We investigated seven projects that tried to overthrow Ethereum, we introduced each of these seven, and briefly discussed their technology and how they stole the crown from Ethereum. Obviously, some projects have made significant progress in terms of transaction speed, cost and other factors. Now, we take this analysis one step further.
Here, we will study these seven projects in depth to evaluate factors including ease of use and developer interest, degree of decentralization, governance framework, security settings, functions, etc. Among these projects, which one can overthrow the giant Ethereum and become David (the Jewish hero King of David) in this story?
Degree of decentralization
One way to assess the degree of blockchain decentralization is the number of validators. The figure below shows the number of validators for each of the seven challengers outlined:
In the selected projects, Cardano has 2076 validators, Solana has 1065 validators, and Avalanche has 1057 validators, clearly leading the rest in terms of the number of validators. The greater the number of validators, the higher the degree of decentralization of the network.
Furthermore, it helps to understand the so-called Satoshi Nakamoto coefficient. First proposed by Balaji Srinivasan (Chief CTO of Coinbase in 2019, PhD in Electronic Engineering from Stanford University), the Nakamoto Coefficient is a quantitative indicator to measure the degree of decentralization of the system. It helps determine how many entities need to be destroyed to control the system. The larger the value of this minimum Satoshi Nakamoto coefficient, the more dispersed the system . Among the three listed above , the Satoshi Nakamoto coefficient of Cardano ( ADA ) is 24 (source: ADApools.org), the Satoshi Nakamoto coefficient of Solana is 19 (source: Solana Beach), and the Nakamoto coefficient of Avalanche The Satoshi Coefficient is 26 (Source: Industry Report).
Another measure of decentralization is the level of collateralized tokens, which is basically the percentage of eligible tokens that are collateralized. As shown below, Solana (77.93%), Binance (76.54%), Tezos (75.53%) and Cardano (70.86%) hold more than 70% of eligible tokens.
A recent report by Outlier Ventures put forward some interesting statistics (consideration period: July 20 to June 21) about developers’ interest in some of these blockchains. Here are some highlights:
- Cardano ranks highest in terms of average monthly GitHub commits (CPM). Its average cost per thousand impressions is 701. Ethereum ranked second, with an average cost per thousand impressions of 447. Solana, Avalanche and Polkadot of CPM were 247,237 and 221.
- In terms of its overall increase in blockchain submissions, Avalanche is clearly the winner. Compared with the last time, AVAX has increased by 709.7% in total submissions in the last 12 months, from 1,553 submissions (CPY) per year to 12,575 CPY.
- Ethereum shows a large number of monthly active developers, with an average of 168 per month, and Cardano has 165 active developers per month. Polkadot has an average of 68 active developers every month.
Extending this, when it comes to the field of fashion in the blockchain, which of these platforms is taking the lead? Think about it, DeFi , NFT , games .
Decentralized financial institution
According to data aggregator DeFi Llama, more than $256 billion has been locked in the DeFi protocol. Among them, nearly 67.5% involved DeFi projects built on Ethereum. However, it is worth noting that the dominance of Ethereum has dropped from 97.6% at the beginning of the year. Judging from the projects included in this comparison, networks including Binance, Solana, and Avalanche have been eroding Ethereum’s market share. From one perspective, Solana’s popularity in DeFi projects has grown substantially in the past few months. The total value lock (TVL) of all DeFi projects built on Solana is currently US$14.9 billion (5.8% of the total share), compared to 592 million (0.50%) as of June 30, 2021. Avalanche has also been breaking into the dominance of Ethereum and Binance. Since 2021, TVL has increased by nearly 47 times.
In terms of NFT, Ethereum has a dominant position in most collections, markets and dApps (source: Applied Radar). However, due to the well-known shortcomings of limited scalability (we mentioned TPS in the previous part of this article) and high transaction fees, other blockchains have left their mark in this area. On the one hand, Binance Smart Chain provides significantly lower fees and faster transactions. However, BSC’s appeal in the NFT field is limited. However, Solana has been making rapid progress in this field. Its ecosystem has 193 NFT projects.
In the field of games, Ethereum-based Axie Infinity dominates (30-day transaction volume of 2.3 billion U.S. dollars, with more than 661,000 users). However, BSC’s focus on gaming is already obvious. According to DappRadar, 15 of the top 20 blockchain games are based on BSC.
Supported programming languages
Solidity is a popular programming language among Ethereum developers. It aims to develop smart contracts that run on the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM). The following is an overview of the programming languages supported by each blockchain:
Compared with off-chain governance methods (both Bitcoin and Ethereum use off-chain governance processes), on-chain governance expands the participants in the blockchain governance process. This helps limit the threat of chain splits and forks. Of course, these two mechanisms have their own advantages and disadvantages, and it is expected that they will continue to develop over time. This is a quick understanding of the discussed blockchain governance framework.
- Run the off-chain governance model.
- Input Output Hong Kong (IOHK) and Cardano Foundation develop and implement an agreement update.
