DOT and ENA jumped 20% this week – But the similarity ends here

Polkadot [DOT] and Ethena [ENA] are both up more than 20% this week, but the similarities may end there. Price alone doesn’t tell all, so here’s a look at what’s really happening to see what’s driving their recent success.

Similar gains, different price behaviour

Over the past seven days, both ENA and DOT have posted gains of over 20%. DOT’s move came faster, with a push early in the week. ENA’s rally, by contrast, built gradually and stayed steady as the week progressed.

While the result looks similar on paper, the way each asset moved shows different types of participation. Ethena involved more short-term momentum, while Polkadot had more consistent buying.

Why does this matter? How a rally forms… often says more about its strength than the percentage gain alone.

A closer look makes the split clearer

Over the past 24 hours, Ethena recorded about $207 million in trading volume, compared to Polkadot’s $147 million. In simple terms, ENA is seeing far more hands involved in its move.

Higher volume usually means more confidence, as more buyers and sellers agree on price levels. ENA’s rally alongside higher activity proves sustained interest.

DOT, meanwhile, has delivered solid gains with relatively lower turnover, so there are fewer participants.

When volume supports price, rallies tend to be more stable. Without it, gains can fade quickly.

Supply dynamics set them apart

Ethena’s annual inflation has gone up over the year, rising above 400%; there’s rapid token issuance and distribution. That expanding supply helps explain why ENA needs prolonged demand to support its price moves.

DOT’s inflation, however, has remained relatively stable and even dipped into negative territory at points. Both assets currently show 100% of their supply in circulation, so there’s very little near-term unlock risk.

Still, inflation trends matter more over time. And here, ENA’s growth-driven model carries a higher supply risk.

Final Thoughts

• ENA’s rally was caused by higher volume and steadier buying.
• DOT’s fast move came with lower participation.