Since 2016, hundreds of thousands of tokens have been created on various blockchains, with the vast majority deployed on the Ethereum blockchain. Amidst the launches of newer blockchains that support the minting of new tokens with supplementary token standards, this report discusses and analyzes the diversity of token standards across blockchains.
The report begins with an overview of token standards across more than twenty blockchains and second-layer architectures, before focusing on ten of the largest and most-used blockchains. Finally, blockchains are analyzed through a multi-dimensional prism in order to distinguish key important factors creating a compelling proposition from the perspective of developers, projects, and token-holders worldwide.
Ethereum1 was the first programmable blockchain, designed to serve as the “world computer”.
In 2013, the whitepaper for Ethereum was written by Vitalik Buterin2. It described an open-source, public, blockchain-based distributed computing platform that could run smart contracts: applications that run exactly as programmed without any possibility of downtime, censorship, fraud or third-party interference.
Ethereum makes it possible for developers to build and deploy smart contracts, as well as issue their own cryptocurrency directly on the Ethereum blockchain removing the need for developers to create their own new blockchain for their service. It saves developers not just the time it takes to create a blockchain but also allows them to leverage the security and decentralization of Ethereum.
As a result, Ethereum has become the “go-to” blockchain standard for creating utility tokens and raising capital. Furthermore, new decentralized applications such as DeFi applications have led to positive network effects, attracting most of the blockchain developers to build on Ethereum.
We can distinguish utility tokens from security tokens at the code level, with security tokens referring to tokens whose built-in features are intended to make them compliant with both existing and future securities regulations. Specifically, security token standards introduce new methods for issuers, such as whitelisting of wallet addresses, transfer and ownership restrictions, and the creation of central authorities.
Regarding utility tokens on Ethereum, the most prevalent standards are ERC-20 for fungible tokens and ERC-721 for non-fungible tokens. This subsection discusses many token standards: adopted, in development or drafted versions.
ERC-20 is a technical standard used for smart contracts on the Ethereum blockchain for implementing tokens. Specifically, it refers to a common set of rules that an Ethereum token needs to implement, in order to allow developers to program exactly how tokens function within the Ethereum ecosystem. Thanks to these rules, it allows for greater predictability in how tokens are moved from one address to another.
Before the introduction and the actual adoption of this set of rules by all Ethereum developers, tokens could not be transferred with full predictability, leading to interoperability issues.
ERC-223, built on top of ERC-20, refers to additional standard functions token-related contracts can implement to prevent accidental sending of tokens to contract addresses. It also makes token transactions behave like Ether transactions. Specifically, it extends the ERC-20 standard to address issues that could lead to some funds being lost forever.
Similarly to the ERC-223 standard discussed previously, ERC-721 refers to additional standard features a token contract can implement to prevent potential loss of tokens.
These features allow pre-checks to verify that a contract has all the required functions to support tokens received via the use of certain functions. In a nutshell3, operators can send tokens on behalf of another address, whether it is a contract or a regular account while token-holders obtain greater control over their tokens. Furthermore, it de facto supports the black-list of specific addresses as operators can now be white-listed.
ERC-721 refers to an open standard that describes how to construct and deploy non-fungible or unique tokens on the Ethereum blockchain. While most tokens are fungible, ERC-721 tokens are all unique. One of the first popular use-cases of non-fungible tokens were CryptoKitties in late 20174.
According to Binance Academy, the creation of blockchain-based non-fungible tokens allows for:
All ERC-721 tokens must also comply with the ERC-165 interface, which standardizes the method by which smart contracts interact with tokens that follow other standards (i.e., non ERC-20).
ERC-998 is a standard extension for any non-fungible token to own another non-fungible ERC-721 or fungible ERC-20 tokens. Specifically, transferring the ownership of the token composition means transferring the entire hierarchy of items.
This standard extension for any non-fungible token could allow for new creations, such as:
ERC-1155 refers to a standard interface for contracts that manage multiple token types. It allows a single contract to include any combination of fungible tokens, non-fungible tokens, or other configurations such as partially fungible tokens.
This standard interface allows the use of a token ID to differentiate items part of the same contract. Each token ID represents a new configurable token type, which can have its unique metadata, supply, and other specific attributes. Specifically, the design from this interface offers several benefits, such as the ability to transfer multiple token types at once (e.g., game items).
ERC-20 was the main type of token standard used in the “2017 ICO-mania”6, which saw many market participants taking advantage of the global regulatory uncertainty surrounding cryptocurrencies and ICOs in order to raise capital from investors.
Since then, the SEC and other financial authorities have been establishing various regulatory frameworks for security tokens. As a result, Ethereum developers and researchers have been working on different token standards to be compliant with current and forthcoming regulations across the globe.
Security tokens are designed to represent “complete or fractional ownership interests in assets and/or entities”. While utility tokens have no limitation on who can send or receive the token, security tokens are subject to greater restrictions based on identity, jurisdiction, and asset category.
Specifically, these key features include the ability to differentiate token ownership, the right to freeze some tokens by a central keeper or the inclusion of document references (e.g., KYC documents).
Regarding security token standards on Ethereum, one of the most prominent standards is ERC-1400, in conjunction with ERC-1410 for partially non-fungible tokens (PFT).
ERC-1400 represents a library of standards for security tokens on Ethereum7. This set of standards were conceptualized, designed and developed by Ethereum core developers, namely Adam Dossa, Pablo Ruiz, Stephane Gosselin, and Fabian Vogelsteller.
These standards are an umbrella of several other standards (briefly discussed below), which are all backward compatible with ERC-20 and ERC-777 interfaces.
ERC-1410 refers to both differentiated ownership and transparent restrictions. This interface supports an owner’s tokens to be grouped into partitions, with each of them being represented by an identifying key and a balance.
Some of these partitions can be fungible while others are non-fungible. For instance, a non-fungible token partition may have specific covenants (e.g., vesting period specific to the security-holders).
This standard provides an interface, which introduces checks for potential on-chain restriction, off-chain data injection for transfer restrictions, and issuance/redemption semantics.
Data injection refers to rules, which are defined off-chain, that can be applied and updated by the contract administrator, to define the set of applicable issuances and redemption mechanisms and potential transfer restrictions between addresses.
This standard allows documents to be associated with a smart contract and provides a standard interface for querying or modifying these contracts, as well as receiving updates (via events) to changes on these documents.
This standard allows “a token to transparently declare whether or not a controller can unilaterally transfer tokens between addresses”.
A controller refers to a program that manages or directs the flow of data between two addresses.
ERC-884 token is an ERC-20 compatible token, which was developed by David Sag to comply with the Delaware General Corporate Law.
Delaware corporations can use blockchain technologies to create a tradable ERC-20 token and maintain shares issued by a Delaware corporation.
ERC-1404 is an addition to ERC-20-compatible tokens, which includes an additional function to allow restrictions on the transfer of tokens. This token standard was created by TokenSoft, a technology provider for companies seeking to issue and manage digital securities on the blockchain while being compliant with regulations.
Specifically, it adds the following features on top of existing functions of ERC-20 compatible tokens:
ERC-1450 (also referred to as LDGRToken) refers to an ERC-20 compatible token that complies with the new Securities Act Regulations: Regulation Crowdfunding, Regulation D, and Regulation A. This token standard was developed by Start Engine.
In this subsection, the main branded token standards for security tokens are discussed.
Branded token standards refer to token standards, developed in-house, by companies such as Polymath, Securitize or Harbor.
Built by Polymath, ST-20 is an ERC-20 compliant token standard that incorporates the option to restrict the transfer of assets.
It is designed to be in line with ERC-1400 set of standards, which was also created by Polymath.
The DS Token (Digital Security Token) was developed by Securitize, with part of its platform aiming to enable Digital Securities issuance on the blockchain, while satisfying compliance requirements.
The DS Token is an ERC-20 compliant token that implements specific features from the DS Protocol. DS Token addresses regulatory compliance through additional checks, via a Compliance Service, which verifies whether a transfer between two addresses should be accepted.
Furthermore, the DS Protocol adds methods for security issuances to either block wallets or freeze tokens in order to match regulatory requirements. In addition, it offers specific functions for security issuers to execute specific services, such as dividend payment directly to a list of investors (referred to by their wallet addresses)
R-Token is developed by Harbor as part of its decentralized compliance protocol to standardize how crypto-securities are issued and traded on blockchain networks.
R-Token is an open-source standard, which defines a set of rules for crypto-securities to be transferred among addresses while being in compliance with existing rules. R-Tokens are permissioned ERC-20 tokens, on the Ethereum blockchain, which must clear operations with an on-chain Regulator Service before any approval.
