Home Blog Page 10

Avalanche L1s (formerly Subnets): Modular DeFi in Action

Bakhodir
-
0
Avalanche L1s (formerly Subnets): Modular DeFi in Action

In 2025, Avalanche continues to stand out as one of the most flexible blockchain platforms available. Its Layer-1 networks (L1s) — previously known as Subnets — let developers launch independent blockchains. These run parallel with Avalanche’s primary network.

Moreover, each L1 operates with its own validators, fee model, and tokenomics. At the same time, they remain natively connected with the rest of the ecosystem. This modular approach positions Avalanche uniquely in the competitive landscape of DeFi platforms.

Revolutionary Changes in the Avalanche9000 Upgrade

The Etna upgrade (also known as Avalanche9000) introduced a transformative new validator model. As a result, this fundamentally changes how developers participate in the network.

Key improvements include:

First, validators for new L1s no longer face steep requirements. Previously, they needed to stake 2,000 AVAX tokens. Additionally, they had to validate the Primary Network. Now, instead, they simply pay a continuous fee for participation. Consequently, this dramatically lowers barriers for new projects.

However, legacy Subnets still follow the original rule. Specifically, they require 2,000 AVAX staking plus Primary Network validation. Therefore, both systems now coexist. This dual approach opens Avalanche to a wider range of developers. For instance, it welcomes both bootstrapped startups and institutional players.

For those comparing custom blockchain solutions, our guide to Avalanche Subnets vs Polygon Supernets provides detailed insights into different approaches to network customization.

For more details on the Avalanche9000 upgrade, visit the official Avalanche documentation.

Performance Metrics: Speed and Finality That Matter

Avalanche has built its reputation on delivering sub-second finality. Specifically, transactions finalize in approximately 1 second. Furthermore, each L1 network can handle thousands of transactions per second (TPS).

Nevertheless, some marketing materials claim “hundreds of thousands of TPS.” In reality, actual throughput depends on several factors. These include network setup, validator distribution, and specific use cases.

What truly matters for DeFi users is reliable performance. Consequently, Avalanche’s structure delivers fast confirmations and low latency. This makes it ideal for time-sensitive operations. For example, it excels at liquidations, arbitrage, and high-frequency trading. Those interested in scalability solutions might also explore how Optimism achieves fast and cheap Ethereum transactions through Layer 2 technology.

Learn more about Avalanche’s consensus mechanism at Avalanche’s technical documentation.

Native Cross-Chain Communication Without External Bridges

The Durango upgrade activated Avalanche Warp Messaging (AWM) on the C-Chain. Simultaneously, it introduced Teleporter. This native system enables messaging and token transfers between L1 chains. Notably, it works without external bridges.

This breakthrough means DeFi projects can maintain their independence. At the same time, they remain seamlessly connected across the ecosystem. Therefore, developers no longer worry about bridge security issues. Similarly, they avoid custodial risks that have plagued cross-chain DeFi.

For technical specifications on Avalanche Warp Messaging, check the AWM documentation.

Why Modular Architecture Matters for DeFi

Avalanche’s modular design allows developers to offload heavy DeFi activity. Specifically, they can use specialized networks built for specific purposes. As a result, this creates several compelling advantages:

Dedicated environments: First, you can deploy a DEX, lending market, or RWA platform on its own L1. Then, you can tune it for low latency and minimal fees. Additionally, you can set custom MEV rules.

Smooth user experience: Furthermore, traders avoid gas wars and network congestion. This happens because unrelated activity runs elsewhere. For instance, gaming transactions or NFT mints don’t interfere. Consequently, each L1 maintains its own throughput.

Flexible economics: Moreover, each L1 defines its own token model and fee structure. It also sets validator incentives. Therefore, this enables tailored ecosystems that can experiment freely.

The modular blockchain concept extends beyond Avalanche. For a deeper understanding of this architectural approach, explore our comprehensive comparison of modular blockchains including Celestia, Monad, and EigenLayer.

Real-World L1 Implementations in Production

Dexalot L1: This is a central limit order book (CLOB) style exchange. It runs on its own network. As a result, it delivers low-latency order execution. Furthermore, it maintains price stability even during peaks. Visit Dexalot to experience institutional-grade trading.

DFK Chain: Similarly, this is a hybrid gaming and DeFi network. Here, play-to-earn mechanics work seamlessly. Additionally, liquidity pools and token swaps run smoothly. Consequently, they don’t clog other chains. Explore DeFi Kingdoms for more information.

IntainMARKETS (Evergreen Subnet): This is a compliance-ready market for tokenized securities. Therefore, it serves as a bridge between DeFi and traditional finance. Learn more at IntainMARKETS.

Grove Finance (with Centrifuge): This platform focuses on institutional credit and real-world asset tokenization. Consequently, it brings traditional capital on-chain through compliant infrastructure.

Important note: Trader Joe (DEX) and BENQI still operate on Avalanche’s C-Chain. In other words, they don’t have their own dedicated L1s. Meanwhile, BENQI’s Ignite program helps bootstrap validators across the ecosystem. Thus, this showcases the blend of shared and modular infrastructure.

Check current DeFi activity on DeFiLlama’s Avalanche page.

Getting Started as a Beginner: Your First Steps

Download the Core wallet to begin your journey. It supports the X-Chain, C-Chain, P-Chain, and new L1s in one interface. Get it at Core.app.

Start simple: First, try a token swap on Trader Joe. This operates on the C-Chain. As a result, you’ll get familiar with basic DeFi operations.

Then explore L1-based applications like Dexalot. Here, you’ll immediately notice faster confirmations. Additionally, you’ll experience near-zero fees. Furthermore, the user experience remains smooth even during high-volume trading.

The 2025 Institutional and Market Landscape

Total Value Locked (TVL): Currently, this stands at approximately $2 billion USD. According to DeFiLlama, this fluctuates with broader market conditions.

Native interoperability: Significantly, this was strengthened by the Durango and Teleporter upgrades. Consequently, reliance on external bridges decreased.

Institutional momentum: Notably, VanEck filed an Avalanche ETF (S-1 filing). Updates continued through October 2025. Therefore, this represents major institutional attention.

Enterprise pilots: Meanwhile, the Evergreen and Spruce networks hosted real-world tests. Participants included major institutions. For example, T. Rowe Price, WisdomTree, Wellington Management, and Cumberland joined. Additionally, Citi ran a tokenization pilot.

Together, these developments demonstrate Avalanche’s unique position. Specifically, it sits at the intersection of DeFi innovation and traditional finance. For those exploring emerging scaling technologies, our articles on zkSync vs StarkNet offer insights into zero-knowledge proof implementations.

Track institutional developments at the SEC’s EDGAR database.

Important Caveats and Clarifications

Terminology: First, understand that “Subnets” and “L1s” refer to the same concept. Both terms are used interchangeably in the ecosystem. This maintains historical continuity.

Validator requirements: Legacy Subnets still use the 2,000 AVAX staking rule. Additionally, they require Primary Network validation. However, new L1s use a fee-based model. Therefore, always verify which system applies to your case.

Throughput claims: Treat theoretical “TPS” numbers with skepticism. Instead, focus on finality guarantees. Similarly, prioritize user-perceived speed. These matter more for practical use.

Institutional participation facts: Importantly, BlackRock is not part of the Evergreen program. This is despite common misconceptions. Confirmed participants are those listed above.

The Bottom Line: Modular DeFi Infrastructure Ready for Scale

Avalanche’s L1s deliver true modular DeFi architecture. These are specialized blockchains purpose-built for specific uses. For instance, they serve trading, lending, or real-world assets. Moreover, they’re all connected through native protocols and sub-second finality.

Whether you’re a beginner or an institutional builder, Avalanche offers a scalable foundation. Specifically, it unites performance, flexibility, and compliance in one ecosystem.

This isn’t speculative hype. Rather, it’s modular DeFi infrastructure in production. Furthermore, it’s battle-tested and ready for the next wave of adoption.

For the latest updates and technical documentation, visit:

Read also: Celestia Mainnet Year One.

BNB Smart Chain in 2025: Still a Powerhouse or a Centralized Ghost?

Bakhodir
-
0
BNB Smart Chain in 2025: Still a Powerhouse or a Centralized Ghost?

In a crypto landscape where narratives shift faster than block times, BNB Smart Chain (BSC) remains one of the most polarizing networks in decentralized finance. Is it still a vibrant DeFi engine, or has it ossified into a “centralized ghost”—a shadow of what it once promised? The data in 2025 suggest it’s very much alive, but also still haunted by centralization concerns that refuse to disappear.

What Is BNB Smart Chain—and Why It Still Matters

BSC, now part of the broader BNB Chain family, launched in September 2020 as an affordable, Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM)-compatible alternative to Ethereum, especially during periods of prohibitively high gas fees. In 2022, the platform underwent a strategic rebrand under the umbrella “BNB Chain” to reflect its expanding multi-chain architecture, which now includes:

  • BSC proper for smart contracts and decentralized finance applications,
  • opBNB, an optimistic rollup Layer-2 solution designed for high-throughput, low-cost execution,
  • BNB Greenfield, a decentralized data storage layer that bridges on-chain logic with persistent data management.

The overarching goal: deliver an end-to-end Web3 infrastructure stack—from smart contracts to decentralized storage—with minimal friction, maximum speed, and accessibility for both developers and everyday users. To understand how BNB has evolved into this comprehensive ecosystem, check out our ultimate guide to Binance Coin.

Under the Hood: How BNB Smart Chain Works in 2025

Consensus Mechanism & Validator Structure

BSC operates on a Proof-of-Staked-Authority (PoSA) consensus mechanism. Currently, the network maintains 45 total validators, with 21 acting as active block producers in rotation. This expanded validator set represents a more robust architecture compared to earlier versions, though it remains modest when measured against chains with hundreds or thousands of validators.

Lightning-Fast Block Times

A significant 2025 network upgrade, known as Maxwell, reduced block times to approximately 0.75 seconds. This improvement gives BSC near-instantaneous responsiveness for everyday applications, competing directly with high-performance chains like Solana while maintaining EVM compatibility.

Low Fees Meet High Throughput

On-chain gas costs remain minimal for most transactions on the main BSC network. The opBNB Layer-2 solution pushes fees even lower, targeting sub-penny costs for microtransactions—a critical feature for gaming, social applications, and high-frequency trading. For context on how Layer-2 solutions are reshaping the blockchain landscape, explore our analysis of the Layer-2 wars between Arbitrum, Optimism, and Base.

An added benefit of recent upgrades: new MEV (miner or validator extractable value) mitigation mechanisms, including the Good Will Alliance framework, reportedly cut sandwich attacks by over 90% following implementation.

Ecosystem Integration with Greenfield

BNB Greenfield enables developers to integrate decentralized storage and data logic alongside on-chain smart contracts. This architectural innovation bridges a major gap between blockchain logic and persistent data requirements, opening new possibilities for dApps that need reliable, censorship-resistant storage.

The Numbers Don’t Lie: BSC’s 2025 Market Footprint

  • Total Value Locked (TVL): Approximately $10–11 billion across DeFi protocols
  • Daily Active Addresses: Around 2.4 million unique users
  • Daily Transactions: Between 20–25 million transactions processed daily
  • DEX Volume (7-day): Approximately $26 billion in weekly decentralized exchange volume, with PancakeSwap leading the pack
  • Stablecoin Presence: Roughly $13.5 billion in stablecoins circulating on BSC, with USDT commanding approximately 59% market share
  • Network Revenue: $70.8 million in fees generated during Q1 2025 alone
  • BNB Token Performance: As of October 7, 2025, BNB reached a new all-time high and temporarily surpassed XRP in market capitalization

These metrics underscore that BSC still channels substantial capital and user activity. Far from being a forgotten blockchain, it remains one of the busiest networks in the cryptocurrency ecosystem.

Where the Centralization Critique Still Holds Water

While BSC’s validator architecture has evolved, the centralization critique hasn’t disappeared—and for good reason:

Validator Concentration Remains a Concern

Twenty-one active block producers represents a relatively small set compared to more decentralized networks. This narrow gatekeeper class potentially wields outsized influence over network governance and security decisions.

The Emergency Pause Precedent

In 2022, following a significant bridge exploit, BSC’s validators coordinated a temporary network halt to mitigate damage and prevent further losses. While effective in that specific crisis, this kind of centralized intervention is impossible—or at least considerably more difficult—on strongly permissionless chains like Ethereum or Bitcoin.

Persistent Scam and Rug Pull Issues

BSC consistently ranks high on lists of chains with the most rug pull incidents by absolute count. The combination of extremely low gas costs and a massive user base creates fertile ground for malicious token launches and exit scams. User vigilance remains paramount.

The Binance Influence Factor

Binance’s influence—both real and perceived—casts a long shadow over the network. Governance decisions, communications strategies, and validator alignment all feed into the “centralized ghost” narrative that critics regularly invoke.

