A large collapse from all-time highs is not enough by itself to prove recovery potential or network failure. Based on the brief, Avalanche is the largest named network in the group at $2.91 billion and would need roughly a 21.5x recovery to return to its prior high, while Internet Computer is cited at roughly a 323x recovery need. Those figures make the core question practical: before treating AVAX, ICP, or similar assets as opportunities, users should check whether real usage, fees, developer activity, liquidity, and risk controls support the remaining valuation.
| 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 BITGET for your use case
Check regional eligibility, current fees and product availability on the official destination.
Review BITGETDirect Reading Of The Event
The reported event is about ten once-prominent cryptocurrency networks that still carry a combined market value of $12.06 billion after trading an average of 97.13% below their all-time highs.
The brief names AVAX and ICP as affected assets. It also states that Taurex reported recovery needs ranging from roughly 21.5x for Avalanche to roughly 323x for Internet Computer. Those are recovery-distance figures, not guarantees, forecasts, or evidence of future returns.
What The Numbers Can And Cannot Show
The numbers can show how far current valuations sit below prior peaks. They can also show that some networks still have meaningful market value despite large historical losses.
The numbers cannot show whether a network is healthy, whether users pay enough fees, whether developers are still building, or whether the asset is mispriced. The supplied brief raises those questions but does not provide enough operating data to answer them fully.
AVAX And ICP Read-Through
For AVAX, the brief presents Avalanche as the largest of the ten named networks by market value at $2.91 billion and gives it the lowest cited recovery need in the group at roughly 21.5x. That does not make it low risk; it only means its stated recovery distance is smaller than the other cited endpoint.
For ICP, the brief gives the opposite endpoint: a roughly 323x recovery need. That figure signals a much larger gap from its all-time high, but it still does not prove whether current users, applications, or network economics can justify the remaining valuation.
Practical Checks Before Acting
A reader should separate price recovery from network sustainability. Useful checks include whether users are paying fees, whether applications have repeat usage, whether liquidity is deep enough for the intended trade size, and whether the token still has clear reasons to be held beyond speculation.
Readers should also compare market value with observable activity. If a network remains highly valued but has weak usage evidence, the valuation may depend more on narrative than current demand. If activity is improving, the next question is whether that activity is large enough to matter economically.
Risk Disclosure
This is not financial advice. A 97.13% average decline from all-time highs does not make an asset cheap by itself, and a large remaining market value does not make an asset safe.
The brief is evidence-limited. It does not provide fee revenue, active-user data, treasury details, developer counts, validator costs, protocol revenue, or liquidity depth. Without those inputs, the responsible conclusion is that AVAX, ICP, and similar assets need further verification before any trading decision.
Where Bitget Fits
For readers already comparing crypto markets, the supplied Bitget route can be a next-step access point rather than a conclusion about the assets. The brief includes the route BITGET official destination and code 11350287.
That context should stay separate from the analysis. Using a trading venue or referral code does not prove that AVAX, ICP, or any other asset will recover, keep value, or generate enough user-paid activity to support its network over time.
Evaluate BITGET for your use case
Check regional eligibility, current fees and product availability on the official destination.
Review BITGETAffiliate link · Availability varies by region · No guaranteed outcomeQuestions readers ask
Do these altcoins look undervalued after a 97.13% average collapse?
The brief does not provide enough evidence to call them undervalued. A deep drawdown can create a recovery narrative, but valuation still depends on usage, liquidity, network economics, and risk appetite.
Does Avalanche look stronger than Internet Computer based on the brief?
The brief only says Avalanche is the largest of the ten at $2.91 billion and has a roughly 21.5x recovery need, while Internet Computer is cited at roughly 323x. That comparison shows different recovery distances, not a confirmed quality ranking.
Does market value prove that users pay enough to keep a network running?
No. Market value shows what the token market assigns to the asset at a point in time. It does not prove fee coverage, user demand, developer retention, or long-term network sustainability.
What should users check before trading AVAX, ICP, or similar assets?
Users should check current price behavior, liquidity, real network activity, fees, major project updates, and personal risk limits. The supplied brief is a starting point for investigation, not a complete investment case.
Can the Bitget code be treated as a recommendation?
No. The supplied code 11350287 is a conversion detail from the brief. It should not be read as financial advice, a ranking claim, or evidence that any named asset will recover.