arxscope

Valuation

What the market cap implies about Arcium's future; live fundamentals, comparable multiples, and a scenario model you control. No price targets: ranges conditional on assumptions you set.

ARX SOL · CoinGecko live

Protocol economics today

live, computed on load

How a computation fee flows

paid in SOL, not ARX

Customer / dApp

pays base fee + priority fee, in SOL lamports

FeePool escrow

on-chain account; expired queued jobs refundable after ~72s

70% Node operators
20% Recovery nodes
10% Network treasury

Fees are set per cluster: node operators vote a CU price each epoch (stake-weighted), and the fee for a job is that price × the compute units its circuit consumes, plus any customer-set priority fee. The whole loop is denominated in SOL; the official tokenomics page states fees “are not paid in ARX.”

No ARX in the loop: there is no documented burn, buyback, or fee-to-ARX conversion. Third-party posts claiming “priority fees burn ARX” do not appear in official docs; we don't print them. ARX's direct fee link is indirect: staking ARX is required collateral to operate nodes that earn the SOL fees, and 10% reaches a treasury governed by ARX lockups.

Also worth separating: app revenue ≠ protocol revenue. ZINC (a third-party app on Arcium) reported ~31k SOL of its own protocol revenue in June 2026; that belongs to ZINC, not to Arcium. Arcium the network earns only the computation fees above.

Honest read: at current activity the network's own protocol fees annualize to on the order of hundreds of dollars ; real, on-chain, and tiny. That is normal for infrastructure that is three weeks old: the market is pricing future adoption, not current cash flow. The rest of this page quantifies exactly how much adoption is being priced in.

What the market is paying

CoinGecko live · fees live

Annualized from current on-chain protocol fees (excl. Solana tx fees); early-stage networks are priced on expected future usage, not current fees. The multiple is printed plainly because hiding it would be dishonest; and reading it as a verdict, rather than as the size of the growth assumption, would be equally wrong.

Comparables

sortable · directional only
Category
RenderRENDERGPU render / compute DePIN$815.82M$839.04M$1.05M778×800×
The GraphGRTIndexing / query network$193.29M$193.3M$383.75K504×504×
AkashAKTCloud compute marketplace$178.36M$180.55M$2.79M63.9×64.7×
LivepeerLPTVideo transcoding network$79.24M$79.24M$286.66K276×276×
HeliumHNTWireless DePIN$40.63M$40.63M$2.3M
NillionNILPrivacy compute (blind compute)$17.05M$34.99Mn/a
ArciumARXEncrypted compute (MPC)

Revenue definitions vary by protocol (DefiLlama fee adapters; Render is gross job spend under its burn-mint model); comparisons are directional, not like-for-like. “Ann. revenue” = 30-day fees × 365/30 (same 365-day basis as the live run-rate). Market data: CoinGecko; revenue: DefiLlama; both as of 2026-07-11. Arcium's row uses its live on-chain protocol-fee run-rate (excl. Solana tx fees), a different (and much narrower) basis.

Where revenue could come from

TAM-anchored · every output hypothetical

Four use cases, each anchored to a sourced market size. You set how much of each pool migrates to encrypted rails, what share Arcium wins against Nillion, FHE and TEE networks, and the effective protocol fee; the model shows the revenue and valuation that arithmetic supports and the growth it demands from today's run-rate. The simple volume-times-fee model shares the same P/S and horizon, one toggle away. None of it is a prediction.

Reality anchorsArcium live protocol run-rate /yrAkash $2.79M/yrRender $1.05M/yrpeer fees = 30d × 365/30, DefiLlama, 2026-07-11
Horizon is shared between both frames; P/S is per frame because each applies it to a different revenue basis
P/S multiple50×

1× → 50× · peer median today ≈ 390×, which embeds peers' own growth expectations

Horizon

Confidential trading

anchor $12T/yr · annual on-chain trading notional

hypothetical
Moves to encrypted rails2.0%

share of the anchor, 0% → 15%

Arcium share of that30%

vs Nillion, FHE networks (Zama, Fhenix), TEE networks (Phala, Oasis, Secret) and CEX-style private venues

Effective protocol fee1 bps

log scale · 0.05 bps → 5 bps

Implied annual revenue

$7.2M

= $12T × 2.0% × 30% × 1 bps

Basis is notional volume, so fees are tiny bps. Measured MEV extraction, roughly $0.5B to $1B/yr across Ethereum and Solana in 2025 studies, is the empirical price of transparent execution and a ceiling proxy on what private execution is worth.

