Memecoin Terminal Fees and Market Share: Sourced Snapshot, 11 August 2026

Two stories ran on the same day about the same subject and reached opposite conclusions. One reported that a competitor had passed GMGN in market share. The other reported that GMGN had passed a different competitor in revenue. Both were probably describing something real, and neither said which number it meant.

That is the whole problem with this category. "Market share" gets used for fee revenue, trading volume, user counts and lifetime totals interchangeably, over windows nobody states, and the resulting figures cannot be compared with each other. This page is one attempt at a fixed basis: the same source, the same windows, the metric named in every column.

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, 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 11 August 2026. "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.

BullX is excluded rather than shown at zero. Its DefiLlama adapter reports $230 over 30 days because it is summing one-lamport markers after fee collection moved to an address the adapter does not track. Printing that would read as a collapse rather than a measurement error.

Reading the table

The 24-hour column is the most volatile one and the one that gets quoted most. GMGN's 67.3% share of a single day is a real number and a poor description of the market. Its own 30-day share on the same data is 40.6%. 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 $441.0M over its life and took 0.9% of the cohort's fees over the trailing 30 days. Trojan has collected $225.7M and took 1.6%. Those totals record what they used to be. GMGN's $262.0M 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 30-day picture moved. GMGN at 40.6% against Axiom at 39.4% is a gap of about $0.7M on figures near $25M, inside the range a single strong day covers. Five days earlier, on 6 August, GMGN's trailing 30-day fees were $9.31M against Axiom's $22.35M. The lead changed hands inside a week, which is why this page carries a date instead of calling itself current.

About those two headlines

The claim that GMGN overtook Axiom in 24-hour revenue is supported by this data. On the trailing 24 hours GMGN collected $3.50M against Axiom's $1.18M, and it leads on the 7-day and 30-day windows as well.

The claim that FOMO reached 43% and surpassed GMGN is not something we can reproduce. On fees, FOMO reads 7.9% over 24 hours, 16.0% over 7 days and 15.3% over 30 days, and does not lead GMGN on any of them. We do not know what basis that 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 is worth recording without reading anything into it: 43.2% is GMGN's own share on the 7-day window in this 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.

The whole category is growing, so a rising fee total does not by itself mean a platform is winning. Axiom grew 34.2% and lost share, because two competitors grew three to four times faster.

Where GMGN's fees actually come from

One figure on this page complicates GMGN's own reputation more than the share numbers do. Over the trailing 30 days, Solana produced 12.7% of GMGN's fees. BNB Chain produced 24.8%. Robinhood Chain produced 58.6%.

Robinhood Chain does not appear anywhere in GMGN's documentation, which lists Solana, BSC, Ethereum, Base, Tron and Blast. The same adapter also reports small amounts on Monad, MegaETH, Hyperliquid L1 and X Layer, none of which are documented either. We describe that support as real but undocumented, because the fees are measurable and the documentation is silent.

For a product still described almost everywhere as a Solana bot, that is the more interesting number. In January 2025 Solana was 99.5% of its fees. It is now the third largest chain in its own revenue mix. 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%.

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.