Blockchain networks have never been free computers. Every time users initiate a transfer or call a smart contract, they must pay a fee to the network. This fee is denominated in the network’s native token—ETH on Ethereum and ONG on Ontology. Known as the gas mechanism, this system forms the underlying logic of public-chain economics by connecting user demand, node resources, and token value in a closed loop.
However, as Layer 2 scaling solutions become more widespread and competition between chains intensifies, the long-term value of Gas Tokens is facing unprecedented scrutiny. OntologyGas (ONG) is a representative case. According to Gate market data, as of August 25, 2026, the ONG price was $0.08878, up 26.04% over the past 24 hours and as much as 97.02% over the past 30 days, while still down 53.66% over the past year. This sharp price volatility reflects more than shifts in market sentiment. It also signals that the market is reassessing the value proposition of Gas Tokens.
Source: Gate market data
From ETH to ONG: Three Gas Token Models
To understand the value of Gas Tokens, we first need to understand how public blockchains design their resource-pricing mechanisms. Ethereum pioneered the simplest model: ETH serves both as a store of value and as the sole pricing tool for network gas. Users pay ETH in exchange for computing and storage resources, while nodes receive ETH as block-production rewards. This model offers clear logic and highly concentrated liquidity, but the tradeoff is that ETH price volatility directly affects network usage costs.
Building on this foundation, some public blockchains have adopted dual-token models. Ontology is a representative example: ONT handles governance and staking, while ONG serves specifically as the network’s Gas Token. In October 2025, Ontology governance approved a critical tokenomics adjustment that set the maximum total supply of ONG at 800 million tokens, reducing it by 1 billion tokens from the original plan, and implemented a permanent liquidity lock equivalent to 100 million ONG in market value. The purpose of this design is to separate governance weight from network resource consumption and give the Gas Token clearer scarcity through supply-side management.
Another approach comes from the Neo network. Neo uses a dual-token structure consisting of NEO and GAS. NEO represents governance rights, while GAS serves as the network fuel token. NEO holders can continuously receive GAS distributions without actively staking. On the Neo network, part of the GAS used for system fees is burned directly, creating a deflationary structure based on continuous generation and fee burning.
The three models each have their own focus, but they point to the same central proposition: The value anchor of a Gas Token ultimately depends on whether its public blockchain can continue generating genuine transaction demand.
From Performance Races to Economic-Model Competition: The Paradigm Shift in Layer 1 Competition
Over the past several years, performance has been the dominant theme in Layer 1 competition: higher TPS, shorter block times, and lower latency. The logic is straightforward: better performance supports more applications and produces stronger network effects. But as high-performance public blockchains such as Solana and Avalanche have been deployed at scale, the market has gradually recognized an uncomfortable reality—throughput, total value locked, and low latency alone do not create value for a token. Liquidity and utilization do.
This conclusion points directly to the root of the Gas Token value dilemma. If a public blockchain’s transaction fees approach zero, the foundation of demand for its Gas Token is significantly weakened. The maturation of Layer 2 scaling solutions is accelerating this trend. Rollups batch transactions and submit them to the mainnet, reducing the gas cost for individual users to almost nothing. When gas fees are no longer a primary factor in users’ choice of network, competition among public blockchains must move to a higher level.
The new focus of Layer 1 competition is shifting from who can run faster to who can capture more genuine value. This paradigm shift has three dimensions:
First, sustainable user growth. On-chain transaction volume, the number of active addresses, and the diversity of the DApp ecosystem determine the foundation of gas consumption. A public blockchain without active users fundamentally lacks demand support for its Gas Token.
Second, the token’s ability to capture value. Public-chain tokens must generate sustained buying pressure through gas consumption, staking mechanisms, governance rights, and other channels rather than relying solely on narratives to drive prices. Some observers argue that the staking rewards offered by many Layer 1 tokens today are essentially inflationary subsidies for holders and do not create actual value.
