The development of public blockchains and applications may not follow a linear progression.
Introduction
Building on a previous report comparing second-tier public blockchains and incorporating insights from the latest Delphi Digital analysis, we revisit the competitive dynamics among next-generation public blockchains. Our earlier comparison (excluding Cosmos and Polkadot) concluded:
Comprehensive ranking (based on chain + ecosystem):
Solana > Avalanche > Near > BSC > Polygon > Fantom
This analysis focuses solely on architectural distinctions, now including ETH, Cosmos, and Polkadot, with conclusions aligning closely with prior findings.
We categorize mainstream public blockchains into three groups:
- Multi-chain
- Single-chain
- Specialized
Multi-Chain Ecosystems
These employ horizontal/vertical scaling, differing primarily in state-sharing mechanisms, trading off security for flexibility.
Ethereum (L1 + L2)
- Pros: Pioneer in smart contracts; most secure chain; highest innovation density and real users.
- Cons: High costs, slow speeds, legacy architecture, and slow adaptability.
Polkadot (Relay Chain + Parachains)
- Pros: Advanced architecture (XCMP, WASM); strong leadership; shared security.
- Cons: Costly for parachains; nascent ecosystem.
Cosmos (Hub + Zones)
- Pros: Sovereign chains via IBC and Cosmos SDK; ideal for custom chain designs.
- Cons: High development barriers; fragmented governance.
Avalanche (Primary Network + Subnets)
- Pros: Hybrid consensus; EVM compatibility; strong ecosystem.
- Cons: Limited subnet interoperability.
Polygon (PoS + Hermez + zk Rollups)
- Pros: Multi-solution strategy; aggressive funding.
- Cons: Untested new tech; competition from BSC.
Key Insight: Multi-chain modularity is the dominant trend, but trade-offs persist around the "blockchain trilemma" (scalability vs. security vs. decentralization).
👉 Explore hybrid blockchain architectures
Single-Chain Ecosystems
Focused on parallel execution to boost throughput:
Solana
- Uses explicit state dependencies for parallel processing.
- Drawbacks: Centralization risks; frequent outages.
Aptos/Sui (Libra Derivatives)
- Optimistic execution (Aptos) vs. dependency declaration (Sui).
- Challenges: Untested at scale; potential hardware centralization.
Fuel (Modular Execution Layer)
- UTXO model for parallel execution; targets Ethereum L2.
Outlook: Solana remains the leader in non-EVM ecosystems, but Aptos/Sui warrant monitoring.
Specialized Blockchains
Near (Sharding)
- Pros: Fast-growing developer ecosystem.
- Cons: Complex sharding implementation.
Arweave (Storage-Centric)
- Pros: High TPS via SCP paradigm.
- Cons: Limited DeFi suitability.
BSC (Binance Smart Chain)
- Pros: Deep liquidity; EVM compatibility.
- Cons: Centralized governance.
TL;DR Ranking:
ETH > Cosmos > Solana > Avalanche > BSC > Arweave
Wildcards: Capital inflows or killer DApps could disrupt this hierarchy.
FAQs
1. Why is Cosmos considered more flexible than Polkadot?
Cosmos offers sovereign chains with custom governance, whereas Polkadot mandates shared security and economic models.
2. What’s the biggest challenge for parallel execution chains?
Balancing efficiency gains against centralization risks due to high hardware demands.
3. Which chain is best for developers prioritizing low costs?
Avalanche or Polygon offer cost-effective EVM environments, while Cosmos provides design freedom.
👉 Dive deeper into blockchain scalability solutions
References: