product availability on the official destination.
Review BACKPACKAffiliate link · Availability varies by region · No guaranteed outcomeQuestions readers ask
Are these ten altcoins undervalued because they are down 97.13% on average?
Not necessarily. A large drawdown can signal potential recovery, lasting impairment, or both. The supplied brief does not provide enough usage, revenue, or network-health data to call the group undervalued.
What does the brief say about Avalanche?
The brief says Avalanche is the largest of the ten assets mentioned, with a market value of $2.91 billion, and that its recovery need is roughly 21.5x.
What does the brief say about Internet Computer?
The brief says Internet Computer has a much larger cited recovery requirement of roughly 323x. The brief does not provide enough additional data to judge whether that recovery is likely.
Does market cap prove that users are paying enough to support a network?
No. Market cap reflects token valuation, not necessarily user-paid demand. To answer the sustainability question, readers would need data such as fees, active usage, developer activity, liquidity, and operating costs.
Should traders use Backpack for AVAX or ICP after this report?
This article does not make a trading recommendation. Backpack can be one place to monitor eligible crypto markets, but users should verify availability, liquidity, fees, and personal risk tolerance before taking any action.