The direct answer is cautious: the figures show that market value remains, not that the networks are economically sustainable. A deep drawdown can make a token look statistically dramatic, but the stronger test is whether real users generate enough recurring paid demand for the network to justify the value still assigned to it. Based only on the supplied brief, there is not enough evidence to conclude that AVAX, ICP, or the wider group either can or cannot keep running on user-paid economics alone.
| 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 OKX for your use case
Check regional eligibility, current fees and product availability on the official destination.
Review OKXWhat The Report Supports
The supplied CryptoSlate brief supports three core facts: ten once-prominent cryptocurrency networks have a combined market value of $12.06 billion, they trade an average of 97.13% below their all-time highs, and the cited recovery needs range from roughly 21.5x for Avalanche to roughly 323x for Internet Computer.
Those facts are enough to frame a serious question, but not enough to answer it fully. A large remaining market value after a severe collapse can reflect surviving demand, speculative expectation, liquidity, community belief, or some mix of those factors. The brief does not provide enough detail to separate those drivers.
Why AVAX And ICP Matter
AVAX and ICP matter in this brief because they mark the visible range. Avalanche is described as the largest of the ten networks at $2.91 billion and as needing roughly 21.5x recovery. Internet Computer is cited at the other end of the recovery range with roughly 323x needed.
That gap matters because the group should not be treated as one uniform trade. A network that needs roughly 21.5x to revisit its high and a network that needs roughly 323x sit in very different recovery contexts, even if both are part of the same drawdown story.
The User-Paid Sustainability Test
The better question is not whether a token is down enough to rebound. The better question is whether users pay enough, often enough, for the network to have durable economic support. If paid demand is thin, a remaining market cap can depend more on expectation than on actual usage.
For a reader evaluating this theme, the practical checks are straightforward: look for current paid usage, whether that usage repeats across more than one short period, whether the network captures value from that activity, and whether token holders are relying mainly on a return to old prices. Those checks require fresh primary data that is not included in the supplied brief.
Evidence Limits
This article is limited to the supplied event and brief. The brief does not list all ten networks, current user fee totals, operating cost details, treasury positions, liquidity conditions, validator economics, or a full methodology from the Taurex report.
Because those details are absent, any claim that the group is undervalued, overvalued, healthy, failing, or close to recovery would go beyond the evidence available here. The safest conclusion is that the reported numbers create a due-diligence question rather than a trading signal.
Risk Disclosure
A 97.13% average drawdown does not remove risk. Assets can remain far below prior highs for long periods, fall further, or trade around narratives that are not matched by user-paid activity. Recovery multiples can also make upside look simple while hiding the difficulty of rebuilding demand.
This is not financial advice. Anyone reviewing AVAX, ICP, or any other asset in the reported group should use independent data, consider downside risk, and avoid treating past all-time highs as a reliable target.
Where OKX Fits
If a reader chooses to continue their own research or trading workflow through OKX, the relevant practical step is to verify current asset availability, fees, security settings, and local eligibility before taking action. The OKX invite link supplied with this brief is OKX official destination and the code is 11350287.
That context does not change the analysis. An exchange link is not evidence of asset quality, expected returns, network sustainability, or suitability for any reader.
Evaluate OKX for your use case
Check regional eligibility, current fees and product availability on the official destination.
Review OKXAffiliate link · Availability varies by region · No guaranteed outcomeQuestions readers ask
What is the direct takeaway from this OKX analysis?
The direct takeaway is that the reported $12.06 billion combined market value shows these ten networks still have market attention, but it does not prove they are economically sustainable. The missing question is whether users pay enough to support durable network value.
Does a 97.13% average collapse mean these altcoins are cheap?
No. A large decline from all-time highs does not, by itself, prove cheapness or recovery potential. It only shows how far prices have fallen relative to prior peaks.
Why are AVAX and ICP highlighted?
They are highlighted because the supplied brief names them as the visible ends of the recovery range. Avalanche is described as the largest of the ten at $2.91 billion with roughly 21.5x recovery needed, while Internet Computer is cited at roughly 323x.
Can the supplied brief prove whether users pay enough to keep these networks running?
No. The brief raises that question but does not provide user fee totals, operating cost data, or complete network-level economics. Those details would be needed for a stronger conclusion.
What should readers check before acting on this theme?
Readers should check current paid usage, repeatability of demand, market liquidity, asset-specific risks, and whether any thesis depends mainly on a return to old all-time highs. Those checks require fresh primary data beyond the supplied brief.
Is the OKX invite code a recommendation to buy AVAX, ICP, or related assets?
No. The invite code 11350287 is commercial context only. It is not a recommendation, guarantee, ranking claim, or forecast.