Specifically, the Regulator Service introduces specific rules that are designed specifically for each type of security to comply with relevant regulations, KYC policies and AML requirements and tax laws.
Part of their proprietary ecosystem (i.e., OpenFinance Network), S3 is a library built by many modular contracts, which aim at offering a library with the needs of specific regulation. Specifically, this library addresses restriction about transfer compliance, AML/KYC, investor accreditation, and malicious actor checks (through blacklisting).
This library also covers many offerings of registered & restricted securities, such as “Regulation D, Regulation S, Regulation A+, and Regulation CF”. These offerings allow issuers to easily and compliantly create a security token.
Atomic DSS tokens are developed by Atomic Capital, offering an extension of the ERC-20 token standard for “digital security issuance and automated regulatory compliance”.
Atomic DSS (Digital Security Standard) tokens are a permissioned, ERC-20 tokens, on the Ethereum blockchain, designed to be digital securities, which enforce transfer restrictions based on a “Regulator Service” contract that can be upgraded over time to match changes in the regulatory and compliance environment. Specifically, this standard is designed to enforce “KYC and AML requirements, accredited investor checks, trading lock-up periods, tax laws, and other contractual agreements”.
Despite the dominance of Ethereum as the go-to blockchain for the creation of new tokens, other programmable blockchains have been developed and have recently gained traction.
As of today, one of the main issues with Ethereum relates to the scalability of its base layer, which sometimes results in high gas fees and slow transactions. While this can be interpreted as a sign of the popularity of the blockchain, newer blockchains have begun to compete in different segments.
Despite the full range of promises from ICO projects in 2017 to build payment systems, gaming, and other utility systems on the base Ethereum layer, Ethereum’s most significant use case during this period remained as the actual raising of funds for these projects. A vast majority of those “promises” have since never been realized, simply due to the scalability issues of Ethereum.
With Ethereum being seen as a generalist blockchain where almost anything could be created, albeit with relatively slow and inefficient transactions, other blockchains sought to build out more specialized and niche areas, for example TRON with more efficient distributed storage solutions and transactions leading to better support for Gaming, and Binance Chain with transaction speed and order matching for transfers and trading.
Layer-2 scaling solutions (e.g., Celer Network or Matic) or the Plasma upgrade of Ethereum may potentially turn out to be solutions for these scalability issues, though new blockchains have been increasingly aggressive in competing for market share in on-chain tokenization.
The next section will analyze token standards on many blockchains before focusing further on a select set of blockchains.
This section discusses the core characteristics of programmable blockchains that support native tokens running on-chain. It also compares the activity, the number of developers, and tokens between chains.
This first subsection introduces all the main blockchains (both through the deployment of smart contracts and natively) and extra layers (e.g., Omni Layer, Simple Ledger Protocol) which support the creation of tokens.
A native standard refers to a blockchain that natively supports the creation of specific tokens on its chain, Binance Chain being a prime example with the BEP-2 standard. For example - from a code perspective - tokens running on the Binance Chain as BNB (the Binance Chain Native Token, behaves in a similar manner as all other tokens issued under the BEP-2 standard, which all run on the Binance Chain.
On the other hand, a constructed standard refers to a blockchain whose tokens are supported as part of a smart-contract function with Ethereum and Tron being two familiar examples. For instance, ERC-20 tokens are not recognized at the blockchain level and run on a Virtual Machine (the Ethereum Virtual Machine).
|Blockchain||Token support||Standard names||Deployment / Language(s) supported||Token Status **|
|Ethereum||Constructed||ERC-20, ERC-223, ERC-721, ERC-777, ERC-1400, ERC-1410...||EVM / Solidity and Vyper||Active|
|Simple Ledger Protocol - Bitcoin Cash based on UTXO||Native (2nd layer)||SLP - Fungible |
SLP - NFT1 (group of NFTs)
|Liquid Sidechain - Bitcoin based on Lightning Network||Native (2nd layer on-chain)||L-tokens||Native / Python, C#, Golang, Ruby, Java, Perl||Active|
|Binance Chain||Native||BEP-2 - Fungible |
BEP-7 - Non-fungible
|EOS||Native and constructed||Tokens |
EOS-21 Tokens (i.e., ERC-20 equivalent)
Native / CLEOS - Tokens
|WASM Virtual Machine / C++||Active|
|Omni Layer - Bitcoin based on wallet addresses||Native||Omni tokens||Native||Active (but likely to disappear)|
|Tron||Native and constructed||TRC-10 - Native fungible |
TRC-20 - Constructed Fungible
|Native / CLI (TRC-10) Tron Virtual Machine / Solidity (TRC-20)||Active|
|Cardano||Constructed||-||EVM / Solidity Virtual Machine / Haskell||In development (presumably)|
|Tezos||Constructed||TZIP - Fungible||-||In development|
|NEO||Constructed||NEP-5 - Fungible |
NEP-11- Non-fungible (WIP)
|Ethereum Classic||Constructed||ERC-20 - Fungible (other contracts can be implemented)||EVM / Solidity||Active but not used|
|NEM||Native||Mosaic tokens||Native / “in the NANO wallet”||Active|
|Ontology||Constructed||OEP-4 - Fungible |
OEP-5 - Non-fungible
OEP-506 - Security tokens
|WASM Virtual Machine / C#, VB.Net, F#, Java, Kotlin, Python, C, C++||Active|
|QTUM||Constructed||QRC-20 - Fungible||EVM / Solidity||Active but not used|
|VeChain||Constructed||VIP 180 - Fungible |
VIP-181 - Non-fungible
|EVM / Solidity||Active but not used|
|IOST||Constructed||IRC-20 - Fungible |
IRC-21 - Self-deployed tokens
IRC-721 - Non-fungible
|ICON||Constructed||IRC-2 - Fungible |
IRC-16 - Security tokens
|SCORE / Python||Active but not used|
|Bytom||Constructed||BAP-2 - Fungible (WIP)||Virtual Machine / Equity Language||In development|
|STEEM||Constructed||SRC-20 - Fungible (Steem Engine side-chain)||STEEM Engine proprietary software||Active|
|Stratis||Constructed||SRC-20 - Fungible||Cirrus Sidechain / C#||Active but not used|
|Nebulas||Constructed||NRC-20 - Fungible |
NRC-721 - Non fungible
|NULS||Constructed||NRC-20 - Fungible |
NRC-721 - Non fungible
|Nuls Virtual Machine / Java||Active but not used|
|Tomochain||Constructed||TRC-20 - Fungible |
TRC-21 - Fungible (can be used to pay for gas fees)
TRC-721 - Non-fungible
|EVM / Solidity and Vyper||Active|
|CyberMiles||Constructed||CRC-20 - Fungible |
CRC-721 - Non-fungible
|Lity VM / Lity language, EVM / Solidity||Active but not used|
|WaykiChain||Constructed||WRC-20 - Fungible||EVM / Solidity (WIP), Lua language||Active but not used|
|Wanchain||Constructed||WRC-20 - Fungible (Cross chain)||EVM / Solidity||Active but not used|
|MOAC||Constructed||ERC-20 - Fungible |
ERC-721 - Non-fungible
|EVM / Solidity||Active but not used|
Sources: Binance Research, GitHub Each blockchain that is EVM-compatible such as MOAC or Tomochain, can be used with Solidity, Vyper or other high-level languages.
In the table above, token status is defined as:
The next two subsections focus on both blockchains supporting decentralized applications (DApps) as classified by DApp.Review, and the main blockchains by market cap. As a result, the rest of this report will only focus on the following nine blockchains: Ethereum (ETH), Binance Chain (BNB), Tron (TRX), EOS (EOS), IOST (IOST), Steemit (STEEM), Ontology (ONT), NEO (NEO) and Tomochain (TOMO).
|Blockchain||Native asset||Genesis block||Count - Tokens8||Market Cap9||7-Day Avg. daily transactions10||GitHub Commits11||Count - Accepted Improvement Proposals|
|Ethereum||ETH||July 30th 2015||200,000+||$21.6 B||695.9 K||11,134||201|
|Binance Chain||BNB||April 23th 2019||[130+]||$4.5 B||251.3 K||Private repository||10|
|EOS||EOS||May 25th 2018||[4200+]||$3.4 B||3.5 M||11,597||6 (105 on-chain governance proposals)|
|Tron||TRX||May 31st 2018||[2800+]||$1.2 B||3.5 M||12,077||11|
|NEO||NEO (GAS)||October 17th 2016||[120+]||$713 M||14.6 K||724||10|
|Ontology||ONT (ONG)||June 30th 2018||[15+]||$429 M||23.4 K||2,042||6|
|IOST||IOST||February 25th 2019||[80+]||$107 M||563.5 K||8,547||N/A|
|Steemit||STEEM||March 24th 2019||[490+]||$60 M||913.5 K||5,187||N/A|
|TomoChain||TOMO||December 14th 2018||[20+]||$31 M||25.8 K||10,348||N/A|
Sources: Binance Research, GitHub
Without many surprises, Ethereum has the highest count of tokens running on its blockchain. However, the vast majority of these tokens are worthless owing to the issuance cost limited to the deployment of a smart contract.
