Memecoin Terminal Fees and Market Share: Two Dated Readings, 11 August and 8 September 2026

What each terminal charges

Rates below are quoted from each platform's own documentation. Where we could not reach a primary source, the row says so instead of carrying a number.

Four of those rows are unverified on purpose. Several of these platforms publish fee terms only inside a logged-in interface, or behind infrastructure that refuses automated requests, and a rate copied off a review site is not a sourced rate. Our methodology explains why an unverified label beats a number borrowed from a secondary source, and this is the exact case that rule exists for.

Axiom's published rate is lower than GMGN's at every tier. That is a real difference and it belongs in the table. It is also close to irrelevant for most traders, which you can check against your own trade size in the all-in cost calculator, because on a small memecoin trade the platform fee is dwarfed by the priority fee, the tip and the slippage the trader authorizes. The full breakdown of what a GMGN trade actually costs works through where the money really goes, and it is not the headline percentage.

Share of the cohort, on four windows

Every figure below is computed from the DefiLlama fee adapters, read 8 September 2026 over the windows ending 7 September. "Fees" means total fees paid by users, not the portion the platform keeps. The cohort is the seven memecoin terminals DefiLlama tracks with a working adapter, and each share is that terminal's fees over the cohort's total on the same window.

Current reading, 8 September 2026:

Prior reading, 11 August 2026, kept on the page rather than overwritten:

What moved between the two readings

On 30 days, the order did not change at all. GMGN, Axiom, FOMO, Maestro, Trojan, Photon, BONKbot, in that order on both dates. That is worth stating plainly on a market people believe reorders constantly, and it is a statement only a page that actually re-checked can make. GMGN's 30-day share went 40.6% to 40.2% and Axiom's 39.4% to 34.5%, so the gap between the top two widened while the leader stood still.

On the shorter windows, second place changed hands. FOMO passed Axiom on both. Over 7 days FOMO went 16.0% to 30.6% while Axiom went 37.2% to 16.4%; over 24 hours FOMO went 7.9% to 29.7% against Axiom's 22.8% to 22.6%. This is the same volatility the 24-hour column always had, now pointing at a different name.

The cohort itself grew. Total fees over 30 days went from $61.72M to $113.23M, so every terminal's dollar figure rose even where its share fell. A rising fee total is not a rising position, which is the trap this whole page exists to avoid.

BullX is excluded rather than shown at zero, on both readings. Its DefiLlama adapter read $888 over the 30 days to 7 September 2026, against $230 over the 30 days to 11 August and $192 on the same endpoint on 6 August, because it is summing one-lamport markers after fee collection moved to an address the adapter does not track. Three readings of the same measurement error are not a trend. Printing any of them would read as a collapse. What BullX actually is now, checked against its own live endpoints rather than against that adapter, is covered in GMGN vs Photon vs BullX.

Reading the table

The 24-hour column is the most volatile one and the one that gets quoted most, and the two readings on this page demonstrate why better than any argument could. GMGN's 24-hour share was 67.3% on 11 August and 45.3% on 8 September, on a 30-day share that barely moved across the same four weeks. Anyone citing a one-day figure as a market position is quoting noise with a decimal point on it.

Lifetime and current share disagree completely, and both are honest. Photon has collected $441.6M over its life and took 0.6% of the cohort's fees over the trailing 30 days to 7 September. Trojan has collected $226.8M and took 1.0%. Those totals record what they used to be. GMGN's $303.4M lifetime sits behind both while it leads every current window, which is the reverse ordering. If a comparison ranks terminals by lifetime revenue and calls the result market share, it is describing 2024.

Then there is how fast the picture can move. On 6 August GMGN's trailing 30-day fees were $9.31M against Axiom's $22.35M; on 11 August they were $25.04M against $24.34M; on 7 September they were $45.50M against $39.04M. The lead changed hands inside a week in August and then held for a month, which is why this page carries dates instead of calling itself current.

About those two headlines

The claim that GMGN overtook Axiom in 24-hour revenue was supported by the August data and is still supported by the September one. On the 24 hours to 7 September GMGN collected $2.56M against Axiom's $1.28M, and it leads on the 7-day and 30-day windows as well.