Strengths vs. Risks: A Balanced Assessment

Key Strengths

Speed and Cost Efficiency: Few blockchain networks can compete with sub-second block times combined with penny or sub-penny transaction costs for retail users.

Developer Familiarity: EVM compatibility means Ethereum developers can port applications with minimal code changes, dramatically lowering barriers to entry.

Ecosystem Depth: An active culture spanning DeFi protocols, blockchain gaming, memecoins, and serious developer communities keeps the network continuously evolving. For a direct comparison of how BSC stacks up against its primary competitor, read our Ethereum vs BNB Chain analysis.

Revenue Capture and Innovation: BSC isn’t merely a free ride—the network captures meaningful fees and reinvests in infrastructure upgrades including Layer-2 solutions, MEV reduction mechanisms, and decentralized storage.

Legitimate Risks

Validator Centralization: The modest validator set creates fewer points of failure and influence compared to more decentralized alternatives.

Security and Scam Vulnerability: Users must exercise extreme caution—thorough audits and due diligence remain essential before interacting with new protocols.

Censorship and Intervention Risk: The historical precedent of network pauses raises questions about potential future interventions.

Intensifying Competition: Ethereum Layer-2 solutions and newer high-performance chains like Solana and TON aggressively challenge BSC’s cost and speed advantages.

The Final Verdict on BNB Smart Chain

BNB Smart Chain in 2025 is definitively not a ghost. The network is bustling with activity, processing tens of millions of daily transactions and securing billions in total value locked. For many users and builders—especially those prioritizing cost efficiency, speed, and seamless EVM integration—it remains one of the most pragmatic platforms in Web3.

However, it’s also not a decentralization utopia. Centralization concerns aren’t mythical fears—they’re inherent trade-offs embedded in the network’s design philosophy and historical evolution. Smart users will treat BSC as a specialized tool rather than a one-size-fits-all solution: leverage it where it demonstrably excels, hedge with more decentralized chains where censorship resistance matters most, and always carefully weigh risk versus reward.

External Sources & Further Reading:

Polkadot Parachains in 2025 — Explained Simply and Accurately

Bakhodir
-
0
Polkadot Parachains in 2025 — Explained Simply and Accurately

In the fast-moving world of blockchain, Polkadot stands out for one big reason: it connects multiple blockchains into a single interoperable ecosystem. At the center of this design are parachains — specialized blockchains that bring scalability, shared security, and cross-chain communication to life.

Think of Polkadot as a main highway (the Relay Chain) with many side roads (parachains) that plug in and send traffic between one another. Consequently, this setup prevents congestion and allows blockchains to cooperate instead of competing. By 2025, Polkadot’s parachain system has matured dramatically thanks to upgrades such as Agile Coretime and Polkadot 2.0, which redefine how resources are allocated and networks scale.

This guide breaks everything down in plain language — what parachains are, how they work, what changed in 2025, and why these updates matter for developers, users, and investors exploring Web3.

What Are Polkadot Parachains?

Parachains are independent, application-specific blockchains that run in parallel to the Polkadot Relay Chain. Unlike standalone networks that must secure themselves, parachains share the Relay Chain’s validator set and consensus, thereby saving massive time and cost according to the official Polkadot Wiki.

Key Characteristics

Shared Security – Every parachain inherits Polkadot’s proof-of-stake security. As a result, smaller projects don’t need their own validator network. This shared security model is crucial for understanding how to protect your crypto assets across different blockchain ecosystems.

Parallel Processing – Multiple parachains can process transactions simultaneously, which drastically improves throughput. This approach differs significantly from how other networks handle scalability, as explored in our comparison of Cosmos vs Polkadot’s different paths to interoperability.

Interoperability via XCM – The Cross-Consensus Message Format (XCM) lets parachains exchange data or assets natively as detailed in Polkadot’s XCM documentation.

Custom Logic – Each parachain can have unique governance, tokens, and fee models, unlike rigid smart-contract chains.

Simplified Workflow

First, collators gather transactions on a parachain and produce block candidates. Subsequently, they include Proof-of-Validity (PoV) data for Relay Chain validators.

Next, validators verify these PoV proofs using WebAssembly executables, thereby ensuring that the new state is valid.

Once verified, the Relay Chain merges all parachain states into a single global state.

The result: parallel execution, shared security, and smooth communication — a combination that few other ecosystems achieve.

From Slot Auctions to Agile Coretime

Before 2025, launching a parachain required slot auctions. Projects bid large amounts of DOT to lease a slot for up to 96 weeks, often raising community support through crowdloans.

However, in 2025, this system was replaced by Agile Coretime, a flexible resource-rental model described by Parity Technologies and the Polkadot community.

How Agile Coretime Works

Coretime = Computational Access. Instead of a fixed slot, projects buy coretime — a slice of execution capacity on the Relay Chain.

Two Modes:

  • Bulk Purchase – designed for stable, long-term projects needing consistent throughput
  • On-Demand Purchase – ideal for variable workloads; pay per block when needed

Dynamic Pricing: Furthermore, coretime prices adjust monthly based on supply and demand as explained in the Polkadot Fellowship RFC.

Deflationary Mechanics: Additionally, purchased DOT may be burned (permanently removed from circulation), tightening token supply. For those looking to acquire DOT tokens, checking out top crypto exchanges for beginners can help you get started safely.

Coretime Marketplaces: Meanwhile, platforms such as RegionX and Lastic are being built to let developers buy and manage coretime packages.

Why It Matters

Notably, Agile Coretime lowers the entry barrier for smaller teams, eliminates waste from idle slots, and enables a pay-as-you-go economy. Moreover, it’s one of the cornerstones of Polkadot 2.0 — the new, more dynamic version of the network.

The Polkadot 2.0 Upgrade — Core Components

Polkadot 2.0 isn’t a single feature; rather, it’s a series of upgrades that redefine performance and scalability as documented in Polkadot’s official documentation.

ComponentWhat It Does2025 Status
Asynchronous BackingValidates blocks off the main path, improving block timesRolling out in 2025
Elastic ScalingLets a parachain use multiple cores at once (multi-core execution)Gradual rollout; early testing stages
JAM Protocol (Join-Accumulate Machine)Redesigns Polkadot’s computation engine for higher efficiencyConcept approved, partial implementation
Asset Hub + EVM SupportEnables native asset transfers and Solidity-based smart contractsActive improvement in 2025

Together, these innovations push Polkadot toward becoming a self-scaling multichain operating system — a foundation for everything from DeFi and DePIN to gaming. While Solana and TON are gaining traction with different approaches, Polkadot’s unique architecture offers distinct advantages for builders seeking interoperability. Similar scaling philosophies can be seen in Optimism’s Superchain approach, though with fundamentally different technical implementations.

Verified Metrics: Polkadot in 2025

Here are publicly verified figures from Messari’s Q1 2025 report and Polkadot community reports:

  • Total Transactions (Q1 2025): 137.1 million (-36.9% QoQ, +76.3% YoY)
  • Active Addresses: approximately 530 thousand per month, representing a decline from 610 thousand in late 2024
  • Treasury Holdings: approximately 30.9 million DOT (roughly $124 million), with 92% of assets held in DOT
  • DOT Token Cap: Hard-capped at 2.1 billion tokens — approved by on-chain governance
  • DeFi Deployments: approximately 15% of treasury assets placed across DeFi parachains such as Hydration, Centrifuge, and Bifrost

Although overall transactions dipped during the transition to new mechanisms, the ecosystem remains robust and diverse.

Notable Parachains and Use Cases

The Polkadot ecosystem in 2025 hosts a wide mix of active parachains accessible through the Polkadot parachain directory:

Moonbeam – An EVM-compatible chain attracting Ethereum developers (moonbeam.network)

Peaq – Focused on DePIN (Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Networks), notably reporting +84% transaction growth QoQ (peaq.network)

Mythos – A game-oriented parachain driving millions of transactions monthly (mythos.foundation)

Acala, Parallel, Centrifuge – Leading DeFi and real-world-asset (RWA) platforms. For those interested in stablecoin infrastructure, understanding how stablecoins work on Ethereum provides useful context for comparing DeFi ecosystems across different chains.

Phala Network – Specialized in confidential computing via Trusted Execution Environments (TEE) (phala.network)

These projects illustrate how Polkadot has evolved from an interoperability concept into a diverse ecosystem spanning finance, gaming, and infrastructure.

Advantages and Challenges in 2025

Main Advantages

Lower Barrier to Entry – Teams no longer need multi-million-DOT auction bids. Instead, coretime can be rented cheaply.

Cost Efficiency – Projects pay only for the computation they actually use, which significantly reduces operational expenses.

Deflationary Tokenomics – Burning DOT via coretime purchases reduces supply and may support long-term value accordingly.

Ecosystem Diversity – Easier onboarding brings more niche chains — gaming, DePIN, privacy, AI, IoT. Consequently, the network becomes more versatile.

Better Cross-Chain UX – Asset Hub and enhanced XCM enable smooth transfers and composability, thereby improving user experience.

Ongoing Challenges

Transition Complexity – Coretime marketplaces and elastic scaling are still being rolled out, which presents temporary hurdles.

Resource Competition – When demand spikes, projects may compete for limited coretime supply. Therefore, strategic planning becomes essential.

Management Overhead – Developers must plan budgets and monitor real-time pricing, adding operational complexity.

Partial Feature Deployment – JAM and multi-core execution remain in testing, meaning full capabilities aren’t yet available.

Ecosystem Noise – Some network activity still comes from staking and governance, not user apps — a sign of a maturing but still shifting ecosystem.

Example: Launching a Gaming Parachain in 2025

Let’s imagine a studio building a Web3 game:

Old Way: Bid in slot auctions → lock DOT for 96 weeks → huge cost

Now: Instead, buy coretime to launch quickly → scale up during events → scale down after

If successful: Subsequently, adopt elastic scaling to run on multiple cores

Interoperability: Furthermore, game assets (NFTs, tokens) can move via XCM or Asset Hub to other chains. This is particularly relevant as NFT utility continues to evolve across different blockchain ecosystems.

Economics: Additionally, part of the DOT paid for coretime is burned, thereby reducing supply

The result — faster launch, lower costs, and seamless player experience secured by Polkadot’s Relay Chain.

The Bigger Picture — Polkadot’s Position in 2025

Polkadot’s upgrades aim to make it the most flexible multi-chain platform for Web3 builders.

For Developers: Build independent blockchains without running validator networks, thus reducing infrastructure costs.

For Users: Enjoy cheaper, faster, interoperable apps that seamlessly communicate across chains. As with any blockchain interaction, following essential security rules remains critical regardless of which ecosystem you’re using.

For Investors: DOT has clearer tokenomics and utility (burn + cap), which enhances long-term value proposition.

For Ecosystem Growth: Moreover, more on-chain DAOs, grants, and events are funding innovation. Notably, the 2025 Builder Party offered $40,000 in rewards for new projects.

These changes position Polkadot as a serious competitor to other scalable smart-contract platforms while staying true to its original goal — a secure, interconnected “internet of blockchains.”

Outlook for 2026 and Beyond

The coming year will likely bring several exciting developments:

First, we can expect full coretime marketplaces with secondary trading, allowing more flexible resource allocation.

Additionally, broader elastic scaling support for multi-core execution will significantly increase performance. As Layer 2 solutions continue to evolve across the industry — like StarkNet’s 2025 roadmap demonstrates — Polkadot’s approach offers a compelling alternative with its shared security model.

The network will also see JAM protocol rollouts that further increase throughput and efficiency across the network.

Finally, enhanced EVM and WASM bridging will make Polkadot attractive for both Ethereum and Substrate developers.

Polkadot 2.0 is not just an upgrade — rather, it’s a re-architecture of how blockchains share resources and scale. If delivered as planned, it could set a new standard for modular, interconnected networks.

Final Takeaway

By 2025, Polkadot parachains have evolved from an experimental concept into a mature, scalable framework for Web3. With Agile Coretime, shared security, and upcoming JAM and Elastic Scaling features, Polkadot is shaping the next generation of blockchain infrastructure — modular, efficient, and interconnected.

If you’re new to Web3 and looking for a network that combines technical depth with real-world usability, Polkadot in 2025 is a case study in how blockchain can grow up without giving up its decentralized soul.

Disclaimer: This article presents information about blockchain technology and cryptocurrency for educational purposes. Features mentioned as “in development” such as JAM Protocol and full Elastic Scaling implementation are subject to change. Always conduct your own research before making investment decisions.

Cosmos Ecosystem Guide: How IBC Actually Connects Blockchains

Bakhodir
-
1
Cosmos Ecosystem Guide: How IBC Actually Connects Blockchains

The blockchain world has grown into a maze of separate networks — each fast, secure, and innovative, yet mostly isolated. Cosmos set out to change that. Instead of one monolithic chain handling everything (and choking on its own traffic), Cosmos builds a web of independent yet interconnected blockchains.

At the center of this design lies IBC — the Inter-Blockchain Communication protocol, a system that lets different blockchains exchange data and assets safely, instantly, and without centralized bridges.

In this guide, we’ll break down how the Cosmos ecosystem works, how IBC connects chains under the hood, and why it’s becoming the backbone of multi-chain interoperability in 2025.

What Is the Cosmos Ecosystem?

Cosmos isn’t a single blockchain — it’s a framework for creating many of them. Launched in March 2019, the Cosmos Hub (powered by the ATOM token) was the first zone built using the Cosmos SDK, an open-source toolkit that lets developers build their own app-specific blockchains, often called appchains.

Each appchain runs independently — it chooses its own governance, tokenomics, and upgrade cycle — but can still communicate with others through IBC. This design addresses three fundamental blockchain challenges:

Scalability: Instead of one congested chain, many appchains share the load.

Interoperability: IBC connects them seamlessly.

Sovereignty: Each chain rules itself.

Cosmos chains use CometBFT (the successor to Tendermint BFT) for consensus, giving instant finality within seconds and low fees, usually fractions of a cent. By mid-2025, the Cosmos ecosystem includes over 110 active IBC-connected chains and handles tens of billions of dollars in cross-chain transfers annually.

Understanding IBC: The Internet Protocol for Blockchains

Think of IBC as the TCP/IP of blockchains — a universal communication layer that lets separate blockchains send authenticated, ordered data packets to each other.

Launched in production on the Cosmos Hub in 2021, IBC has since evolved into a mature standard maintained by the Interchain Foundation and Cosmos SDK community. When comparing approaches to blockchain interoperability, Cosmos vs Polkadot take fundamentally different paths, with Cosmos favoring sovereignty and Polkadot emphasizing shared security.

How IBC Works Under the Hood

Every IBC connection follows the TAO model — Transport, Authentication, and Ordering:

Transport: Moves packets of data between blockchains.

Authentication: Uses light clients to verify each other’s state cryptographically — no need for trust or third-party custodians.

Ordering: Ensures messages arrive in the correct sequence.

In simple terms, IBC is like a secure postal service between sovereign countries. Each country (chain) has its own rules, but IBC provides the shared logistics — trusted customs, verified stamps, and guaranteed delivery.

Learn more about IBC specifications at the IBC Protocol documentation.

Step-by-Step: What Happens During an IBC Transfer

Let’s say you’re moving ATOM tokens from the Cosmos Hub to Osmosis, the leading DEX chain in the ecosystem.

The sender locks ATOM in an escrow account on the Cosmos Hub, a data packet is generated with transfer details, and an off-chain relayer picks up the packet and delivers it to Osmosis. Osmosis checks the packet’s validity using its light client of the Hub and mints an equivalent IBC token (a traceable voucher of ATOM) for the recipient.

When tokens move back, Osmosis burns the voucher and the Cosmos Hub releases the original ATOM. This mechanism — defined under the ICS-20 standard — keeps transfers atomic and trust-minimized. If you’re new to moving assets between chains, understanding crypto trading fundamentals can help you navigate these cross-chain operations more confidently.

Key Components of the IBC Architecture

Understanding IBC requires familiarity with its core components:

Light Clients: On-chain verifiers that confirm another chain’s headers and proofs without downloading the whole blockchain.

Connections: Handshakes between two chains that confirm mutual verification.

Channels: Logical tunnels for specific data types — for example, token transfers (ICS-20) or interchain accounts (ICS-27).

Packets: The actual data units that carry messages or token information.

Relayers: Off-chain operators that transport packets between chains — incentivized via fees or community rewards.

Additional modules like ICS-29 (fee middleware) and ICS-27 (Interchain Accounts) extend IBC’s functionality, enabling not just token transfers but also remote control of accounts across chains.

Real-World IBC Use Cases in 2025

Osmosis DEX allows users to move ATOM, USDC, and other assets via IBC to trade or provide liquidity, processing billions in IBC volume monthly. The v4 version of dYdX runs as a Cosmos appchain, connected via IBC to Noble (which issues native USDC), enabling traders to deposit or withdraw seamlessly across chains.

Celestia, a data-availability network, uses IBC to share data with other chains and rollups, while Akash Network, a decentralized cloud marketplace, allows users to pay for compute using IBC transfers of AKT or USDC.

In all these examples, IBC enables real-time, permissionless communication without centralized bridges or wrapped tokens — a significant security improvement compared with earlier cross-chain systems. For a comprehensive comparison of the most secure cross-chain bridges in 2025, IBC-based solutions consistently rank among the safest options.

Security and Reliability of IBC

IBC’s security model is based on light-client verification, not trust in intermediaries. Each chain directly validates proofs of the other’s state, removing the single-point-of-failure risk common in custodial bridges.

However, like any protocol, IBC isn’t immune to bugs. In 2023, Cosmos temporarily paused IBC after discovering a vulnerability in ICS-20. The issue was patched within days, proving both the protocol’s transparency and the community’s responsiveness.

As of 2025, IBC has transferred tens of billions of dollars without a single major exploit — a record unmatched among cross-chain systems.

Beyond Token Transfers: Interchain Accounts and Advanced Features

The ICS-27 Interchain Accounts (ICA) standard allows one blockchain to control an account on another chain. That means a DeFi protocol could, for instance, stake ATOM on the Hub, trade on Osmosis, and vote in governance — all from one controlling chain.

These features unlock cross-chain decentralized applications, automated strategies, and shared liquidity networks where assets and logic move freely between zones. When evaluating cross-chain liquidity solutions like LayerZero vs Wormhole vs Synapse, IBC’s native approach offers distinct advantages in trustlessness and composability.

IBC v2 Eureka and the Expansion Beyond Cosmos

In 2025, Cosmos developers unveiled IBC v2 (Eureka) — a major upgrade expanding interoperability beyond the Cosmos ecosystem.

New projects using IBC v2 architecture include Polymer Labs, which is building an IBC-based hub on Ethereum and its rollups, connecting EVM chains through verified light clients; Picasso Network (Composable Finance), deploying ZK light clients to extend IBC to Solana and Ethereum; and TOKI, the first IBC connection to OP Mainnet, launched in September 2025, linking Cosmos with Optimism-based networks.

Together, these initiatives push IBC toward becoming a universal standard for blockchain communication, not just a Cosmos-only feature. As scaling solutions like zkSync and StarkNet continue to evolve, IBC v2’s ZK light client integration positions it to connect these advanced Ethereum rollups seamlessly.

Common Misconceptions and Limitations

Understanding IBC requires clarity on its limitations:

One-click connectivity is marketing. Every new ecosystem needs an audited light client, relayers, and governance approval before it’s fully IBC-ready.

Security differs per domain. Cosmos, Ethereum rollups, and Solana each use different consensus assumptions. Verify the exact trust model before bridging.

Version lag can be risky. Chains that delay upgrading ibc-go may expose old bugs. Most active networks now run v10 or later.

Token tracing matters. Each IBC path (port/channel) creates a unique token trace. Using the wrong channel can produce confusing duplicates.

Numbers fluctuate. Chain counts and total IBC volume change monthly — always refer to live IBC dashboards for the latest metrics.

Monitor real-time IBC activity at Map of Zones.

Why IBC Matters for the Future of Blockchain

Scalability through modularity: Each appchain processes its own workload but remains connected to others.

Security through verification: No trusted multisigs or wrapped assets; everything is validated on-chain.

Composability: Developers can combine multiple chains’ strengths — liquidity on Osmosis, data on Celestia, compute on Akash — into a single experience.

Efficiency: Transactions finalize in seconds with minimal fees.

Sovereignty with collaboration: Chains remain independent yet part of a larger economy.

In short, Cosmos combined with IBC is the practical path to the long-promised Internet of Blockchains.

Conclusion

The Cosmos ecosystem, powered by IBC, has quietly become one of the most advanced interoperability networks in cryptocurrency. It combines speed, sovereignty, and security in a way that no centralized bridge or monolithic chain can match.

With IBC v2 (Eureka) bridging Cosmos to Ethereum, Solana, and OP chains, 2025 marks the year IBC truly steps beyond its origin — transforming from an internal transport protocol into the de facto open standard for cross-chain communication.

If you want to understand the future of blockchain, start with Cosmos — and watch how IBC turns isolated ecosystems into one connected web.

Layer 2 Wars 2025: Arbitrum vs Optimism vs Base — Who’s Really Winning Ethereum’s Scaling Race?

Bakhodir
-
1
Layer 2 Wars 2025: Arbitrum vs Optimism vs Base — Who’s Really Winning Ethereum’s Scaling Race?

Introduction

Ethereum remains the backbone of decentralized finance (DeFi) and smart-contract applications — but success has its costs. High gas fees and network congestion have long frustrated users seeking affordable blockchain transactions.

That’s where Layer 2 (L2) scaling solutions come in. These protocols process transactions off-chain, then settle them on Ethereum’s main network (Layer 1) — keeping the same security while drastically cutting fees and increasing speed.

In 2025, three major L2s dominate headlines: Arbitrum, Optimism, and Base. Together, they handle the majority of Ethereum’s transactions. This article compares their technology, adoption, and decentralization using verified on-chain and independent data — no speculation, no hype.

What Are Layer 2s and Why They Matter

Ethereum Layer 1 processes roughly 15–20 transactions per second (TPS). When usage spikes, fees soar and throughput collapses.

L2 rollups fix this by batching thousands of off-chain transactions and submitting them to Layer 1 as compressed proofs — preserving Ethereum’s security while massively increasing efficiency.

All three networks — Arbitrum, Optimism, and Base — use optimistic rollups, which assume transactions are valid unless a “fraud proof” shows otherwise. To understand how these systems work in detail, check out our comprehensive guide to how Ethereum Layer 2 works.

Today, L2s collectively process many times more transactions than Ethereum itself. According to L2BEAT, Base alone handles over 120 user operations per second (UOPS), compared with Ethereum’s approximately 16.

Think of it like this: Ethereum L1 is a crowded city street; Layer 2 chains are the express highways built above it.

1. Arbitrum — The DeFi Powerhouse

Launch: 2021 by Offchain Labs
Technology: Optimistic rollup with multi-round fraud proofs and EVM compatibility
Core Upgrade: Arbitrum Nitro (2022)

Key Facts (October 2025)

  • Activity: ≈ 32.6 UOPS (per day, L2BEAT)
  • Value Secured (TVS): ≈ $20.79 billion — #1 among L2s
  • Governance: Arbitrum DAO with on-chain voting via ARB token and a Security Council
  • Ecosystem: Strong DeFi base — Uniswap, GMX, Camelot DEX, and hundreds more

Strengths

✅ Deep liquidity and highest DeFi TVL
✅ Proven security and transparent governance
✅ Large developer community and robust infrastructure

Limitations

⚠️ Some fraud-proof features have historically been partially implemented — always verify the current stage on L2BEAT risk pages
⚠️ Throughput claims like “40,000 TPS” are theoretical marketing numbers, not observed benchmarks

Verdict: Arbitrum remains the #1 choice for DeFi users and builders focused on liquidity, security, and DAO governance.

2. Optimism — The Infrastructure Backbone

Launch: 2021 by OP Labs
Technology: Optimistic rollup with EVM equivalence and single-round fault proofs
Framework: OP Stack, an open-source toolkit for building Ethereum-secured L2 chains

Key Facts (October 2025)

  • Activity: ≈ 14.4 UOPS (OP Mainnet)
  • Value Secured (TVS): ≈ $3.94 billion
  • Governance: Community-run via the OP token
  • Ecosystem: The OP Stack powers chains like Base, World Chain, Unichain, and more

Strengths

✅ Most reused L2 framework in the industry
✅ “Superchain” vision — interoperable L2s sharing liquidity and security
✅ Simplified developer experience and open-source standards

Limitations

⚠️ OP Mainnet’s own TVS is lower than Arbitrum and Base
⚠️ Some OP Stack-based chains still lack fully live fault proofs (“Stage 0” status)
⚠️ Stats like “50+ chains and 17M daily transactions” are not verified by independent sources

Verdict: Optimism is the developer’s choice — ideal for building custom L2s and scalable ecosystems under the Superchain umbrella.

3. Base — The Adoption Engine

Launch: 2023 by Coinbase on the OP Stack
Technology: Optimistic rollup with EVM compatibility
Goal: Bring on-chain activity to mainstream users via Coinbase’s ecosystem

Key Facts (October 2025)

  • Activity: ≈ 122.2 UOPS — #1 among all L2s
  • 30-Day Volume: ≈ 376 million transactions
  • Value Secured (TVS): ≈ $16.39 billion
  • Average Fee: ~ $0.001 – $0.002 per tx (cheapest on Ethereum L2)
  • Stage: Reached L2BEAT Stage 1 on April 29, 2025 (fault proofs + Security Council)

Strengths

✅ Ultra-low fees and massive user adoption
✅ Seamless integration with Coinbase Wallet and on-ramp
✅ Fastest-growing L2 for consumer apps, NFTs, and memecoins

Limitations

⚠️ Still in early decentralization stages — sequencer and governance remain partly centralized
⚠️ Heavy reliance on Coinbase’s infrastructure and MEV-style priority fee markets
⚠️ Coinbase’s “100M users” is a marketing figure; on-chain activity is the true metric

Verdict: Base is the clear leader in daily activity and affordability, pushing Ethereum toward mass adoption.