Private AI

anchor $100B/yr · annual confidential-computing spend, ~2030

hypothetical
Moves to encrypted rails0.10%

share of the anchor, 0% → 5%

Arcium share of that15%

vs hyperscaler TEEs (Azure, AWS, GCP), Nillion, Phala, iExec and Zama

Effective protocol fee5,000 bps (50%)

2,000 bps (20%) → 9,000 bps (90%)

Implied annual revenue

$7.5M

= $100B × 0.10% × 15% × 5,000 bps (50%)

Basis is compute spend, so fee capture is large (the Render/Akash gross-job-spend convention). Blackthorn is pre-launch: Arcium AI revenue today is zero.

Data collaboration

anchor $5B/yr · annual clean-room + PET software spend, ~2030

hypothetical
Moves to encrypted rails1.0%

share of the anchor, 0% → 10%

Arcium share of that25%

vs AWS Clean Rooms, Google, Snowflake, LiveRamp and Nillion

Effective protocol fee2,000 bps (20%)

500 bps (5%) → 5,000 bps (50%)

Implied annual revenue

$2.5M

= $5B × 1.0% × 25% × 2,000 bps (20%)

Enterprise buyers pay for integration and compliance, not decentralization. Most clean-room spend goes to hyperscalers today.

Other / long tail

anchor $1.5B/yr · annual spend and volume: gaming, auctions, DePIN data

hypothetical
Moves to encrypted rails1.0%

share of the anchor, 0% → 10%

Arcium share of that30%

vs FHE networks, TEE networks and app-specific solutions

Effective protocol fee1,000 bps (10%)

log scale · 100 bps (1%) → 5,000 bps (50%)

Implied annual revenue

$450K

= $1.5B × 1.0% × 30% × 1,000 bps (10%)

A grab bag by construction; the anchor uses measured on-chain activity, not market-research TAMs.

Portfolio, at your inputs

hypothetical

Implied revenue / yr

$17.65M

Implied valuation

$882.5M

vs current FDV

Per ARX at 2029

$1.09

Required fee CAGR · 3y

Anchor bases are deliberately mixed: trading uses notional volume (fees in tiny bps), AI and data collaboration use compute or service spend (fee capture is large, the Render/Akash gross-job-spend convention). Every effective-fee slider implicitly bundles a repricing assumption: today's cu_price of 1 microlamport/CU is a bootstrap price voted per epoch, not an equilibrium. Adoption, share and fee are inputs you set, not predictions. Per-token values divide by projected circulating supply at the horizon (sourced unlock schedule; see supply overhang below), and by the full 1B for the fully diluted basis.

Supply overhang

through 2028 · monthly
0250M500M750M1Bmax supply 1B (fixed, no inflation)+28M/mo · ~11% of float / moJun 22 2027 cliff · +32MJun 26; 208.8M ARX circulatingTGE float 208.8M (20.9%)Jul 26; 214.7M ARX circulatingJul 22 2026 +5.86MDec 28; 750.7M ARX circulating~751M (75%)Jun 26Jan 27Jun 27Jan 28projected beyond sourced schedule (Dec 2027)

Only ~20.9% of ARX floats today; nothing meaningful unlocks until the 12-month cliff. Then it gets heavy: June 22, 2027 releases ~32.0M ARX at once, followed by ~28M/month through 2030; roughly 11.4% of the then-float every month in H2-2027. Whether recipients sell, stake, or hold is unknowable; a schedule is not a sell order, but any fee-growth thesis has to outrun this supply. Post-Dec-2027 months extrapolate the same monthly rate (official linear tails run to ~Dec 2030); deriving from official vesting terms gives ~29M/mo, ~4% above dropstab's figure.

