Internet Computer
A protocol aiming to host full applications, including their frontend, on-chain.

- Networks
- Internet Computer
- Asset type
- Native coin
- Consensus
- Chain-key cryptography with subnet BFT
A protocol aiming to host full applications, including their frontend, on-chain.

Live market data
CoinGecko data; may be delayed.
No declared max supply: no FDV is computable, supply follows demand.
100.0% of the achievable supply is already circulating.
$700.65 -99.61% · May 10, 2021
Source: CoinGecko, snapshot of Sep 13, 2026. Figures may be delayed.
Source: DefiLlama, data as of · Revenue is not reported by every protocol.. Figures are informational, not financial advice.
ICP runs application canisters that include web serving, not just state transitions, so a deployed app's frontend and backend both live on the protocol. The engineering ambition is real and unusual: subnets of node machines run deterministic software and serve HTTP directly. Adoption, however, has not matched the ambition, and the token's economics depend heavily on node rewards and governance participation via its network nervous system.
General research guidance, not analysis specific to this asset. Detail is pending.
Track the real organization or foundation behind the token, not just the ticker.
Separate token utility from price action before building a position.
Compare network usage, liquidity, incentives, and governance quality against nearby competitors.
Instead of hosting only state transitions, ICP runs deterministic software canisters that also serve HTTP, so a deployed application's frontend and backend live on the protocol itself. Node machines organize into subnet blockchains that interoperate under chain-key cryptography. Computation and storage are paid in cycles, which are burned — the closest thing crypto has to a burn-for-compute model at protocol level.
Cycles payment for computation and storage
Governance staking in the network nervous system
The burn-for-cycles mechanic converts application usage into permanent token demand in principle; in practice, cycle consumption has been far smaller than node-provider rewards, which mint ICP to the operators running the network. The token's net flow is therefore the sum of burning from real usage and emission to infrastructure — and the emission side has historically dominated.
ICP has no hard cap: supply grows with node-provider rewards and governance voting rewards, and shrinks through cycle burns and fee burns. The tension between an uncapped asset and a usage-burning design is the core supply question, and the inflation rate has moderated as reward schedules tightened.
The Network Nervous System (NNS) is the governance layer: ICP holders stake in neurons, where longer lockups carry more voting power, and votes decide upgrades, subnet topology, and reward parameters. It is one of the most continuously active on-chain governance systems in production — voting effectively runs the network.
Application adoption lags far behind technical capability
Node-provider rewards create structural token sell pressure
Governance staking locks liquidity and mints voting rewards
Smart contracts that bundle code, state, and a web-serving interface, with a paid-for compute allocation. Because they serve HTTP directly, sites and applications built on ICP do not need separate cloud hosting — the unusual part of the design compared with other smart contract chains.
Because node providers and voting participants are paid in newly minted ICP, and burn from application cycles has not matched that emission. Governance votes have reduced reward rates over time precisely to narrow that gap; tracking burn versus emission is the honest way to read its supply dynamics.
Last verified:
DFINITY Foundation · internetcomputer.org · primary source
Canister architecture serving HTTP, subnet and chain-key design, cycle-based computation pricing, and NNS governance staking.
Accessed
Pending linkage to a concrete organization on the map.
Serves a comparable role, so the two are worth reading side by side.
Directory suggestion, pending verification.
Serves a comparable role, so the two are worth reading side by side.
Directory suggestion, pending verification.
Serves a comparable role, so the two are worth reading side by side.
Directory suggestion, pending verification.