As the blockchain space continues to evolve, it's becoming increasingly clear that not all chains are created equal. To truly advance, blockchains need to excel in four critical areas: scalability, programmability, decentralization, and permissionlessness. However, when evaluating the top 100 chains by market cap, only 13 meet all these criteria. Let's dive into what these pillars mean and which chains make the cut.
🚀 Key Criteria for Blockchain Success
- Scalability:
- Chains need to handle a large number of transactions per second (TPS). For this article, we've considered those exceeding 1,000 TPS.
- Programmability:
- This refers to the chain's ability to support smart contracts via a Turing-complete Virtual Machine (VM).
- Decentralization:
- A truly decentralized chain has formalized on-chain governance, where community members can vote on key decisions.
- Permissionlessness:
- A binary criterion: either anyone can participate without needing approval, or they can't.
✅ The Chains That Made the Cut
Out of the top 100, only 13 chains meet all four criteria:
- Solana (SOL) ✅
- Toncoin (TON) ✅
- TRON (TRX) ✅
- Avalanche (AVAX) ✅
- NEAR Protocol (NEAR) ✅
- Internet Computer (ICP) ✅
- Aptos (APT) ✅
- Sui (SUI) ✅
- Fantom (FTM) ✅
- Sei (SEI) ✅
- MultiversX (EGLD) ✅
- EOS ✅
- Tezos (XTZ) ✅
❌ The Chains That Missed the Mark
Surprisingly, many well-known chains did not meet all four criteria:
- Bitcoin (BTC) ❌
- Ethereum (ETH) ❌
- Cardano (ADA) ❌
- Ripple (XRP) ❌
- Dogecoin (DOGE) ❌
- Polkadot (DOT) ❌
- Litecoin (LTC) ❌
- Bitcoin Cash (BCH) ❌
- Polygon (MATIC) ❌
- Stellar (XLM) ❌
- Monero (XMR) ❌
- Hedera (HBAR) ❌
- VeChain (VET) ❌
- Arbitrum (ARB) ❌
- Optimism (OP) ❌
- Algorand (ALGO) ❌
- Bitcoin SV (BSV) ❌
- Cosmos (ATOM) ❌
- Zilliqa (ZIL) ❌
📝 Disclaimers and Considerations
- Scalability: The chains marked as scalable can exceed 1k TPS under ideal conditions, which is a basic benchmark for network capacity.
- Programmability: Only chains with Turing-complete VMs were considered programmable, allowing for complex smart contracts.
- On-Chain Governance: Chains were only marked as decentralized if they have formalized on-chain voting systems, regardless of their current development stage.
- Permissionlessness: This is a binary factor; either a chain is permissionless, or it isn’t.
🤔 Why These Criteria Matter
- Objective Standards: Without clear benchmarks, the crypto space risks becoming a "sea of narratives" where every project claims uniqueness but can't be directly compared.
- Improvement Over Time: While this analysis may seem harsh, it highlights how far the industry has come and how much further it can go. Chains that didn't meet all criteria can still push for improvements.
- Loyalty to Principles: Our commitment should be to the foundational principles of blockchain, not any single project. Diversification, both financially and intellectually, is key to long-term success.
🗣️ Engage and Discuss
- Open Dialogue: Disagree with the analysis? Feel free to engage! This discussion is meant to be constructive, guiding the industry towards better standards.
🎉 A Note on Progress
- A Positive Outlook: Even though not all chains meet the four criteria, the overall progress in the industry is noteworthy. We’re witnessing the gradual realization of Satoshi Nakamoto’s vision, though perhaps not under the Bitcoin name. This ongoing development offers savvy investors a unique opportunity to align their financial interests with their values.
🌟 Final Thoughts
- The Contrarian Advantage: In crypto, sometimes being a contrarian can pay off. By focusing on chains that meet these robust criteria, investors and developers alike can contribute to the growth of a truly decentralized, scalable, and programmable ecosystem.
Blockchain technology is still in its infancy, and there's plenty of room for growth. Let's continue to push for improvements where needed and celebrate the progress made so far!