On other competing blockchains, most of the tokens are also worthless, in spite of absolute numbers being lower. On the opposite, the Binance Chain has the second largest number of valuable tokens after Ethereum, with more than 50 positively-valued tokens12. The third blockchain for utility tokens is NEO, with more than 30 tokens with a positive value13.
The next subsection discusses issuance fees and on-chain transaction fees.
|Blockchain||Issuance Cost||Median gas fee||Transfer cost between addresses|
|Ethereum||Gas fees(≈ 0.05 ETH14)||1-2 gwei||Same as gas fee|
|Binance Chain||500 BNB||Same as transfer cost||0.000375 BNB|
|Tron||1024 TRX (for TRC-10)||0.0025 TRX||Same as gas fee|
|EOS||No gas fee or transaction fee but it needs resources. Two resources, CPU and Network, come from EOS staking while RAM needs to be purchased.|
|IOST||Gas fees||1 gas15 (works through a token pledge)||Same as gas fee.|
|Steemit||≈ 100 STEEM||0. STEEM relies on bandwidth.|
|Ontology||Gas fees(≈ 0.02 ONG)||0.01 ONG||Same as gas fee|
|NEO||Gas fees(≈ 490 GAS)||0.00 16||Same as gas fee|
|TomoChain||Gas fees(≈ 10 TOMO)||0.00015 TOMO||Same as gas fee|
Source: Binance Research
Issuance costs are relatively cheap on most blockchains. As a general rule, the more complex the contract to deploy is, the more expensive it gets.
Furthermore, despite the Binance Chain being the most expensive to issue a token, it has the second largest amount of tokens with positive value (more than 50 tokens traded on the DEX) after Ethereum. NEO has more than 30 tokens with a positive value.
Transfer costs and median gas fees vary greatly across chains. Blockchains such as STEEM or EOS rely on a contribution model with the need for resources. On the other hand, blockchains like Ethereum, Tron or TomoChain rely on gas fees to transfer tokens from one address to another. The price of gas fees is subject to real-time market demand/supply dynamics.
Eventually, some blockchains like Binance Chain have fixed transaction fees.
The next subsection will discuss the use of DApp on these blockchains.
In this subsection, decentralized applications are analyzed using volume figures. It relies on data provided by DApp Review, one of the leading websites for DApp data and metrics.
On DApp Review, the following categories are used: Game (e.g., CryptoKitties), Social (e.g., PeepETH), Casino (e.g., TronBet), Finance (e.g., Compound), Exchange (e.g., Switcheo), Others (e.g., Triip Protocol) and High-Risk.
However, the High-Risk category refers to Ponzi schemes and other dubious decentralized applications. As a result, volumes from this category were omitted from our analysis.
|Blockchain||Median daily volume*||Game||Social||Casino||Finance||Exchange||Others|
|Ethereum||22,910 ETH(5 million USD)||0.75%||0.00%||31.33%||28.01%||39.75%||0.16%|
|Tron||414,061,257 TRX(9.3 million USD)||0.19%||0.00%||89.17%||0.00%||10.64%||0.00%|
|EOS **||3,533,870 EOS(15.6 million USD)||0.10%||0.00%||81.38%||0.29%||19.19%||0.09%|
* Adjusted based on July 31st close price (UTC) ** Irregularities in volume with clear evidence of washtrading.
Ethereum’s focus is larger than Tron and EOS with its volume split between exchange (39.75%), finance (28.01%) and casino (31.33%) categories. Conversely, Tron and EOS DApps are mostly related to gambling activities, with 80% of their respective on-chain DApp volumes accounting for services such as online casino services, etc.