- The off-chain governance model will continue until the network reaches the Voltaire era.
- Then, participants will be able to use their shares and voting rights to influence the future development of the network.
Binance Smart Chain BSC
- Binance provides on-chain governance through Proof of Stake (PoSA) consensus.
- BSC has system parameters to determine network behavior, including reduction of amount, cross-chain transfer fees, etc. These parameters are defined by the BSC validator set using the proposal voting process on Binance Chain.
- Anyone can submit a proposal to update BSC parameters on Binance Chain.
- The Solana Foundation is a non-profit organization that owns Solana’s intellectual property (IP) and assists in determining the direction of development together with Solana Labs.
- Solana Labs will remain a core contributor to the agreement.
- There are currently no plans for on-chain governance. It has a delegated proof-of-stake (DPoS) system that allows token holders to choose a validator set. However, there is no roadmap for a token-weighted voting system.
- Parity Technologies built the Polkadot protocol and Substrate framework, and initially controlled most of the process.
- In July 2020, control of the protocol was transferred to the on-chain governance system proposed by the network.
- Network participants are now the main source of upgrade submissions and approvals.
- Avalanche provides on-chain governance for key parameters of the network, allowing participants to vote on network changes and network upgrades.
- However, Avalanche does not allow unlimited changes to any aspect of the system. On the contrary, only a predetermined number of parameters can be modified through governance
- Tezos uses an on-chain governance system.
- The governance mechanism enables bakers (validators) to vote on upgrade proposals.
- Proposals can only be accepted if they get a super majority (over 80%).
- The Tezos Foundation operates eight bakers and is able to cast nearly 30% of the voting rights (source: Messari).
Near Protocol （NEAR）
- Open to community contributions, anyone can submit or comment on NEAR improvement proposals.
- Governance discussions took place in the NEAR forum.
- The implementation time of the proposal will depend on the urgency of the change.
The shift to ETH 2.0 has raised concerns in several areas, including network fragmentation and security vulnerabilities due to possible vulnerabilities in the code. For its part, the design focus of ETH 2.0 is security, which makes potential attacks extremely costly. ETH 2.0 requires at least 16,384 validators. Organizations including Least Authority and Quantstamp are conducting security audits of the ETH 2.0 code. The Ethereum Foundation has also established a security team to study possible network security issues.
Although most of the blockchains listed here are not susceptible to vulnerabilities such as 51% attacks, given that the proof-of-stake model is more widely adopted than proof-of-work, the focus is still on improving all On the security and safety of the network. The following are some of the unique security measures implemented in some of the blockchains considered here.
Polkadot: Polkadot builds a system through the relay chain to incentivize different blockchains to concentrate resources and protect the entire system. This makes it more difficult for an attacker to control the consensus process.
Binance Smart Chain: Some “carpet pulls” and exploits on BSC often raise questions about chain security. The BSC security algorithm, called Proof-Of-Staked-Authority (PoSA), is controlled by 21 node operators. The BSC Security Alliance recently released a security white paper that highlights concerns about potential vulnerabilities and outlines measures that go beyond security audits, bounty programs, and dApp monitoring.
Here is a quick tour of the communities on the two popular encrypted social media channels Twitter and Telegram in each project:
The network effect of Ethereum as a technology is still unparalleled. In addition, given its pedigree, it enjoys a degree far beyond trust, safety and reliability. The future success of Ethereum depends to a large extent on layer 2 solutions. Since it is possible to move most transactions out of the chain, these layer 2 solutions may be the key to solving some of the current dilemmas, transaction processing speed, and gas fees of the Ethereum network. Although some of these layer 2 solutions, such as Matic (Polygon), have successfully proven their effectiveness, a large number of layer 2 solutions are still in the development or testing stage. This is the opportunity for other blockchains.
Obviously, as TVL reflects, the dominant position of Ethereum has begun to shrink. From a dominant position of more than 97% in TVL (December 31, 2020), Ethereum today owns approximately 67% of TVL.
As seen in the previous part of this series, blockchains including Solana and Binance Smart Chain have far surpassed Ethereum in terms of TPS and cost per transaction.
Cardano has an average of 702 submissions per month (for the 12-month period ending June 2021) and surpasses Ethereum at an average rate of 447 CPM. In the past few months, the DeFi field, including Solana and Avalanche, has been receiving attention and has entered the dominance of Ethereum and Binance.
In the past year, Tier 1 platforms have emerged, threatening to overthrow Ethereum. Obviously, competition is cruel, and newer Tier 1 platforms must focus on retaining users. The temptation of the cryptocurrency market to return on capital is very large, and the blockchain will have to show niche use cases and flexible footsteps to keep up with emerging trends in this field.
Posted by:CoinYuppie，Reprinted with attribution to:https://coinyuppie.com/ethereum-and-7-challengers-can-eth-2-0-stop-them/
Coinyuppie is an open information publishing platform, all information provided is not related to the views and positions of coinyuppie, and does not constitute any investment and financial advice. Users are expected to carefully screen and prevent risks.