Third, the adaptability of the economic model. Ontology’s governance adjustment to ONG’s supply and Neo’s dynamic control of GAS generation rates both demonstrate the potential for economic models to serve as governance tools. The ability to flexibly adjust token issuance and distribution based on a network’s stage of development is becoming a core component of public-blockchain competitiveness.
The Real Challenges Facing Gas Tokens
Although Gas Tokens occupy a foundational position in public-chain economies, their long-term value faces three structural challenges.
Layer 2’s transformation of the fee model. Layer 2 solutions have significantly reduced transaction costs for end users while also changing the flow of gas fees. Some fees are captured by Layer 2 sequencers rather than flowing entirely to Layer 1 nodes. This means that demand elasticity for Layer 1 Gas Tokens is being compressed. The effect is especially pronounced in high-frequency, low-value transaction scenarios, where users’ direct reliance on Layer 1 has declined significantly.
The risk of user migration caused by competition between chains. When multiple public blockchains offer similar functionality and comparable user experiences, users naturally gravitate toward networks with lower costs and better experiences. This migration requires no switching costs, especially as cross-chain bridges continue to mature. If a public blockchain cannot establish a differentiated ecosystem advantage, the demand foundation for its Gas Token will continue to erode.
The trend toward separating the value of governance tokens from that of Gas Tokens. More and more public blockchains are beginning to question whether it is reasonable for a single token to serve both governance and gas functions. Decoupling governance weight from network usage costs can help optimize each function independently, but it may also weaken the token’s overall value narrative. The market’s reaction to ONG’s 53.66% decline over the past year reflects, to some extent, investors’ doubts about the long-term effectiveness of the dual-token model.
Conclusion: Gas Tokens Will Not Be Eliminated, but Their Value Proposition Is Being Rewritten
Gas Tokens will not disappear. Every blockchain network needs a mechanism for pricing and allocating resources. However, the value proposition of Gas Tokens is shifting from an essential requirement for network usage toward ecosystem-wide value capture. The future competition among public blockchains will no longer be about which network can offer the lowest fees. Instead, it will center on which network can build an ecosystem that continuously generates transaction demand and give its Gas Token an irreplaceable role within that ecosystem.
For ONG, the recent supply governance adjustment represents a positive attempt to optimize its economic model. However, its long-term value still needs to be supported by the implementation of real use cases such as DID and data privacy within the Ontology ecosystem. For the industry as a whole, the reassessment of Gas Token value is only beginning.
FAQ
1. What is the difference between a Gas Token and an ordinary cryptocurrency?
A Gas Token is the native token of a specific blockchain network and is primarily used to pay for on-chain transactions and smart contract execution. Ordinary cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin primarily serve as stores of value or mediums of exchange, while the value of a Gas Token is directly tied to network usage. The more active the network, the greater the demand for gas, and the more sustainable the token’s economic model becomes.
2. What is the relationship between ONG and ONT?
Ontology uses a dual-token model. ONT is the governance and staking token. Holders can participate in network governance and receive staking rewards. ONG is the network’s Gas Token, used to pay fees for on-chain transactions and smart contract execution. The two tokens have separate functions but remain economically connected: a portion of ONG issuance is distributed to ONT stakers.
3. Does the Gas Token still have value after the widespread adoption of Layer 2?
Layer 2 reduces transaction costs for end users, but it does not eliminate the need for Layer 1 gas. Layer 2 transactions must still ultimately be batched and submitted to Layer 1, where fees are paid. However, Layer 2 has changed the structure of gas-fee flows. The value proposition of Gas Tokens is shifting from direct user payments toward demand driven by the ecosystem as a whole, and their value anchors need to be reassessed.
4. Why has ONG risen nearly 97% over the past 30 days while remaining down more than 50% over the past year?
This divergence reflects the market’s positive response to short-term supply-side changes—the 2025 ONG tokenomics adjustment reduced future inflationary pressure—while also reflecting broader market trends and the competitive landscape among Layer 1 networks. Long-term price performance will still depend on whether application scenarios such as DID within the Ontology ecosystem can generate sustained transaction demand. Supply-side management alone is unlikely to support a lasting trend reversal.