For Ethereum, the trend has moved toward greater Finance use-cases, as discussed in our previous report about DeFi.
|Blockchain||Median daily volume *||Game||Social||Casino||Finance||Exchange||Others|
|Ethereum||35,619 ETH (7.8 million USD)||0.37%||0.00%||3.84%||73.01%||22.76%||0.02%|
|Binance Chain**||251,641 BNB (7.3 million USD)||-||-||-||-||100%||-|
|Tron||407,980,000 TRX (9.1 million USD)||0.07%||0.00%||93.26%||0.00%||6.67%||0.00%|
|EOS ***||2,133,989 EOS (9.5 million USD)||0.05%||0.00%||80.52%||1.27%||17.86%||0.09%|
|IOST ***||1,220,161 IOST (12K USD)||2.96%||0.00%||53.65%||43.39%||0.00%||0.00%|
|Steemit||36,470 STEEM (9K USD)||42.39%||1.60%||3.22%||31.74%||3.52%||17.53%|
|Ontology ***||320,994 ONT (321K USD)||99.93%||0.00%||0.07%||0.00%||0.00%||0.00%|
|NEO||162,858 NEO (1.9 million USD)||0.40%||0.00%||0.00%||0.00%||99.60%||0.00%|
|TomoChain||360,076 TOMO (210K USD)||0.00%||0.00%||37.94%||0.00%||0.85%||61.21%|
:: div source Sources: DApp Review, Binance DEX. :::
* Adjusted based on July 31st 2019 close price (UTC). ** Binance Chain includes the volume on Binance DEX. *** Irregularities in volumes such as clear evidence of washtrading.
All three largest blockchains started to diversify further: finance use-cases for Ethereum, while Tron and EOS are mostly used for gambling.
From table 5, the most used blockchains are Ethereum, Binance Chain, EOS, Tron, and NEO with median daily volumes above USD 1 million.
It is also worth noting that were reported evidence of data manipulation from some DApps, especially on IOST and EOS17. As a result, these numbers shall be taken with a grain of salt.
In addition to this, other elements such as “DApp competitions” can potentially incentivize activities on a decentralized application. Indeed, some DApp owners have incentives to manipulate on-chain activities to earn prizes and financial rewards.
Despite having the choice to use stablecoins, many of these decentralized applications use their native tokens within their App. One potential reason is the ability to reach a broader user-base without stablecoins. In fact, the cumulative market capitalization of all stablecoins (across all blockchains) remains below USD 5 billion, which is nearly four times lower than the market capitalization of the Ethereum alone. It remains to be seen whether or when this trend would revert18.
This section discusses how blockchains compete to attract developers and resources to build token economies on their respective blockchain.
Specifically, this section addresses these questions from the perspective of investors & token-holders, developers, and projects looking to develop a token.
Transaction count and scalability are key factors to evaluate whether the time required to create, issue, and develop a token on a blockchain is worth it. As a general rule, the faster a blockchain is, the more appealing it appears. Yet, the speed of transactions can actually be interpreted from two opposite perspectives:
Furthermore, the amount of on-chain transactions also reflects the popularity and current adoption of a network. From a developer’s perspective, transactions indicate the health of a blockchain. Hence, a highly used blockchain can bring a larger audience to interact with the new token. Other indicators such as count of individual addresses or new active addresses also reflect the overall popularity of a blockchain.
From the perspective of third-party developers and projects looking to issue a token, they should look to issue new tokens or/and develop third-party on widely used blockchains, hence blockchains with a high amount of transactions.
Blockchain fees are a key element to attract users, projects, and developers. The lower on-chain and token issuance fees are, the higher are the incentives to interact within the on-chain ecosystem.
Blockchain fees relate to on-chain fees, such as the cost to issue a new asset or transaction/gas fees, along with the uncertainty regarding fees over time.
The cost to issue a token on a blockchain can also be interpreted with two conflicting lenses:
In short, there is a “sweet point” between cheap to-issue tokens, which potentially lead to the creation of many worthless tokens (along with scams designed to fraud users e.g., similar names, etc.), and expensive-to-issue tokens, which may discourage projects to issue tokens on the chain.
Transaction and gas fees are also a key element to determine each blockchain’s attractiveness. Some of the gas fees on Ethereum are often above USD 30 cents for a single transaction, which can hinder greater network participation ratios, i.e., prevent the on-boarding of new participants.