Quick Comparison Table

Metric (Oct 2025)ArbitrumOptimism (OP Mainnet)Base
Daily Activity (UOPS)≈ 32.6≈ 14.4≈ 122.2 (#1)
Value Secured (TVS)$20.79B (#1)$3.94B$16.39B (#2)
Typical Fee Range$0.01 – $0.10$0.01 – $0.05<$0.01 (~$0.0016)
Decentralization StageMature DAO + multi-round proofsRolling out fault proofsStage 1 (fault proofs live)
Focus AreaDeFi & liquidityInfrastructure & builder toolsMass adoption & UX
Best ForTraders & DeFi usersDevelopers & new L2 chainsBeginners & consumer apps

Choosing the Right L2 for You

🧭 For Beginners: Start with Base — it’s cheap, fast, and easy to use.

🧮 For DeFi Traders: Use Arbitrum for its deep liquidity and DAO security.

🧰 For Builders: Build on Optimism’s OP Stack for scalable custom chains.

Pro Tip: Check current fees and network status on l2fees.info before bridging funds. Prices and latency fluctuate daily.

Final Verdict: No Single Winner — Three Different Champions

  • Arbitrum → DeFi Champion: Liquidity, security, and governance
  • Optimism → Builder’s Champion: OP Stack powering a multi-chain future
  • Base → Adoption Champion: Speed, cost, and mainstream onboarding

Together, they make Ethereum faster, cheaper, and more inclusive than ever. The real victory isn’t one chain winning — it’s Ethereum’s ecosystem scaling to millions of users.

Sources and Further Reading

Cross-Chain Liquidity Explained: LayerZero vs Wormhole vs Synapse

Bakhodir
-
2
Cross-Chain Liquidity Explained: LayerZero vs Wormhole vs Synapse

Cross-chain liquidity enables movement of value and messages between blockchains. In 2025, three dominant approaches have emerged: message-passing with pluggable security (LayerZero), guardian-secured messaging and bridging (Wormhole), and liquidity-pool-driven bridging with RFQ capabilities (Synapse). Currently, total 24-hour bridge volume across all protocols hovers around $1.36 billion, demonstrating the critical role interoperability plays in the blockchain ecosystem.

Understanding Cross-Chain Liquidity Fundamentals

Different blockchains operate as isolated ecosystems with distinct protocols and rules. Therefore, cross-chain solutions function as connective infrastructure, enabling token transfers and verified message transmission across networks. As a result, three primary design patterns have emerged:

Lock-and-Mint Architecture: First, assets are locked on the source chain. Then, a corresponding representation is minted on the destination chain. Finally, the process reverses for return transfers.

Liquidity-Based Bridging: Initially, users withdraw from pre-funded liquidity pools on destination chains. Subsequently, backend settlement occurs separately.

Generalized Messaging: In this approach, verified messages pass between smart contracts. Consequently, applications can define custom execution logic upon receipt.

Without these interoperability solutions, liquidity and users remain isolated within single ecosystems. However, cross-chain infrastructure enables arbitrage opportunities, access to lower transaction costs, and composable DeFi applications spanning multiple blockchains. For a comprehensive look at how different blockchain ecosystems achieve interoperability, explore our guide on how IBC actually connects blockchains in the Cosmos ecosystem.

External Resources:

LayerZero: Omnichain Messaging with Configurable Security

Protocol Architecture

LayerZero provides general-purpose messaging capabilities through “OApps” (Omnichain Applications). Specifically, these enable smart contracts to read and write state across multiple blockchains. Moreover, Version 2 introduces modular security through Decentralized Verifier Networks (DVNs). As a result, applications can select their message verification providers.

Technical Implementation

The system operates through three core components. First, an Oracle relays block headers. Second, a Relayer supplies transaction-specific proofs. Third, the destination endpoint verifies and executes messages.

Historically, Chainlink and Google Cloud provided oracle services. In fact, Google Cloud served as the default configuration in version 1 as of September 2023. However, Version 2 shifted to app-selected DVNs instead of single oracle dependencies.

Furthermore, Omnichain Fungible Tokens (OFTs) represent a token standard using mint-and-burn mechanics. Therefore, they maintain unified supply across chains, enabling native unwrapped cross-chain assets.

Network Coverage

Currently, LayerZero v2 operates on Solana Mainnet Beta with published endpoints and Solana programs. Initially, it connects to a subset of chains. Nevertheless, planned expansion will follow additional audits. For developers building on Ethereum’s scaling solutions, understanding the complete landscape of Layer 2 networks is essential when designing cross-chain applications.

Optimal Use Cases

Overall, LayerZero excels at application-level messaging, omnichain token implementations, and scenarios requiring custom security configurations. However, security effectiveness depends critically on verifier selection, executor choices, path configurations, and confirmation requirements.

External Resources:

Wormhole: Guardian-Secured Cross-Chain Messaging

Security Model

Wormhole implements cross-chain messaging secured by 19 guardians. Essentially, these guardians observe source chain events and sign Verifiable Action Approvals (VAAs). Subsequently, applications and the Portal interface consume these VAAs on destination chains to mint or unlock assets and process messages.

Operational Flow

The process follows four steps. First, an event occurs on the source chain. Next, guardians sign a VAA. Then, the VAA is relayed to the destination chain. Finally, the destination contract verifies the VAA before executing operations such as minting, unlocking, or contract calls.

User Interface

Portal serves as Wormhole’s token bridge interface. Notably, it supports numerous Layer 1 and Layer 2 blockchains across multiple runtime environments including EVM, Solana, and Sui. Additionally, Wormhole provides Queries for decentralized data reads.

USDC Integration

For native USDC transfers, many routes now utilize Circle’s Cross-Chain Transfer Protocol (CCTP). In some cases, CCTP is integrated within other bridge interfaces including Wormhole. Consequently, this offers “USDC (CCTP)” options for canonical burn-and-mint transfers. Generally, native routes are preferable when available.

Optimal Use Cases

Overall, Wormhole provides comprehensive runtime coverage across EVM and non-EVM environments. Additionally, it offers straightforward token transfers through Portal and messaging capabilities to diverse ecosystems. However, security relies on the 19-guardian Proof-of-Authority model. Therefore, this represents different trade-offs compared to light-client or DVN-based verification.

External Resources:

Synapse: Liquidity-Based Bridging with RFQ Integration

Protocol Design

Initially, Synapse originated as a stableswap automated market maker combined with bridging functionality. Specifically, it transfers assets through liquidity pools on each blockchain. Since then, the protocol has expanded to include RFQ (Request-for-Quote) and intent-based components. As a result, professional market makers can quote and settle larger or customized orders. Notably, Synapse focuses on EVM-compatible chains.

Transfer Mechanism

First, users deposit on the source chain. Then, they receive funds from a destination pool on the target chain. However, this is subject to pool depth and fee structures. Meanwhile, the protocol handles rebalancing separately. For larger or specialized transfers, RFQ and intent-based flows match users with professional fillers across chains.

User Experience

The platform offers stablecoin and ETH pools, plus bridge interfaces optimized for low slippage. Additionally, intent-based and RFQ routes are increasingly prevalent for competitive quotes and faster settlement. Furthermore, liquidity providers earn swap and bridge fees. However, rewards and incentives are governed by DAO decisions that may change over time. For those participating as liquidity providers, understanding the evolving landscape of DeFi user experience is crucial to anticipating platform adoption and liquidity dynamics.

Optimal Use Cases

Overall, Synapse excels at capital-efficient swaps across EVM Layer 1 and Layer 2 networks. In particular, it performs well for stablecoins and blue-chip assets where pool liquidity is substantial. Nevertheless, rates depend on pool liquidity and market conditions. Moreover, liquidity providers face exposure to impermanent loss.

External Resources:

Comparative Analysis: LayerZero vs Wormhole vs Synapse

DimensionLayerZeroWormholeSynapse
ArchitectureGeneralized messaging with Oracles and Relayers (v2: DVNs)Guardian-signed VAAs (PoA multi-signature)Liquidity pools combined with RFQ and Intent mechanisms
Security ApproachApplication-configurable (select DVNs, executors, path parameters)Fixed guardian set of 19 validatorsLiquidity plus off-chain fillers; bridge security combined with pool economics
Token HandlingOFT mint-and-burn mechanism unifies supplyPrimarily lock-and-mint (plus messaging capabilities)Withdrawal from destination pools with subsequent rebalancing
Network CoverageBroad support including Solana endpointsExtensive reach across 30+ blockchains and 6 runtime environmentsEVM-focused Layer 1 and Layer 2 coverage
Primary Use CaseOmnichain applications and tokens with custom security requirementsWide runtime reach with user-friendly Portal interfaceLow-slippage EVM routes and large quote handling

Critical Risk Factors in Cross-Chain Operations

Smart Contract and Bridge Exploits

Historical incidents highlight significant vulnerabilities. For example, the 2022 Wormhole exploit resulted in approximately 120,000 wETH loss exceeding $320 million. Subsequently, Jump backstopped this loss. Similarly, the Ronin/Axie Infinity hack exceeded $620 million. Notably, this attack was attributed to North Korea’s Lazarus Group.

Therefore, best practices include utilizing battle-tested routes and verifying official front-end interfaces. Additionally, initiate transfers with small test amounts. For an in-depth analysis of bridge security measures, check out our ranking of the top 10 most secure cross-chain bridges in 2025.

Economic Risks

Liquidity-based bridges experience slippage and fees dependent on pool depth. Meanwhile, liquidity providers face impermanent loss exposure. Furthermore, RFQ and intent-based routes depend on solver competition and prevailing market conditions for execution quality.

Operational Assumptions

Proof-of-Authority multi-signature configurations represent governance and configuration risks. Similarly, oracle and DVN selections carry operational concerns. Consequently, users should thoroughly review documentation to understand verification mechanisms and upgrade control procedures.

External Resources:

Protocol Selection Framework

Building Cross-Chain Applications: First, select LayerZero for OFT implementations and custom verification through DVNs. Additionally, verify DVN availability on source and destination chains.

Multi-Runtime Token Transfers: In this case, Wormhole and Portal provide comprehensive coverage including Solana and Sui. Moreover, for USDC transfers, prioritize CCTP routes when available.

EVM-to-EVM Optimal Rates: Generally, Synapse’s AMM and RFQ routes frequently offer competitive pricing. In particular, this applies to stablecoins and major assets, subject to pool liquidity. Users staking ETH across multiple chains should also consider the trade-offs between Lido and Rocket Pool when maintaining liquidity positions.

Intent-Based Interoperability

Intent-based systems allow users to specify desired outcomes. For instance, users can request “deliver X on chain B within Y cost.” Then, competitive solvers fulfill these requests. Notably, standards like ERC-7683 and protocols like Across advance this approach.

Consequently, benefits include improved user experience. However, trade-offs involve solver power dynamics and MEV considerations.

Zero-Knowledge Light-Client Bridges

Systems including Succinct’s Telepathy and Polyhedra’s zkBridge validate consensus and state using zkSNARKs. As a result, this reduces dependence on multi-signature schemes and off-chain trust assumptions. Currently, these technologies remain in early development stages. Nevertheless, they show significant promise.

External Resources:

Security Checklist for Cross-Chain Transfers

  1. First, verify official application URLs from project documentation
  2. Next, prioritize native routes such as USDC CCTP where supported
  3. Then, test with minimal amounts first and confirm receipt before increasing transfer size
  4. Additionally, check status pages and blockchain explorers including WormholeScan and LayerZero Scan for specific route information
  5. Finally, review the security model including DVN and Oracle-Relayer configurations (LayerZero), guardian set composition (Wormhole), or pool and RFQ assumptions (Synapse)

Additional Resources

Protocol Documentation

Market Intelligence

Security Incidents

Future Technologies

Ethereum vs Solana: Who Leads DeFi Today

Bakhodir
-
2
Ethereum vs Solana: Who Leads DeFi Today

Executive Summary: The Current DeFi Leadership Battle

Short answer: As of now, Ethereum continues to dominate DeFi through total value locked (TVL) and institutional trust in October 2025. Meanwhile, Solana shines as the retail-focused chain—delivering faster transactions and lower costs, frequently topping daily DEX volumes despite having shallower liquidity pools.

Key Takeaways for Busy Readers

First and foremost, Ethereum commands about $94 billion in TVL compared to Solana’s $12.6 billion. In other words, this represents roughly 7-8× more capital locked in DeFi protocols. However, Solana has repeatedly exceeded Ethereum in daily and monthly DEX volumes during 2024-2025 memecoin surges through platforms like Raydium and Jupiter.