The claim that FOMO reached 43% and surpassed GMGN is still not something we can reproduce, though it is closer than it was. On the reading to 7 September, FOMO holds 29.7% over 24 hours, 30.6% over 7 days and 22.1% over 30 days, all up sharply from August, and on none of them does it lead GMGN. We do not know what basis the 43% figure used. It may be trading volume rather than fees, a different cohort, a single chain, or a window we have not tried. One coincidence was worth recording in August without reading anything into it: 43.2% was GMGN's own share on the 7-day window in that dataset.

We are not claiming anyone mixed up two rows, because we have no way to check that. What we can do is publish our basis and the arithmetic behind it, and leave the disagreement on the page rather than papering over it. If the 43% figure comes with a stated basis, we will compare the two properly.

Growth, not just position

Share is a snapshot. The direction matters at least as much, and on this cohort it is unusually clear.

Reading to 7 September 2026:

Reading to 11 August 2026, kept for comparison:

The whole category is growing, so a rising fee total does not by itself mean a platform is winning. On the September reading every one of the seven grew, including the two that were shrinking in August, and Axiom still lost share while growing 69.4%, because FOMO grew at two and a half times that rate.

What the chain breakdown shows

One set of figures on this page complicates GMGN's own reputation more than the share numbers do. Over the trailing 30 days to 7 September 2026, DefiLlama's GMGN adapter tagged 10.4% of the fees it recorded to Solana, 29.6% to BSC and 54.6% to Robinhood Chain, with Base at 3.2%, Hyperliquid L1 at 1.0% and Ethereum at 0.9%. On the reading to 11 August the same three labels were 12.7% Solana, 24.8% BNB Chain and 58.6% Robinhood Chain, so the shape held across four weeks rather than being an artifact of one pull.

Read that as what the aggregator's adapter reports, because that is all it is. The chain labels are DefiLlama's, applied by its own adapter. Robinhood Chain is a network run by a third party, and it does not appear in GMGN's documentation, which lists Solana, BSC, Ethereum, Base, Tron and Blast. The same adapter attributes smaller amounts to Monad, MegaETH, Hyperliquid L1 and X Layer, which we also did not find in those docs when we checked on 11 August 2026. What GMGN itself supports, and on what terms, is whatever its own documentation says. We are not in a position to describe any arrangement between GMGN and any network operator, and we are not going to guess at one.

For a product still described almost everywhere as a Solana bot, that split is the more interesting number. The same adapter attributed 99.5% of GMGN's fees to Solana in January 2025. On both of these reads, Solana is the third largest label in the mix, and its share of the total fell slightly between them. What GMGN actually is covers the product surface behind that shift, and the chain-by-chain comparison covers how the competitive picture differs by network.

How to reproduce this

Every derived figure comes from one endpoint, api.llama.fi/summary/fees/{slug}, using the slugs gmgn, axiom, fomo, photon, maestro, trojan and bonkbot.

• Fees over a window: sum totalDataChart over the trailing 24 hours, 7 days or 30 days.
• Share: that sum over the sum of the same window for all seven terminals.
• Change vs previous 30 days: the trailing 30 days against the 30 before it.
• Lifetime: the totalAllTime field, which for GMGN starts on 31 December 2023.
• Per-chain split: totalDataChartBreakdown, summed by chain over the trailing 30 days.

Dollar figures are rounded to two decimals for display and shares are computed before rounding, so a column may not add to exactly 100%.

One detail matters if you want the two readings on this page to line up with your own. Each terminal's daily series ends on a different day, and the last point in any of them is a partial day, so every window here is anchored to the most recent timestamp that all seven adapters share, rather than to the moment of the request. On the September pull that anchor was 7 September 2026; on the August pull it was 11 August 2026. Anchoring to now instead will give you slightly different totals for the same data.

What this page is not

It does not name a best terminal. The fee rates differ by a quarter of a percentage point at the extremes, the share figures move week to week, and neither supports a recommendation to switch platforms. Nothing here is financial advice, and the referral code disclosed above pays this site a commission without changing what any reader pays.

If you want the pairwise detail, the terminal comparisons cover GMGN against Photon, Axiom, BullX and Trojan individually. If you want to know what a trade actually costs once slippage and priority fees are counted, that is the fees guide, and it matters considerably more to a small trader's balance than any number on this page.