“Solana revenue” can mean network fees, application fees, a trading terminal's commission or money assigned to a token mechanism. PUMP, RAY, JUP, MPLX and BONK are linked to different products and payment paths. Being part of one ecosystem does not turn them into a single set of comparable dividends.
One transaction can pay several businesses
A swap submitted through a terminal can include a terminal charge, an underlying pool fee and a network fee. These can be separate payments for separate services. But a router's routed volume is not another copy of the exchange's revenue, and a parent product total must not be added to its own included subproducts.
Network accounting also needs its own scope. The Solana fee documentation distinguishes base and priority fees and their recipients. An application's gross fee total is not the network's burn total. This guide compares applications; it does not add their income to SOL-holder distributions.
PUMP: distinguish the launchpad from tokens launched there
PUMP is not a claim on every token created through Pump.fun. The platform, a creator's token and a creator-fee recipient are separate economic objects. When comparing revenue, identify whether bonding-curve activity, post-graduation trading and other products are covered.
The official PUMP page, reviewed on 6 October 2026, describes buyback-and-burn activity but also warns that its fee dashboard does not correctly reflect revenue and buybacks following custom pairs. That explicit coverage warning prevents treating every displayed cumulative figure as a reconciled snapshot. The PUMP record separates the documented mechanism from available measurements.
RAY: pool fees have several recipients
Raydium's protocol-fee documentation divides swap fees among liquidity providers, RAY buybacks and, for applicable pool types, a treasury allocation. The composition depends on the product. A trading fee is not wholly retained protocol revenue, and a buyback does not by itself establish a burn.
The Raydium record should therefore identify the included pools and distinguish an allocation from completed purchases. Pool creation charges and swap fees also buy different services and should be visible in the definition.
JUP: a reserve and a governance proposal are distinct
Jupiter combines products whose revenue boundaries require explicit mapping. Its October 2025 Litterbox proposal is a useful historical illustration: the treatment of an existing token reserve and the treatment of future revenue were separate questions. The proposal is not evidence of today's execution status.
For the current Jupiter record, check the relevant mechanism version and execution evidence. Do not equate governance rewards, a reserve balance and a market buyback simply because each refers to JUP.
MPLX and BONK: identify the exact economic link
The Metaplex fee disclosure, updated on 29 September 2026, distinguishes several programs and describes fee-funded MPLX conversion for the DAO treasury. A contribution to a treasury is not a direct payment to all MPLX holders. The Metaplex record keeps that destination explicit.
BONKbot's fee page establishes a charge for successful swaps. That alone does not establish how every charge ultimately affects BONK. A shared name with other BONK-related applications is insufficient to consolidate their income. The BONK record requires a specific product relationship and evidence for any attributed buyback or burn.
Compare the customer and the coverage
The curated table preserves missing values and scope labels. Inspect who paid, which operations were included, how much stayed with the product and what happened afterward. Activity driven by speculative trading is real customer payment, but it does not prove demand independent of the crypto cycle.
Use the protocol screener and methodology to verify periods and sources. Do not interpret a missing observation as zero revenue or a supply reduction as a personal APY.