Additionally, transaction fees differ dramatically between the two chains. For instance, Solana maintains sub-cent costs while Ethereum mainnet can spike. Nevertheless, Layer 2 solutions like Arbitrum, Base, and Optimism now offer penny-level fees after the Dencun upgrade.

Furthermore, Ethereum operates with over 1 million validators without multi-hour outages. In contrast, Solana experienced a 5-hour chain halt on February 6, 2024, and continues to strengthen infrastructure with the upcoming Firedancer client.

Understanding What DeFi Leadership Really Means in 2025

The Multiple Dimensions of Blockchain Success

To clarify, DeFi leadership analysis requires looking at several key factors rather than just one metric. If you’re interested in how these chains compare across broader metrics, check out our detailed Ethereum vs Solana vs Polygon vs TON chain metrics comparison. Specifically, critical performance indicators include:

Critical Performance Indicators:

  • Liquidity depth (TVL): Notably, this impacts slippage, credit availability, and derivatives markets
  • Throughput & transaction costs: Similarly, this affects user experience for swaps, perpetuals, and market making
  • Reliability & decentralization: Moreover, this covers network uptime and resistance to capture
  • Ecosystem momentum: Finally, this includes developer activity, protocol launches, and real-world asset (RWA) integrations

As a result, on composite scoring, Ethereum leads in overall DeFi infrastructure. On the other hand, Solana dominates retail user experience and volume spikes.

Ethereum: The Institutional DeFi Standard

Why Liquidity Depth Matters Most

To begin with, Ethereum DeFi protocols hold about $94 billion in TVL across Layer 1 and related applications according to DefiLlama. Consequently, this liquidity advantage translates to reduced slippage on large transactions. Furthermore, it creates deeper money markets for lending protocols like Aave and Compound.

For a deeper dive into Ethereum’s fundamental metrics and performance data, see our comprehensive guide on Ethereum in numbers: key stats and charts every investor should know.

How the Dencun Upgrade Changed Everything

The Technical Breakthrough

In March 2024, the Dencun upgrade (EIP-4844) introduced blob data structures for rollups. As a result, this collapsed Layer 2 transaction fees to cent-level pricing while keeping mainnet security intact. Subsequently, users can now access:

  • Arbitrum: An optimistic rollup with an extensive DeFi ecosystem
  • Base: A Coinbase-backed Layer 2 with consumer focus
  • Optimism: A governance-focused scaling solution
  • ZK-rollups: Including zkSync, Polygon zkEVM, and Starknet

The Impact on Users

Because of these changes, most Ethereum DeFi users now pay only a few cents per transaction. Therefore, this makes Ethereum competitive with Solana on cost while maintaining superior security.

Security That Institutions Trust

Network Resilience

Above all, Ethereum maintains operational continuity without multi-hour chain halts. In fact, it’s supported by about 1.0-1.1 million validators ensuring decentralization according to Beaconcha.in. Moreover, this resilience has been proven across multiple market cycles and network stress tests.

Real-World Institutional Adoption

Major tokenization projects like BlackRock’s BUIDL fund operate on Ethereum. Additionally, many real-world asset funds and pilots launch on the network first. For example, traditional finance integration includes:

  • Tokenized treasuries: Franklin Templeton, WisdomTree
  • Securities settlement: DTCC pilot programs
  • Corporate blockchain: JPMorgan’s Onyx, Visa’s stablecoin initiatives

The Trade-off: Despite these advantages, Ethereum mainnet fees remain volatile during congestion. Also, Layer 2 fragmentation splits liquidity across multiple rollups, which can complicate the user experience.

Solana: The High-Speed Retail DeFi Champion

What Makes Solana Different

Lightning-Fast Performance

First of all, Solana delivers sub-second transaction finality with fees under $0.01. In particular, this is perfect for frequent swaps, memecoin trading, and high-speed strategies. Unlike Ethereum’s modular approach, the monolithic architecture processes everything on a single layer. To understand why Solana continues rising despite Ethereum’s dominance, read our analysis on Solana and TON: why these chains are rising but still can’t kill Ethereum.

When Solana Beats Ethereum in Volume

The DEX Revolution

During late 2024 and 2025, Solana DEXs periodically beat Uniswap in monthly volume and weekly fees. Specifically, this happened during memecoin explosions on platforms like:

As a matter of fact, this demonstrates Solana’s capacity to dominate transaction flow despite lower TVL according to Messari data.

How Solana Is Getting More Reliable

Learning from Downtime

After the February 6, 2024 outage, Solana’s ecosystem focused intensely on reliability efforts. Most importantly, Jump Crypto’s Firedancer client targets massive throughput improvements. In testing, it has shown about 1 million TPS capacity, which would significantly enhance network stability.

The Current State of Development

Nevertheless, these improvements are still in progress. Meanwhile, the network continues operating with over 1000 validators as tracked by Solana Compass.

Understanding Solana’s Liquidity Gap

The Numbers Don’t Lie

Despite impressive transaction volumes, Solana’s TVL stands at about $12.6 billion according to DefiLlama. In comparison, this is much smaller than Ethereum’s liquidity pools. Therefore, collateral depth still trails by substantial margins.

The Bottom Line: Lightning-fast user experience doesn’t equal deep composable credit or derivatives infrastructure. In other words, institutional-scale DeFi operations still require Ethereum’s deeper liquidity.

Side-by-Side: Ethereum vs Solana Comparison (October 2025)

Complete Feature Breakdown

MetricEthereumSolana
DeFi TVL~$94B~$12.6B
Transaction FeesMainnet variable; L2s cent-level after DencunNear-zero (fractions of cent)
ArchitectureModular: L1 security, L2 scalabilityMonolithic high-throughput
Finality12-15 minutes (L1), seconds (L2)Sub-second
Recent ReliabilityNo multi-hour outages5-hour halt Feb 6, 2024
Validators~1M+ validators1000+ validators
Institutional FocusBlackRock BUIDL, RWA pilot preferenceR3 partnership, Taurus integration
DEX Volume PatternStrong on blue-chips, second during meme cyclesOften tops during memecoin surges

Clearing Up Common Myths About DeFi

Myth #1: Solana Has $30B in TVL

The Reality: Mainstream metrics from DefiLlama show Solana TVL at about $12-13 billion. However, some communities circulate inflated claims of $30 billion. In fact, different tracking methods (including staked assets, bridged tokens) create these discrepancies.

Myth #2: Arbitrum TVL Is Wrong

What’s Really Happening: DefiLlama lists Arbitrum at roughly $3.7 billion native TVL. However, it shows about $11.4 billion in bridged TVL. As a result, various dashboards report different figures based on their counting methods.

Myth #3: Ethereum Does 100k+ TPS Now

The Truth: While post-Dencun upgrades greatly increased throughput and reduced costs, actual transactions-per-second vary by rollup and workload. Therefore, six-figure TPS claims represent theoretical capacity rather than daily averages.

The Final Verdict: Who Actually Leads DeFi Right Now?

Ethereum’s Continued Dominance

In summary, Ethereum keeps DeFi leadership through superior TVL, proven security, protocol variety, and institutional adoption. You can verify current TVL data at DefiLlama and validator counts at Beaconcha.in.

For a comprehensive overview of the top DeFi protocols across both chains and others, explore our guide to DeFi 2025: top 10 protocols across all chains.

Solana’s Growing Influence

On the other hand, Solana leads in retail user experience and burst transaction volumes. Moreover, it drives innovation through competitive pressure, which benefits the entire DeFi ecosystem.

Simple Analogy: If DeFi were athletics, Ethereum runs the marathon (steady, deep, reliable). Meanwhile, Solana sprints (explosive, smooth, engaging). Therefore, choose based on your specific use case, not tribal loyalty.

Your Practical Guide: Which Chain Should You Use?

When Ethereum Makes More Sense

Best Use Cases

Choose Ethereum for:

  • Large-value transactions that need deep liquidity
  • Complex DeFi strategies (options, perpetuals, structured products)
  • Real-world asset exposure (tokenized treasuries, securities)
  • Multi-protocol interactions (flash loans, collateral chains)

Recommended platforms: Start with Arbitrum, Base, or Optimism for low-cost access. Alternatively, try zkSync for zero-knowledge proof benefits.

When Solana Is Your Better Option

Perfect Scenarios

Choose Solana for:

  • High-speed trading strategies
  • Memecoin discovery and speculation
  • Small transaction sizes where every cent matters
  • NFT trading and gaming applications

If you’re curious about how NFT ecosystems compare between these chains, check out our detailed comparison: Ethereum vs Solana NFTs: which ecosystem wins in 2025.

Performance tools: Check live fees at Solana Beach. Additionally, monitor network health at Solana Status.

Why You Need Both Chains

The Multi-Chain Strategy

Modern DeFi success requires tools that work across chains. For this reason, consider:

Essential Resources for DeFi Traders

Data & Analytics Platforms

Track Total Value Locked

  • DefiLlama: Complete DeFi TVL tracking across all chains
  • Messari: Deep protocol analytics and research reports
  • Dune Analytics: Custom on-chain data views

Monitor Network Performance

News & Research Sources

Common Questions About Ethereum vs Solana

Which blockchain is better for DeFi beginners?

Answer: Ethereum Layer 2s offer better educational resources and safer on-ramps through established protocols like Uniswap and Aave. However, Solana suits users comfortable with higher-speed trading. To start safely, try Phantom Wallet for Solana or MetaMask for Ethereum.

Can I use both chains at the same time?

Answer: Absolutely! In fact, most DeFi traders maintain multi-chain portfolios. Furthermore, they use cross-chain bridges like Wormhole and aggregators to access opportunities across both ecosystems.

What’s the future outlook for these chains?

Answer: Both chains continue improving rapidly. Specifically, Ethereum’s roadmap focuses on increased rollup efficiency through EIP-4844 improvements. Meanwhile, Solana targets client variety and throughput gains through Firedancer.

How do I track my positions across both chains?

Answer: Use portfolio tools like Zapper, DeBank, or Zerion that support both Ethereum and Solana. As a result, you’ll see all your holdings in one place.

Which chain has lower fees right now?

Answer: Currently, Solana maintains the lowest fees at fractions of a cent. Nevertheless, Ethereum Layer 2s now offer competitive pricing at just a few cents per transaction. Check current rates at L2Fees.info and Solana Beach.

Follow official channels: Track @ethereum and @solana for official updates. Additionally, monitor DefiLlama for real-time TVL changes across both ecosystems.

Join the community: Participate in Ethereum Research Forum and Solana Forums to stay ahead of development updates.

Last updated: October 4, 2025

Disclaimer: This article provides information for educational purposes only. Always do your own research before making investment decisions. Crypto markets are volatile and carry significant risk.

DeFi 2025: Top 10 Protocols Across All Chains – Complete Guide

Bakhodir
-
5
DeFi 2025: Top 10 Protocols Across All Chains – Complete Guide

What is DeFi and Why It Matters in 2025

Decentralized Finance (DeFi) has evolved from an experimental concept into a robust parallel financial system. By late 2025, total value locked (TVL) has surged to over $200 billion across multiple blockchain networks, marking a significant recovery and expansion from previous cycles. If you’re new to DeFi, we recommend starting with our complete beginner’s guide to DeFi on Ethereum.

Understanding the DeFi Ecosystem

Unlike traditional finance, DeFi protocols operate without intermediaries, using smart contracts on blockchains like Ethereum, Solana, and various Layer 2 networks. In particular, this year’s growth has been driven primarily by several key innovations that are reshaping the landscape.

Key Growth Drivers in 2025

Specifically, the following trends are powering DeFi’s expansion:

  • Liquid staking – Stake assets while maintaining liquidity for other opportunities
  • Restaking – Reuse staked assets to secure additional protocols and earn multiple yields
  • Yield markets – Trade and optimize future yield streams with unprecedented flexibility
  • Cross-chain integration – Seamless asset movement across networks without friction

Additionally, you can learn more about DeFi fundamentals at DeFi Llama and Ethereum.org’s DeFi guide.

How We Ranked the Top DeFi Protocols

Our Five-Factor Evaluation Framework

To ensure objectivity, our ranking methodology considers five critical factors:

  1. Total Value Locked (TVL) & Capital Flows – Real capital commitment and user trust indicators
  2. Product-Market Fit – Sustained usage beyond mere speculation
  3. Multi-Chain Reach – Availability across Layer 1 and Layer 2 networks
  4. Risk Profile – Smart contract security and historical incident analysis
  5. Ecosystem Integration – Composability and protocol partnerships

Moreover, all data is sourced from DeFiLlama, The Block, and official protocol documentation to ensure accuracy.

Top 10 DeFi Protocols in 2025

1. Lido – The Liquid Staking Leader

Protocol Type: Liquid Staking
Primary Chain: Ethereum
Current TVL: ~$37 billion
Official Site: lido.fi

What Makes Lido the Industry Standard

Lido revolutionized Ethereum staking by allowing users to stake ETH and receive stETH (or wrapped wstETH) tokens that remain liquid and usable across DeFi. Consequently, this means you can stake ETH to earn validator rewards while simultaneously using your staked position as collateral or in liquidity pools.

Core Advantages and Features

The protocol offers several compelling benefits:

  • Deep liquidity – Not only does it maintain the largest liquidity pools across major DEXs, but it also ensures minimal slippage
  • Wide integration – Moreover, it’s accepted as collateral on Aave, Maker, and dozens of other leading protocols
  • Multi-chain presence – In addition, stETH/wstETH is bridged to Arbitrum, Optimism, Base, and other L2s

Critical 2025 Update

⚠️ Important: Lido discontinued Solana and Polygon staking operations. While you can still find bridged wstETH on these networks, native SOL or MATIC staking through Lido is no longer available. Therefore, users seeking to stake these assets must explore alternative platforms.

Understanding the Risk Landscape

Despite its dominance, several risks merit consideration:

  • On one hand, validator concentration risk across the network remains a concern
  • Additionally, potential depeg scenarios during severe market stress could affect holdings
  • Furthermore, smart contract vulnerabilities inherent to complex systems pose ongoing challenges

Learn More: Lido Documentation | DeFiLlama Lido Stats

2. Aave – Institutional-Grade Lending Protocol

Protocol Type: Money Market / Lending
Supported Chains: Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum, Optimism, Avalanche, Base
Current TVL: ~$74 billion
Official Site: aave.com

Why Aave Dominates the Lending Sector

Aave V3 represents the gold standard for decentralized lending, offering advanced features that both institutional and retail users demand. Indeed, its sophisticated architecture has attracted massive capital inflows throughout 2025, and you can learn how to earn interest with your crypto on Aave through our detailed guide.

Revolutionary V3 Features

The platform’s latest iteration introduces groundbreaking capabilities:

E-Mode (Efficiency Mode): This feature enables higher loan-to-value ratios for correlated assets (e.g., stablecoins or ETH/stETH pairs), offering up to 97% LTV in certain cases.

With Isolation Mode, the protocol allows testing of new assets with limited risk exposure, thereby protecting the main protocol from potential exploits.

The Portals feature facilitates seamless cross-chain borrowing and lending without requiring users to manually bridge assets.

Explosive 2025 Growth Trajectory

Remarkably, Aave’s TVL exploded from ~$12 billion in early 2025 to surpass $40 billion by August and currently stands around $74 billion—cementing its position as the undisputed largest lending protocol in the ecosystem.

Beginner-Friendly Entry Strategy

For newcomers to the platform, we recommend:

  1. As a starting point, supply stablecoins (USDC/USDT) to earn conservative yield
  2. Before borrowing, take time to understand health factors and their implications
  3. Most importantly, use conservative loan-to-value ratios (50-60% maximum) to avoid liquidation

Resources: Aave V3 Documentation | Aave Risk Dashboard

3. EigenLayer – Restaking Infrastructure

Protocol Type: Restaking / Shared Security
Primary Chain: Ethereum
Total Value Locked: ~$19-20 billion
Governance Token: EIGEN
Official Site: eigenlayer.xyz

The Restaking Revolution Explained

EigenLayer created an entirely new DeFi primitive: restaking. Specifically, users can restake their ETH or liquid staking tokens (LSTs) to provide economic security to multiple services simultaneously, thereby earning additional rewards beyond standard staking yields.

Understanding the Mechanism

The protocol operates through a straightforward process:

  1. To begin with, stake ETH directly or deposit LSTs (stETH, rETH, etc.)
  2. After that, opt into “Actively Validated Services” (AVSs)—new protocols that require security
  3. As a result, earn native staking rewards plus additional AVS rewards
  4. However, be prepared to accept potential slashing risk from AVS validation activities

Thriving Ecosystem Development

Currently, AVSs include oracles, data availability layers, bridges, and rollup sequencers. By October 2025, dozens of AVSs have already launched or are actively in development, demonstrating strong market demand.

Critical Risk Considerations

However, users must understand several important risks:

  • Slashing contagion – Most critically, penalties can cascade across multiple AVSs simultaneously
  • AVS quality variance – In reality, not all services are equally secure or economically valuable
  • Complexity – Above all, restaking inherently adds multiple risk layers to your position

Learn More: EigenLayer Docs | Restaking Explained

4. Uniswap – The DEX Standard

Protocol Type: Decentralized Exchange (DEX)
Available On: Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum, Optimism, Base, Celo
Current TVL: Mid-single-digit billions
Official Site: uniswap.org

Continued DEX Dominance

Uniswap pioneered automated market makers (AMMs) and continues to lead DEX innovation. Notably, Uniswap v4, launched January 31, 2025, introduced Hooks—customizable smart contracts that attach to liquidity pools and unlock unprecedented flexibility.

Game-Changing V4 Hook Capabilities

Consequently, these programmable pools enable:

  • Custom fee structures including dynamic fees and referral mechanisms
  • Time-weighted average price (TWAP) oracles built directly into pools
  • Limit orders and advanced order types previously impossible on AMMs
  • Automated rebalancing and sophisticated loss protection strategies

Unmatched Market Position

Despite fierce competition from Curve, Balancer, and other platforms, Uniswap consistently captures the largest share of DEX trading volume. Moreover, V4 surpassed $1 billion in TVL within months of launch, demonstrating immediate market acceptance.

Optimal Usage Strategies

For best results, consider these approaches:

  • First and foremost, utilize V3 concentrated liquidity specifically for stable pairs
  • Before diving in, thoroughly understand impermanent loss before committing to provide liquidity
  • On an ongoing basis, monitor pool fees and volume to identify profitable liquidity positions

Resources: Uniswap V4 Docs | Understanding Impermanent Loss

5. Curve Finance – Stablecoin Specialist

Protocol Type: Decentralized Exchange (Stableswap AMM)
Deployed On: Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism, Polygon, Avalanche
Current TVL: ~$4-5 billion
Official Site: curve.fi

The Stablecoin DEX Pioneer

Curve Finance specializes in low-slippage stablecoin and pegged-asset swaps using its proprietary StableSwap algorithm. This design makes Curve the optimal platform for large stablecoin trades and liquidity provision with minimal impermanent loss risk.

Why Curve Remains Essential

The protocol’s enduring relevance stems from several key advantages:

  • Superior stablecoin efficiency – To illustrate, it handles $10M+ stablecoin trades with minimal slippage
  • Capital efficiency – As a result, liquidity providers earn trading fees with lower impermanent loss
  • Deep liquidity incentives – Furthermore, CRV token rewards boost yields for providers
  • Integration backbone – Importantly, it powers many other protocols’ stablecoin infrastructure

Recent Developments and Concerns

While Curve remains fundamentally strong, the protocol faced challenges in 2023 with a major exploit that required significant community coordination to resolve. Additionally, the CRV token has experienced significant volatility related to founder liquidation concerns.

Best Use Cases

Curve excels particularly for:

  • In the first place, large stablecoin swaps with minimal price impact
  • Secondly, conservative yield farming on stable pairs (USDC/USDT/DAI)
  • Last but not least, providing liquidity to pegged asset pairs (ETH/stETH)

Resources: Curve Documentation | DeFiLlama Curve Analytics

6. Pendle – Fixed Yield Markets

Protocol Type: Yield Trading / Fixed-Rate Protocol
Operating On: Ethereum, Arbitrum
Current TVL: ~$6-7 billion
Official Site: pendle.finance

Revolutionizing Yield Trading

Pendle created a sophisticated marketplace for trading future yields by splitting yield-bearing tokens into Principal Tokens (PT) and Yield Tokens (YT). This innovative mechanism allows users to either lock in fixed yields or speculate on future yield rates.

How Pendle Works

The protocol enables unique strategies:

  1. Fixed yield seekers – On the one hand, buy PT tokens to lock in predictable returns, similar to bonds
  2. Yield speculators – On the other hand, purchase YT tokens for leveraged exposure to variable yields
  3. Liquidity providers – Meanwhile, supply liquidity to earn trading fees from both sides

Explosive 2025 Growth

Pendle’s TVL surged dramatically in 2025, driven primarily by:

  • First of all, growing demand for fixed-rate products in DeFi
  • In addition to this, high yields available on liquid staking derivatives
  • At the same time, sophisticated users seeking yield optimization strategies
  • Not to mention, integration with major LST protocols like Lido and EigenLayer

Risk and Reward Balance

Understanding the trade-offs is critical:

PT (Principal Token) Risks: Lower but guaranteed yields; opportunity cost if variable yields surge unexpectedly.

YT (Yield Token) Risks: High volatility; can lose value rapidly if underlying yields decline; acts as leveraged exposure.

Resources: Pendle Documentation | Yield Trading Explained

7. MakerDAO – Decentralized Stablecoin

Protocol Type: CDP / Stablecoin Issuance
Primary Chain: Ethereum
Total Value Locked: ~$6-8 billion
Official Site: makerdao.com

The Original DeFi Blueprint

MakerDAO pioneered decentralized stablecoin creation with DAI, allowing users to mint stablecoins against crypto collateral without intermediaries. Since 2017, MakerDAO has remained one of DeFi’s most critical infrastructure pieces.

How DAI Maintains Stability

The protocol employs sophisticated mechanisms:

  • Over-collateralization – To begin with, users must deposit more value than they mint
  • Liquidation systems – Subsequently, the protocol automatically sells collateral if positions become undercollateralized
  • Stability fees – In parallel, interest rates balance supply and demand
  • PSM (Peg Stability Module) – As a final safeguard, direct USDC/DAI swaps maintain the $1.00 peg

2025 Strategic Evolution

MakerDAO underwent significant transformation, including:

  • To start with, rebranding discussion to “Sky Protocol” with new token launches
  • Beyond that, increased exposure to real-world assets (RWAs) including US Treasury bonds
  • Similarly, expanded collateral types beyond just crypto assets
  • At the same time, governance debates around centralization versus efficiency

Practical Applications

Users commonly employ MakerDAO to:

  • In the first instance, generate DAI liquidity without selling crypto holdings
  • Alternatively, leverage long crypto positions (not recommended for beginners)
  • Moreover, access overcollateralized stablecoin alternatives to centralized options

Resources: Maker Documentation | DAI Statistics

8. Jito – Solana Liquid Staking with MEV

Protocol Type: Liquid Staking (Solana)
Native Chain: Solana
Current TVL: ~$3-4 billion
Official Site: jito.network

Why Jito Leads Solana Staking

While Ethereum dominates DeFi in terms of total value locked, Solana’s growing ecosystem has made Jito the premier liquid staking solution on the network. Jito combines traditional staking rewards with additional MEV (Maximal Extractable Value) revenue.

The MEV Advantage Explained

Jito’s validators run specialized software that captures MEV opportunities, distributing these profits to JitoSOL holders. Consequently, JitoSOL often yields 1-2% higher APY than standard SOL staking.

How It Works

The process is straightforward:

  1. To start, deposit SOL and receive JitoSOL (liquid staking token)
  2. Immediately after, earn base Solana staking rewards (~7-8% APY)
  3. On top of that, receive additional MEV rewards (~1-2% extra APY)
  4. Best of all, use JitoSOL across Solana DeFi protocols while earning

Solana’s Competitive Position

Despite Solana’s technological advantages and rising popularity, the network still faces questions about long-term sustainability compared to Ethereum. However, Jito has established itself as the clear leader in Solana liquid staking.

Important Considerations

Keep these factors in mind:

  • Solana network risk – First and foremost, historical outages and stability concerns
  • Validator centralization – In addition, MEV extraction favors larger operators
  • Liquidity depth – It’s worth noting that JitoSOL liquidity is lower than stETH on Ethereum

Resources: Jito Documentation | Solana Staking Guide

9. Ethena – Synthetic Dollar Protocol

Protocol Type: Synthetic Stablecoin
Primary Chain: Ethereum (multi-chain expanding)
Total Value Locked: ~$3-4 billion
Native Token: USDe (synthetic dollar)
Official Site: ethena.fi

The Synthetic Dollar Innovation

Ethena introduced a novel approach to stablecoin creation through delta-neutral hedging strategies. Unlike traditional stablecoins backed by fiat or crypto collateral, USDe maintains its peg through perpetual futures positions.

How Ethena Generates Yield

The protocol’s yield comes from multiple sources:

  • Staking rewards – Primarily, from underlying stETH collateral
  • Funding rates – Additionally, from perpetual futures positions
  • Basis trading – Furthermore, arbitraging spot-futures spreads

Consequently, Ethena has offered some of the highest sustainable yields in DeFi, frequently exceeding 15-25% APY.

