The direct answer is that a large drawdown does not make these altcoins automatically attractive. Based on the supplied brief, the stronger question is whether each network has enough real, repeat user-paid activity to justify ongoing value after a 97.13% average decline. Avalanche appears less mathematically distant from its prior high than Internet Computer in the cited recovery range, but that alone does not prove durability, recovery, or user demand.
| 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 BACKPACK for your use case
Check regional eligibility, current fees and product availability on the official destination.
Review BACKPACKDirect Market Read
The supplied event frames a group of ten once-prominent cryptocurrency networks as deeply impaired but not irrelevant. A combined market value of $12.06 billion means capital still assigns value to the group, even after an average 97.13% fall from all-time highs.
That gap creates a temptation to read the assets as cheap. The more useful read is stricter: if a network needs many times its current value to revisit prior highs, the burden shifts to present usage, not past narratives. Price recovery requires more than survival of the ticker.
AVAX And ICP In Context
The brief names AVAX and ICP as affected assets. It states that Avalanche is the largest of the ten at $2.91 billion and needs roughly 21.5x to recover to its prior high. It also states that Internet Computer sits at the other end of the recovery range with a roughly 323x recovery need.
Those two figures imply very different recovery math, but they do not answer the business-quality question by themselves. A smaller recovery multiple can still be unattractive if usage is weak, while a larger recovery multiple can still draw speculation without proving sustainable network economics.
User Fees Matter
The title question asks whether users pay enough to keep these networks running. That is the right operating lens because market capitalization can persist for a long time on expectations, while network durability depends on whether users, developers, validators, applications, and token holders have a reason to keep participating.
For any asset in this group, the practical check is whether usage creates repeat economic demand. Readers should look for fee activity, application demand, developer continuity, validator or infrastructure incentives, token supply pressure, and whether usage depends on temporary incentives rather than organic need. The supplied brief does not provide those metrics, so this article cannot conclude that the networks are or are not self-sustaining.
Evidence Limits
This analysis uses only the supplied event and brief. The brief does not list all ten assets, does not provide Taurex's full methodology, and does not include current user counts, fee revenue, operating costs, treasury data, token emission schedules, or application-level activity.
Because those inputs are missing, the safest conclusion is limited. The data supports a drawdown-and-recovery framing, not a complete valuation call. The numbers show how far the assets are from their old highs; they do not prove which networks deserve their current market values.
Practical Checks Before Acting
A reader evaluating AVAX, ICP, or any similar high-drawdown altcoin should separate price memory from current evidence. The first check is whether the network still has a clear reason for users to transact. The second is whether users are paying meaningful fees or whether activity is mainly subsidized. The third is whether future token supply or incentive programs could dilute any recovery attempt.
Liquidity also matters. A token can show a large headline market value while still being difficult to enter or exit cleanly during stress. Risk management should come before any recovery thesis, especially when the cited average decline is 97.13%.
Backpack Context
For readers who already use Backpack as part of their crypto workflow, the supplied brief includes the referral URL BACKPACK official destination and code 11350287. This article does not claim any trading outcome, reward, ranking, or advantage from using that link.
The more important decision is independent of venue: do not treat a 97% collapse as a standalone reason to buy. Use the drawdown as a prompt for deeper checks on network usage, fees, supply, and liquidity before taking risk.
Evaluate BACKPACK for your use case
Check regional eligibility, current fees and product availability on the official destination.
Review BACKPACKAffiliate link · Availability varies by region · No guaranteed outcomeQuestions readers ask
Are these altcoins cheap because they are down 97.13% on average?
Not necessarily. A deep drawdown only shows how far prices are below past highs. It does not prove that current usage, fees, liquidity, or token economics support a recovery.
What does the $12.06 billion combined market value mean?
It means the ten networks still carry substantial market value despite severe declines. It does not, by itself, prove that users pay enough to sustain them or that prior highs are reachable again.
Why are AVAX and ICP highlighted?
The supplied brief names AVAX and ICP as affected assets. It says Avalanche is the largest of the group at $2.91 billion with a roughly 21.5x recovery need, while Internet Computer is cited with a roughly 323x recovery need.
What evidence is missing from this analysis?
The supplied brief does not include fee revenue, user activity, operating costs, token emissions, liquidity conditions, or the full list of ten assets. Without those details, any conclusion about sustainability must remain limited.
Is this a recommendation to buy or sell AVAX, ICP, or related altcoins?
No. This is an evidence-limited analysis of the supplied brief. It is not financial advice and does not claim future prices, recovery odds, rankings, registration outcomes, or trading results.