The direct answer is that a steep collapse does not automatically make these altcoins cheap, and a remaining $12.06 billion combined valuation does not automatically prove that users support them enough to keep running at that scale. Based only on the supplied brief, the decision-useful issue is whether real user activity, fees, developer activity, liquidity, and ecosystem demand can support each network's market value. For AVAX and ICP, the reported recovery multiples show how much distance remains from prior highs, but they do not by themselves prove recovery potential, investment value, or operating sustainability.
| 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 BYBIT for your use case
Check regional eligibility, current fees and product availability on the official destination.
Review BYBITDirect Market Read
The supplied brief frames the story as a valuation stress test: ten once-prominent altcoin networks still carry $12.06 billion in combined market value after trading an average of 97.13% below their all-time highs.
That gap can attract attention because large drawdowns often look dramatic. But drawdown alone is not a thesis. A token can be far below its prior high and still be expensive if current usage, revenue, liquidity, or ecosystem demand does not support the valuation.
For readers tracking Bybit news or exchange-listed altcoins, the immediate takeaway is to separate price memory from current evidence. The fact that an asset once traded much higher does not establish that it should return there.
Why AVAX And ICP Stand Out
Avalanche and Internet Computer are highlighted in the supplied brief because they sit at opposite ends of the cited recovery range. Avalanche is described as the largest of the ten at $2.91 billion, with a recovery need of roughly 21.5x. Internet Computer is cited with a much larger recovery need of roughly 323x.
Those figures are useful as scale markers, not forecasts. A lower recovery multiple can still be difficult if demand is weak. A higher recovery multiple can signal how much prior valuation has disappeared, but it does not prove that a rebound is realistic.
The better question is what current users are doing on each network. A market cap can remain high because of liquidity, speculation, treasury narratives, brand memory, or expectations. Sustainability depends on evidence beyond the historical price chart.
Practical Checks For Readers
Before treating a deep drawdown as an opportunity, readers can check whether the network has active users, meaningful transaction demand, credible developer activity, and ecosystem participation that is not purely promotional.
They can also compare market value with usage signals. The supplied brief asks whether users pay enough to keep these networks running, which points to fees and economic activity as important checks. The brief does not provide those fee figures, so no conclusion can be made here about whether AVAX, ICP, or the wider group passes that test.
Liquidity also matters. A token may have a visible market value, but the ease of entering or exiting a position can differ from the headline valuation. That is especially important for assets recovering from large historical declines.
Evidence Limits
This analysis is limited to the supplied event and brief. The only factual inputs used here are the CryptoSlate event summary, the reported $12.06 billion combined market value, the average 97.13% decline from all-time highs, the cited Avalanche valuation of $2.91 billion, and the cited recovery range from roughly 21.5x for Avalanche to roughly 323x for Internet Computer.
The supplied brief does not include current user counts, transaction fees, protocol revenue, developer metrics, liquidity depth, circulating supply changes, unlock schedules, or full details of the Taurex report. Without those inputs, it would be unsupported to rank the ten networks, declare any of them sustainable, or predict recovery.
Because the original event is an analysis item rather than a complete dataset in this prompt, the safest conclusion is conditional: the valuation question is valid, but the answer requires current network-level evidence not provided in the brief.
Risk Disclosure
Crypto assets can move sharply and can remain far below prior highs for long periods. A 97.13% average decline across the cited group shows how large the historical damage has been, but it does not define future downside or upside.
Recovery multiples are not investment targets. They describe distance from past highs, not probability. Treating them as price objectives would add a claim that the supplied brief does not support.
This article does not provide financial advice. Anyone evaluating AVAX, ICP, or similar assets should make an independent decision and consider whether they understand the asset, the market structure, and the possibility of further loss.
Exchange Context
For readers who already use exchange tools to monitor markets, AVAX and ICP can be followed through spot data, order books, and market pages where available. The useful action is observation and comparison, not assuming that a lower price means better value.
If a reader chooses to explore Bybit independently, the supplied campaign context includes the partner URL BYBIT official destination and code 11350287. This is a commercial link context, not a claim about rewards, registration outcomes, rankings, or investment performance.
The more disciplined approach is to use any exchange page as one input among several: price, liquidity, market depth, and risk controls should be weighed alongside the network evidence that is not included in the supplied brief.
Evaluate BYBIT for your use case
Check regional eligibility, current fees and product availability on the official destination.
Review BYBITAffiliate link · Availability varies by region · No guaranteed outcomeQuestions readers ask
Does a 97.13% average decline mean these altcoins are undervalued?
No. The supplied brief only says the group trades an average of 97.13% below all-time highs. That does not prove undervaluation, recovery potential, or sustainability.
Why is Avalanche mentioned in the brief?
Avalanche is identified as the largest of the ten networks at $2.91 billion, with a cited recovery need of roughly 21.5x from the supplied event summary.
Why is Internet Computer mentioned in the brief?
Internet Computer is highlighted because the supplied summary cites a much larger recovery need of roughly 323x, making it an example of how far some assets remain from prior highs.
What evidence would help answer whether users pay enough to keep these networks running?
Useful evidence would include current fees, user activity, transaction demand, developer activity, liquidity, and ecosystem usage. The supplied brief does not provide those details, so this article does not claim whether the networks pass that test.
Is this a recommendation to trade AVAX or ICP on Bybit?
No. This is informational analysis based only on the supplied brief. It is not financial advice and does not recommend buying, selling, or holding any asset.