Nearly four years after Ethereum activated the London hard fork on Aug. 5, 2021, the network’s fee-burning mechanism remains one of the most closely watched features in crypto. Introduced at block 12,965,000, the upgrade changed Ethereum’s monetary design by permanently removing a portion of transaction fees from circulation. Since then, according to data cited from ultrasound.money, the network has burned more than 4.6 million ETH, an amount valued at roughly $13.57 billion at current ETH/USD prices.
The scale of that burn is significant by any measure. Across a period of 1,438 days, Ethereum has destroyed an average of about 2.22 ETH per minute. The figure highlights how deeply fee burning has become embedded in Ethereum’s economic model. Rather than being a one-off event tied to a temporary boom, the burn mechanism has continuously removed ether from circulation as users interact with the chain.
Which Activities Have Burned the Most ETH
The largest contributor to burned ETH has been standard ETH transfers, which account for 375,959 ETH destroyed so far. Behind that, Opensea has contributed 230,051.12 ETH in burn volume, reflecting how active the NFT marketplace was during periods of heavy demand. Uniswap V2 follows with 227,044.95 ETH burned, underscoring the role decentralized exchange activity has played in Ethereum’s fee economy.
Stablecoin usage has also had a measurable impact. Transactions involving USDT alone have burned 210,070.05 ETH. That detail is especially notable because it shows that even the movement of fiat-pegged assets on Ethereum contributes materially to ether’s supply dynamics. In other words, Ethereum’s burn mechanism is not driven only by speculative applications such as NFTs or DeFi, but also by routine token transfers and broader settlement activity on-chain.
Why ETH Supply Is Still Growing
Despite the destruction of more than 4.6 million ETH, Ethereum is still not in a sustained deflationary state overall. The data indicates that since the London hard fork, the network has maintained a median issuance rate of around 0.801% annually. That means new ETH creation continues to outpace total burns over the broader measurement period, even though the burn mechanism has dramatically reduced net supply growth compared with Ethereum’s earlier design.
This point is central to understanding Ethereum’s post-London economics. Burning fees does not automatically guarantee a shrinking supply at all times. The outcome depends on the relationship between network activity, transaction fees, validator issuance, and broader usage patterns. During periods of high congestion and elevated fees, burn rates can accelerate and push Ethereum closer to deflation. During calmer periods, issuance can remain ahead of the burn, keeping supply growth positive.
Shorter-term data shows that this balance can shift meaningfully over time. According to the seven-day figures referenced from ultrasound.money, Ethereum’s annualized issuance rate recently dipped to 0.723%, with 16,745.66 ETH minted over the past week. That suggests inflation has moderated in the near term, even if the longer-term supply trend remains positive overall.
Ethereum’s Monetary Model Looks Very Different From Its PoW Past
One of the more important takeaways from the data is not simply that Ethereum is still inflationary, but that its inflation is substantially lower than it would have been under the old proof-of-work model. The report notes that if Ethereum had remained on PoW, its annual inflation rate would have been around 3.394%. By comparison, the current 0.801% rate represents a major reduction in issuance pressure.
Since the London hard fork, Ethereum has minted 3,695,537 ETH, adding roughly $10.89 billion in value to the network at current prices. That issuance figure helps explain why supply can still grow even after such a large amount has been burned. Both forces are active at the same time: ETH is being created through issuance while also being removed through fee burns. The headline result is not simple deflation, but a more dynamic and responsive monetary system shaped by actual network usage.
How Ethereum Compares With Bitcoin
The comparison with Bitcoin adds another layer of context. Santiment data cited in the report puts Bitcoin’s current issuance rate at about 0.809%, very close to Ethereum’s 0.801%. On the surface, that suggests the two networks are currently expanding at nearly the same pace. But over the full 1,438-day period, Bitcoin’s mean issuance rate was 1.476%, notably above Ethereum’s average since the London upgrade.
In absolute issuance terms, the gap is even more striking. Over the same span, and including the impact of the 2024 halving, Bitcoin miners produced 1,092,150 BTC, equivalent to roughly $129.92 billion in newly issued coins. That contrasts with Ethereum’s 3,695,537 ETH minted, valued at about $10.89 billion. While the assets differ in market structure and supply mechanics, the comparison shows that Ethereum’s burn-and-issue framework has created a monetary profile distinct from both its own pre-London history and from Bitcoin’s fixed issuance schedule.
A Continuing Focus for Analysts
Ethereum’s supply story remains a balancing act between issuance and destruction. Analysts continue to watch whether the network can spend extended periods in net deflation or whether its long-term equilibrium will remain mildly inflationary. The latest figures suggest that, for now, Ethereum still sits on the inflationary side of that line, even after billions of dollars’ worth of ETH have been permanently removed from circulation.
Still, the broader significance of the data is hard to ignore. Burning 4.6 million ETH worth $13.57 billion is a major structural change in how a large blockchain network manages supply. Even if total supply is still growing, it is growing at a much slower rate than it might have under the previous system. That makes Ethereum’s monetary policy one of the most unusual in the digital asset sector: a model where user activity directly influences how much of the native asset survives in circulation.
Whether that mechanism ultimately strengthens ETH’s valuation over the long term remains an open question. What is already clear, however, is that Ethereum’s post-London economy cannot be understood through a simple inflation-versus-deflation lens. The network is simultaneously issuing new ether, burning old ether, and allowing usage patterns to determine the balance between the two. In the current cycle, that balance still points to supply growth — just far more restrained than many earlier versions of Ethereum would have produced.