Sources: arcium.com/tokenomics (allocations, vesting), dropstab.com (cliff + monthly amounts), tokenomist.ai (July 2026 date); all fetched 2026-07-11. Fixed 1B max supply; no inflation.

How to read this page

How to read this page

Method

The run-rate multiplies the mean protocol fee (Arcium base + priority + output-delivery fees, excluding Solana transaction fees) across the most recent explorer sample (~1,000 computations) by computations/24h, the live SOL price, and 365. The scenario model is plain arithmetic on your slider inputs; volume × fee × 365 × accrual share × multiple. The use-case builder is the same arithmetic on a different frame: anchor × adoption × Arcium share × fee. Nothing here discounts cash flows or models token velocity.

Use-case anchors (builder)

  • Confidential trading: $12T/yr, annual on-chain trading notional. FY2025 on-chain trading notional ~$12.8T, rounded to $12T: DEX spot $4.9T plus perp DEXs $7.9T (DefiLlama; perps via Cointelegraph, verified 2026-07-12; live trailing-1y DEX spot $4.26T via api.llama.fi). TradFi reference: 50.6% of US equity volume executed off-exchange in 2025, ~9.5% in dark pools proper (cboe.com, verified 2026-07-12). As of: FY2025.
  • Private AI: $100B/yr, annual confidential-computing spend, ~2030. Confidential-computing spend: MarketsandMarkets projects $5.3B (2023) to $59.4B (2028) at 62.1% CAGR (marketsandmarkets.com, verified 2026-07-12); $100B is a conservative ~2030 extrapolation of that path. A higher Grand View figure could not be re-verified and is not used. Forecasts count TEE hardware and services; MPC is an unsized subset. As of: forecast for ~2030, checked 2026-07-12.
  • Data collaboration: $5B/yr, annual clean-room + PET software spend, ~2030. Data clean rooms: $1.52B (2025) growing ~19.8% CAGR to ~$8.1B by 2034 (growthmarketreports.com, verified 2026-07-12); the broader privacy-enhancing-technologies market was $4B to $5.6B in 2025. $5B is a mid-horizon interpolation of the clean-room band. As of: interpolated to ~2030, checked 2026-07-12.
  • Other / long tail: $1.5B/yr, annual spend and volume: gaming, auctions, DePIN data. Honest activity anchors: DePIN sector on-chain revenue ~$72M FY2025 (Messari, verified 2026-07-12) plus gaming NFT trading volume ~$540M/yr run rate (DappRadar Q3 2025; source unreachable at verification, kept from the research file) plus sealed-bid auction and misc headroom. Headline $28B+ gaming TAMs are rejected as two orders of magnitude above observed on-chain volumes. As of: FY2025 run rates, checked 2026-07-12.

The anchors size the pools; the adoption, Arcium-share and fee assumptions applied to them are user inputs, not predictions. Sources were spot-checked against the cited pages on 2026-07-12; where a source could not be re-verified it is flagged in the anchor note and a ranged fallback is used.

Data sources

  • Live: Arcium explorer API (stats, computation fees), CoinGecko (ARX + SOL prices); refreshed on load.
  • Static: arcium.com/tokenomics + docs.arcium.com (fee mechanics, vesting), dropstab/tokenomist (unlock amounts), DefiLlama (peer revenue), CoinGecko (peer market data); as of 2026-07-11.

Limitations

  • Three weeks of network history; one small fee sample extrapolated to a year; day-to-day variance is high.
  • Fee mechanics can change: CU prices are re-voted every epoch and the tokenomics themselves may evolve.
  • Peer “revenue” definitions differ per DefiLlama adapter; multiples are directional only.
  • The model assumes a fee→token-value link (treasury or otherwise) that is only partially defined today.

What this is not

Not financial advice, not a forecast, and deliberately free of price targets. It quantifies what today's price already assumes so you can judge those assumptions yourself; both the adoption case (usage must grow by orders of magnitude) and the structural headwinds (SOL-denominated fees, the June 2027 supply cliff).

not financial adviceLive data refreshes automatically; static research as of 2026-07-11. Everything labeled “hypothetical” is exactly that.