Understanding the Mechanism

The system operates through:

  1. To begin, users deposit collateral (typically stETH) to mint USDe
  2. Next, the protocol opens offsetting short positions on derivatives exchanges
  3. As a result, the delta-neutral strategy maintains stable $1.00 peg regardless of ETH price
  4. Ultimately, funding rate income flows to USDe and sUSDe (staked USDe) holders

Critical Risk Assessment

This innovative model carries unique risks:

  • Funding rate volatility – Yields can swing dramatically or turn negative
  • Exchange counterparty risk – Relies on centralized derivatives platforms
  • Basis trade risk – Strategy breaks down during extreme market dislocations
  • Regulatory uncertainty – Novel structure may attract regulatory scrutiny

When to Consider Ethena

Ethena works best for:

  • Primarily, sophisticated users comfortable with derivatives mechanisms
  • Additionally, those seeking high yields with moderate risk tolerance
  • Furthermore, portfolios already diversified across multiple stablecoin types

Resources: Ethena Documentation | USDe Risk Analysis

10. JustLend – TRON’s Lending Giant

Protocol Type: Money Market / Lending
Native Blockchain: TRON
Total Value Locked: ~$6-7 billion
Official Site: justlend.org

TRON’s DeFi Cornerstone

JustLend represents the largest lending protocol on the TRON blockchain, operating as a fork of Compound Finance. Despite TRON’s controversial reputation, JustLend processes billions in lending volume with remarkably low transaction costs. For a detailed comparison of TRON with other emerging blockchains, check out our TON vs TRON analysis.

Why TRON DeFi Matters

The platform offers compelling advantages:

  • Ultra-low fees – Transactions cost cents instead of dollars
  • USDT dominance – TRON hosts the largest USDT circulation globally
  • High efficiency – Ideal for frequent traders and yield farmers
  • Established infrastructure – Years of proven operation

Governance and Mechanism

Important technical details:

  • The protocol uses JST tokens for governance (not TRX)
  • It supports TRON’s major assets: TRX, USDT, USDC, BTT
  • Risk parameters are similar to Compound and Aave
  • Liquidation mechanisms actively protect lender capital

Honest Risk Evaluation

TRON’s ecosystem carries specific concerns:

  • Centralization – Justin Sun’s significant influence over network decisions
  • Regulatory scrutiny – TRON faces ongoing legal questions
  • Exit liquidity – Bridging assets off TRON can be expensive or slow
  • Reputation risk – Association with controversial projects

Best Use Cases

JustLend excels for:

  • In particular, USDT holders seeking yield with minimal fees
  • Equally important, frequent traders minimizing transaction costs
  • Not to forget, users already operating within TRON’s ecosystem

Resources: JustLend Documentation | TRON DeFi Overview

Cross-Chain Comparison: Where to Deploy Your Capital

Transaction Cost Analysis

Understanding fee structures across chains is essential for optimizing returns:

Ethereum Mainnet:

  • In terms of single transactions: $5-50+ (depending on network congestion)
  • For complex DeFi interactions: $20-200+
  • Optimal use case: Large capital deployments ($10,000+)

Layer 2 Networks (Arbitrum, Optimism, Base):

  • Single transaction costs: $0.10-2
  • More complex interactions: $0.50-10
  • Ideal for: Medium capital ($1,000-10,000)

Solana:

  • Typical single transaction: $0.0001-0.01
  • DeFi interaction fees: $0.01-0.50
  • Perfect for: Frequent trading and smaller amounts ($100+)

TRON:

  • Basic transaction cost: $0.01-0.10
  • Advanced DeFi operations: $0.05-0.50
  • Best suited for: USDT operations and cost-sensitive strategies

Security and Decentralization Spectrum

Ranking chains by security characteristics:

  1. Ethereum – Highest security, maximum decentralization, most battle-tested
  2. Layer 2s – Inherit Ethereum security with minor trust assumptions
  3. Solana – Strong but newer; history of network outages
  4. TRON – Functional but more centralized; higher protocol risk

Liquidity Depth Comparison

Where capital flows matter most:

  • Ethereum: Without question, the deepest liquidity across all asset types
  • Arbitrum/Optimism: Showing growing liquidity, especially for newer protocols
  • Base: Currently experiencing rapid expansion, backed by Coinbase ecosystem
  • Solana: Notably strong for SOL-native assets, though thinner for bridged assets
  • TRON: Particularly excellent for USDT, yet limited for other assets

How to Get Started with DeFi in 2025

Essential Prerequisites

Before interacting with any protocol, ensure you have:

  1. Hardware wallet – First priority: Ledger or Trezor for significant funds
  2. Software wallet – For daily use: MetaMask, Phantom, or Rabby for regular operations
  3. Gas tokens – Depending on your chain: ETH, SOL, or TRX as needed
  4. Basic understanding – Most importantly: Spend 2-3 hours learning fundamentals

Choose Your Entry Point Based on Risk Tolerance

Conservative Beginners Should Consider:

  1. Stablecoin lending on Aave – Supply USDC/USDT for stable 3-8% APY
  2. Wrapped staked ETH (wstETH) – Earn ETH staking rewards passively through Lido
  3. Liquidity provision on Curve – Provide stablecoin liquidity with minimal impermanent loss risk

Moderate Risk-Takers Can Explore:

  1. Restaking on EigenLayer – Stack rewards but thoroughly understand slashing risks
  2. Pendle fixed yields – Lock in predictable returns on LSTs with known maturities
  3. JitoSOL on Solana – Higher base yields with MEV boosts for added returns

Advanced Users May Pursue:

  1. Ethena yield strategies – Variable but potentially high yields (understand funding rate mechanics)
  2. Pendle YT speculation – Leveraged yield exposure for sophisticated users
  3. Multi-protocol yield farming – Combine multiple protocols for optimized risk-adjusted returns

Essential Safety Principles to Follow

Importantly, adhering to these guidelines will significantly reduce your risk:

Rule #1: Start Small – Always test with amounts you can afford to lose completely
Critical: Understand Smart Contract Risk – Even audited protocols can have critical vulnerabilities
Monitor: Watch Correlations – LST + LRT + restaking = dangerously stacked risk layers
Essential: Monitor Health Factors – Keep loan positions well-collateralized (>2.0 health factor minimum)
Security First: Verify Addresses – Always check official websites and contract addresses carefully
Protection: Use Hardware Wallets – Store significant funds in cold storage devices
Stay Alert: Expect Volatility – APYs and TVL change rapidly—recheck immediately before acting

Common Mistakes to Avoid at All Costs

Learning from others’ errors is crucial:

Mistake #1: Aping into high APYs without thoroughly understanding the underlying risks
Error #2: Over-leveraging loan positions beyond your ability to manage
Pitfall #3: Ignoring gas fees on Ethereum mainnet that can eat into profits
Warning #4: Failing to diversify adequately across protocols and chains
Common Error: Not reading documentation before using complex protocols
Critical Mistake: Leaving funds on centralized exchanges for extended DeFi operations

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Total Value Locked (TVL)?

TVL represents the total dollar value of assets deposited in a DeFi protocol. Essentially, it’s the primary metric for measuring protocol size and user trust. However, it doesn’t directly indicate profitability or security levels.

Are DeFi protocols safe to use?

Frankly, no DeFi protocol is completely safe. Risks include smart contract bugs, economic exploits, oracle manipulation, and market volatility. Therefore, always:

  • First and foremost, use audited protocols with strong track records
  • Above all else, never invest more than you can afford to lose completely
  • Most importantly, thoroughly understand the specific risks of each protocol

What’s the difference between liquid staking and regular staking?

Regular staking: You lock assets to secure a blockchain and earn rewards, but assets remain illiquid.

Liquid staking: Conversely, you receive a liquid token (like stETH) representing your stake, allowing you to use it in DeFi while still earning staking rewards.

How do I choose between Ethereum and Layer 2 networks?

Ethereum Mainnet: Offers highest security and liquidity, but involves expensive gas fees ($10-100+ per transaction).

Layer 2s (Arbitrum, Optimism, Base): Alternatively, these provide lower fees ($0.10-5 per transaction), but with slightly reduced security and fragmented liquidity.

What are the tax implications of DeFi activities?

In most jurisdictions, DeFi activities create taxable events:

  • When you swap tokens, this triggers capital gains or losses
  • Yield earned from staking or lending counts as ordinary income
  • Providing liquidity can involve potentially complex tax treatment

Consequently, consult a crypto-specialized tax professional. Additionally, use tracking tools like Koinly or CoinTracker.

Can I lose money in DeFi even without prices dropping?

Yes, unfortunately through several mechanisms:

  • One common risk is impermanent loss from providing liquidity to volatile pairs
  • Another threat comes from liquidations due to over-leveraged borrow positions
  • Additionally, smart contract exploits or hacks can drain protocol funds
  • Furthermore, depeg events may cause stablecoins to lose their peg
  • Not to mention, gas fees sometimes exceed your actual profits

What’s the minimum to start using DeFi?

For Ethereum, you’ll need $500-1000 minimum (due to high gas fees)
On Layer 2 networks, $100-200 minimum is sufficient (much more accessible)
With Solana or TRON, just $50-100 minimum works (very low fees make small amounts viable)

However, always factor in gas fees when calculating potential returns on smaller amounts.

Key Corrections: Common DeFi Misconceptions

Myth #1: Lido Still Offers Multi-Chain Staking
The Truth: Lido discontinued Solana and Polygon staking. Consequently, only bridged wstETH exists on these chains—not native staking services.

Common Misunderstanding: EigenLayer Has No Token
What’s Real: The EIGEN token exists and airdrops began in 2024 for early users.

Outdated Information: Aave’s TVL is Around $12B
Current Reality: Aave surpassed $40B in August 2025 and currently sits at approximately $74B—far exceeding outdated figures.

False Claim: JustLend Uses TRX for Governance
Actual Fact: JustLend governance specifically uses JST tokens, not TRX, despite both being in the TRON ecosystem.

Incorrect Assumption: Ethena’s USDe is Backed by Fiat
Reality Check: USDe is a synthetic dollar maintained through delta-neutral derivatives strategies, not fiat reserves in bank accounts.

Additional Resources for Deeper Learning

Data & Analytics Platforms

  • DeFiLlama – Comprehensive TVL tracking and protocol analytics
  • The Block – Professional DeFi news and research
  • Dune Analytics – Customizable on-chain data dashboards
  • Token Terminal – Protocol revenue and financial metrics

Educational Resources and Guides

Security & Research Tools

  • DeFi Safety – Independent protocol security ratings
  • Rekt News – Detailed DeFi exploit analysis
  • Code4rena – Audit competitions and detailed reports

Community & Updates

Conclusion: Navigating DeFi’s Mature Ecosystem

The DeFi landscape in 2025 represents a maturing ecosystem with legitimate use cases beyond mere speculation. Indeed, these top 10 protocols demonstrate product-market fit, sustained usage, and genuine innovation—but every protocol carries inherent risk.

Keys to Success in DeFi

Achieving sustainable success requires:

  • Continuous learning – Above all, protocols evolve rapidly and staying informed is essential
  • Risk management – Equally critical, never overexpose to single protocols or concentrated strategies
  • Due diligence – In addition, verify TVL, audit status, and community sentiment before investing
  • Patience – Ultimately, sustainable yields beat risky yield-chasing over the long term

The Path Forward

The parallel financial system is here and growing. Nevertheless, participate wisely, start conservatively, and scale your involvement as your understanding deepens. Furthermore, remember that the most successful DeFi users are those who prioritize capital preservation over maximum yields.

Ultimately, DeFi offers unprecedented financial opportunities—but only for those who approach it with proper education, caution, and respect for the risks involved.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. DeFi protocols carry significant risks including total loss of capital. Always do your own research and consult with financial professionals before investing.

Understanding Ethereum’s Dencun Upgrade: The Complete Guide to Lower L2 Fees

Bakhodir
-
1
Understanding Ethereum’s Dencun Upgrade: The Complete Guide to Lower L2 Fees

What is Ethereum Dencun? A Beginner-Friendly Explanation

Ethereum’s Dencun upgrade (March 13, 2024) represents one of the most significant scaling improvements in blockchain history. Furthermore, this landmark update combined two simultaneous upgrades—Deneb (consensus layer) and Cancun (execution layer)—to dramatically reduce transaction costs on Ethereum Layer 2 networks.

The upgrade activated at epoch 269,568 on March 13, 2024, at 13:55 UTC, introducing EIP-4844 (proto-danksharding) as its headline feature. As a result, this technical improvement slashed Layer 2 fees by 60-99%, often reducing transaction costs to mere pennies.

Learn more about Ethereum upgrades on ethereum.org

EIP-4844: The Game-Changing Blob Technology

What Are Ethereum Blobs?

Blobs (Binary Large Objects) are a revolutionary new data type introduced by EIP-4844. Specifically, these temporary data attachments allow Ethereum rollups like Arbitrum, Optimism, Base, and zkSync to post transaction data cheaply and securely.