Furthermore, other factors, such as the need to pay gas fees in Ether (ETH), may potentially create issues for participants. For instance, a user on the Ethereum blockchain wanted to transact in USDC (or other stablecoins) could not send funds to another wallet without owning Ether. Some competing blockchains like TomoChain (TRC-21) or Binance Chain (natively) have allowed these fees to be paid in any valuable asset.
Yet, the growing development of 2nd layer solutions, such as Matic, should provide greater scalability for legacy blockchains (e.g., Ethereum) while reducing on-chain fees, i.e., allowing users to transact at near-zero fees.
Eventually, some EIPs (like EIP-865) have been drafted to offer similar features on Ethereum which could lead to gas fees, payable in different units than Ether.
DApps availability and use-cases refer to the amount of existing and prospective applications that run on a blockchain. The greater the number of use-cases on a blockchain, the greater the value proposition is.
Some of the key elements to determine use-cases are:
Regardless, based on the findings from the previous section (2.4), both the number of use-cases and the count of single users remain quite low. As a result, first-mover advantages are still uncertain as no critical mass has yet been achieved. As interoperability and composability have increasingly been developed between dApps, we could see some compounding network effects and growth for the games with early users. Recent examples like Waterloo, a bridge between EOS and Ethereum by Kyber Network, illustrate the ongoing development of solutions for cross-chain interoperability.19
Security and blockchain development must be considered from the perspective of projects and companies.
Several factors related to blockchain development are to-be-considered:
On the other hand, security remains a key aspect for blockchains:
In general, blockchain development and security are highly correlated. A blockchain with high active development is more likely to follow security best practices and to react swiftly to patch any security bug. In a similar fashion, there is an incentive alignment between token-holders, third-party developers, and layer-1 developers to protect the security as an unsecured network would lead to a lower value in the long-term.
Public blockchains compete to create the most inviting developer ecosystem to engage and retain global developer communities who will build applications on top of these chains, thereby facilitating additional transaction flows, network growth and coin / token use cases.
Specifically, projects that provide proper tooling, SDKs/APIs, and documentation along with open technical support that allows developers to quickly ramp up the learning curve and interact with the respective blockchains will have competitive advantages.
While there are many ways to build a thriving developer community and experience, several key elements stand out as necessary components:
(De)centralization refers to the overall degree of centralization a chain has from the validator perspective.
In general, blockchains whose validators, nodes, mining pools, and other contributors are centralized may induce greater censorship risk.
Censorship risk has different components for different stakeholders:
Moving along the spectrum of decentralization is not easy, as chains that begin at a certain spot between fully centralized and fully decentralized will attract a certain initial audience - shifting away from their initial degree of centralization may alienize or turn away new users that the chain otherwise would have attracted.
On the other hand, the parameter of decentralization for blockchains cannot be considered solely in a vacuum; generally, a greater degree of centralization may potentially increase the speed to achieve on-chain consensus, and hence, it reflects in faster finality (when a transaction can be safely considered as “done”) and a potentially higher “effective TPS”.
Ethereum remains the “go-to” blockchain to issue tokens. Specifically, it has the largest amount of issued tokens, despite the existence of a lot of “on-chain spam” (worthless tokens). Ethereum also has the largest pool of developers, on layer-1 core development, layer-2 solutions, along with many active developers working on third-party applications (DApps). Furthermore, many new token standards are also actively developed on Ethereum, such as security token standards (e.g., ERC-1400) and other proposals like ERC-998 or ERC-1155.
However, many competing blockchains also offer a compelling value proposition to issue tokens, which may challenge the existing leadership of Ethereum for on-chain tokenization. Some of these blockchains allow the creation of tokens natively (e.g., Binance Chain) while others rely on the deployment of smart-contracts, following Ethereum’s practices.
Regardless, the number of actual use-cases and single users remain fairly low across the entire blockchain space and in spite of the current Ethereum’s dominance, it is too early to rule out any potential competing blockchains which allow the issuance of tokens.
In general, there are key elements that projects, coin-stakeholders, and developers should consider to decide what blockchain to consider and invest in the future:
Eventually, a wide variety of programmable blockchains will likely coexist if interoperability solutions across chains develop and prove to be both secure and usable. The rise of blockchain agnosticism, in conjunction with the convergence of best practices and programming languages, could further lead to a range of blockchains with different use-cases and communities at different scales.