Technical Specifications of Blobs

Key blob specifications:

  • Size: Approximately 128 KiB per blob
  • Block limits: 3 blobs per block (target), 6 blobs maximum (at launch)
  • Retention period: ~18 days (4096 epochs) before automatic pruning
  • Storage location: Consensus (Beacon) layer, not accessible directly by EVM contracts

Why Blobs Make Ethereum Layer 2 Networks Cheaper

Before Dencun, rollup protocols stored their data in expensive calldata—permanent storage that competed with all other Ethereum transactions. Consequently, this created high costs that were passed to users. Understanding how Ethereum gas fees work is crucial to appreciating this improvement.

The Blob Advantage

Post-Dencun improvements:

  • First and foremost, blobs create a separate, dedicated fee market for rollup data
  • Additionally, temporary storage eliminates permanent blockchain bloat
  • Moreover, rollups no longer compete with Layer 1 transactions for block space
  • As a result, independent blob pricing mechanism reduces L2 transaction costs by up to 99%

Explore EIP-4844 technical specifications

Complete List of Dencun EIPs: Nine Improvements in One Upgrade

Core Scaling Improvement

EIP-4844 (Proto-Danksharding): Introduces blob transactions for massive Layer 2 cost reductions. This represents the first phase of Ethereum’s danksharding roadmap.

Developer Experience Enhancements

Gas Optimization Updates

EIP-1153 (Transient Storage Opcodes): Initially, this adds TSTORE and TLOAD operations for temporary per-transaction storage. Subsequently, it reduces gas costs for specific patterns, contributing to gas optimization across DeFi.

EIP-5656 (MCOPY Instruction): Similarly, this implements efficient memory copying for smart contracts, thereby improving execution speed.

EIP-6780 (SELFDESTRUCT Modification): In contrast to previous behavior, this restricts the SELFDESTRUCT opcode to only work within the same transaction as contract creation. Therefore, it reduces security vulnerabilities.

EIP-7516 (BLOBBASEFEE Opcode): Meanwhile, this enables contracts to read current blob base fees, which is essential for Layer 2 accounting systems.

Consensus and Staking Improvements

Network Stability Enhancements

EIP-4788 (Beacon Block Root in EVM): Notably, this exposes consensus layer data to the execution layer. Thus, it simplifies bridges and restaking protocols.

EIP-7044 (Perpetually Valid Signed Exits): Furthermore, this makes validator voluntary exit signatures valid across future forks.

EIP-7045 (Increase Attestation Slot Inclusion Range): In addition, this extends the window for including attestations. Consequently, it improves network robustness.

EIP-7514 (Add Max Epoch Churn Limit): Finally, this caps validator entry/exit rate to manage network growth sustainably.

Read ConsenSys’s complete Dencun technical overview

Ethereum Dencun Upgrade Impact: Real-World Results

Layer 2 Fee Reductions (March 2024 Data)

Multiple independent sources documented dramatic cost improvements immediately after the Dencun mainnet activation. Indeed, the results exceeded many expectations.

Network-by-Network Breakdown

  • Arbitrum: In particular, transaction fees dropped from ~$0.50 to under $0.01
  • Optimism: Likewise, average costs reduced by approximately 95%
  • Base: Similarly, fees fell to pennies per transaction
  • zkSync Era: Correspondingly, this network saw 90%+ reductions across operations

Important clarification: Nevertheless, Dencun primarily affects Layer 2 fees, not Ethereum mainnet (Layer 1) gas prices. In fact, the blob fee market operates separately from the standard L1 transaction fee market.

Track current L2 fees on L2Fees.info

2025 Pectra Upgrade: Expanding Blob Capacity

Building on Dencun’s success, the Ethereum Pectra upgrade (2025) further increased blob capacity:

Enhanced Blob Parameters

  • Target blobs: Specifically, increased from 3 to 6 per block
  • Maximum blobs: Additionally, raised from 6 to 9 per block
  • Result: Therefore, even more headroom for rollup data, supporting continued Layer 2 growth

Ethereum Dencun vs Other Upgrades: How It Fits the Roadmap

The Path to Full Danksharding

Dencun implements proto-danksharding (EIP-4844), which is phase one of Ethereum’s complete danksharding vision. Ultimately, this roadmap consists of multiple stages:

Scaling Progression

  1. Proto-danksharding (Dencun, 2024): First, introduces blob format and separate fee market
  2. Full danksharding (future): Subsequently, will implement complete data sharding across the network for even greater scalability

Previous Major Ethereum Upgrades

Historical Context

  • The Merge (September 2022): Initially, transitioned to Proof-of-Stake
  • Shanghai-Capella (April 2023): Then, enabled staking withdrawals
  • Dencun (March 2024): Next, introduced blobs for Layer 2 scaling
  • Pectra (2025): Finally, expanded blob capacity

Dencun Upgrade Myths Debunked: Common Misconceptions

Token Upgrade Scams

❌ “I need to upgrade my ETH tokens”

Reality: On the contrary, no action is required from ETH holders. Moreover, beware of scams claiming otherwise.

Layer 1 vs Layer 2 Confusion

❌ “Dencun makes all Ethereum transactions cheap”

Reality: Instead, Dencun primarily reduces Layer 2 rollup fees. In fact, Layer 1 Ethereum gas fees remain largely unchanged, though they may decrease slightly as rollups stop competing for calldata space.

Data Storage Misunderstanding

❌ “Blobs are stored permanently like calldata”

Reality: Actually, blobs are automatically pruned after approximately 18 days. Nevertheless, cryptographic commitments remain for verification.

Smart Contract Access

❌ “Smart contracts can read blob data directly”

Reality: Rather, blobs exist on the consensus layer. Therefore, contracts can only verify blob commitments, not access raw blob data.

How to Benefit from Dencun: Step-by-Step Guide

For Everyday Users

Getting Started with Layer 2

  1. Choose a Layer 2 network: First, select from Arbitrum, Optimism, Base, zkSync Era, or others. Compare networks in our comprehensive Layer 2 guide.
  2. Set up a Web3 wallet: Next, install MetaMask, Rainbow, or Coinbase Wallet
  3. Bridge ETH to L2: Then, use official bridges or aggregators like Jumper Exchange
  4. Enjoy low fees: Finally, try DeFi swaps, NFT minting, or transfers for pennies

For Developers

Building on Post-Dencun Ethereum

  1. Build on L2: Initially, deploy contracts to rollups that leverage Dencun’s blob data
  2. Optimize for blobs: Subsequently, design applications assuming cheap data availability
  3. Monitor blob fees: Moreover, use EIP-7516’s BLOBBASEFEE opcode for dynamic pricing
  4. Prepare for scaling: Ultimately, anticipate continued blob capacity increases

Start building on Ethereum L2s – Developer documentation

Ethereum Blob Economics: Understanding the Fee Market

How Blob Fees Work

Blobs use EIP-1559-style pricing with a separate base fee that adjusts based on blob demand. Specifically, this mechanism ensures predictable costs:

Fee Adjustment Mechanism

  • Target: First, 3 blobs per block keeps fees stable
  • Below target: Consequently, blob base fee decreases
  • Above target: Conversely, blob base fee increases
  • Maximum: Finally, 6 blobs per block (hard cap at launch, increased in Pectra)

Blob Data Retention and Availability

Storage Requirements

  • Full nodes: Primarily, must store blobs for ~18 days minimum
  • After pruning: However, only KZG commitments remain on-chain
  • Challenge period: Importantly, 18 days exceeds all major rollup challenge windows
  • Security model: Nevertheless, fraud/validity proofs remain verifiable indefinitely

Ethereum Dencun Technical Resources

Official Documentation

Primary Sources

Educational Resources

Learning Materials

Data and Analytics

Tracking Tools

Dencun Upgrade Timeline: Key Dates

Development and Testing Phase

  • February 2023: Initially, EIP-4844 finalized in Ethereum improvement process
  • January 17, 2024: Subsequently, Goerli testnet activation
  • January 30, 2024: Then, Sepolia testnet activation
  • February 7, 2024: Following that, Holesky testnet activation

Mainnet Launch

  • March 13, 2024, 13:55 UTC: Finally, Mainnet Dencun activation at epoch 269,568

Future Developments

  • 2025: Moreover, Pectra upgrade increases blob capacity

The Bottom Line: Why Dencun Matters for Ethereum’s Future

The Dencun upgrade represents Ethereum’s most significant Layer 2 scaling milestone to date. Indeed, by introducing blob transactions via EIP-4844, Ethereum has achieved remarkable improvements that strengthen its position in the ongoing Ethereum vs Solana debate:

Key Achievements

✅ First, reduced Layer 2 transaction costs by 60-99%

✅ Furthermore, maintained Ethereum’s security guarantees

✅ Additionally, enabled mass adoption of rollup technology

✅ Moreover, set the foundation for full danksharding

✅ Finally, supported sustainable network growth without centralization

While Layer 1 Ethereum gas fees remain unchanged, Dencun has nevertheless achieved its core mission: making the scaling solutions that serve millions of users—rollups—dramatically more affordable and accessible.

The future of Ethereum scaling is here, and consequently, it’s cheaper than ever.

Frequently Asked Questions About Dencun

Timing and Implementation

Q: When did the Dencun upgrade happen?

A: Specifically, March 13, 2024, at 13:55 UTC (epoch 269,568)

Q: What does Dencun stand for?

A: In particular, Deneb (consensus layer) + Cancun (execution layer)

Cost and Performance

Q: How much did L2 fees decrease after Dencun?

A: Notably, between 60-99% depending on the network and transaction type

Q: Do blobs make Ethereum Layer 1 cheaper?

A: Actually, no—blobs primarily benefit Layer 2 rollups with their own fee market

Technical Details

Q: How long are blobs stored?

A: Specifically, approximately 18 days (4096 epochs) before pruning

Q: Is Dencun the same as danksharding?

A: Rather, Dencun implements proto-danksharding (EIP-4844), the first step toward full danksharding

For more insights on Ethereum’s evolution, explore our guides on danksharding, gas fees, and Layer 2 solutions.

How EIP-1559 Makes Ethereum More Predictable—and When It Can Help Investors

Bakhodir
-
2
How EIP-1559 Makes Ethereum More Predictable—and When It Can Help Investors

Introduction: From Fee Chaos to Algorithmic Pricing

Before mid-2021, using Ethereum often felt like surge-pricing roulette. Transaction fees were set via a first-price auction: you guessed a gas price, hoped it was enough, and either overpaid or got stuck in the mempool waiting indefinitely. However, on August 5, 2021, the London upgrade activated EIP-1559, replacing that unpredictable auction with an algorithmic base fee that gets burned—permanently removing ETH from circulation every block.

As a result, the network now offers far more predictable fees and a structural scarcity engine tied to network usage. Furthermore, that predictability dramatically improves user experience, while the burn mechanism can—under the right conditions—support ETH’s long-term investment value.

Reality check: Nevertheless, EIP-1559 was not designed to “make gas cheap.” Instead, it smooths and clarifies pricing. Actual transaction costs still depend on network demand and capacity—learn more about how Ethereum gas fees work in our beginner’s guide.

Understanding How Ethereum Fees Work Today

The Three Components of EIP-1559 Transaction Fees

EIP-1559 split transaction fees into three distinct components. First, there’s a base fee set by the protocol that adjusts each block and is burned. Second, there’s a priority fee (tip) that’s optional extra to jump the queue and paid to validators. Finally, there’s a max fee as your absolute ceiling. Consequently, modern Ethereum wallets like MetaMask and Rainbow automatically estimate these values for you.

Two Critical Design Features That Make Fees Predictable

1. Elastic blocks for demand absorption: Importantly, blocks target approximately 50% fullness and can temporarily expand up to 2× the target size to absorb demand bursts. Therefore, this flexibility reduces panic bidding during network congestion.

2. Bounded fee changes prevent price whiplash: Moreover, the base fee can move by at most ±12.5% per block (denominator = 8), limiting extreme price whiplash. As a result, this makes fee prediction far more reliable than the old auction model.

What EIP-1559 Actually Fixed

Problem #1: Pricing Clarity Reduces Overpayment

Previously, the old first-price auction pushed users to overbid or wait. In contrast, EIP-1559 replaces it with a protocol-quoted reserve price (the base fee) and a small tip market. Thus, it improves predictability and reduces typical overpayment. Although you still pay for scarce block space, you’re no longer guessing in the dark.

Problem #2: Monetary Policy Through Fee Burning

Additionally, burning the base fee permanently reduces ETH supply relative to a world where all fees go to proposers. While this doesn’t guarantee price appreciation, it nonetheless adds a usage-linked scarcity channel to Ethereum’s tokenomics—similar to corporate stock buybacks. For investors comparing different blockchain assets, understanding these tokenomics differences between Bitcoin and Ethereum becomes crucial.

What EIP-1559 Did Not Fix

On the other hand, it does not magically lower L1 fees. Indeed, gas price is still set by demand versus capacity. Specifically, EIP-1559 mostly improves fee estimation and volatility, not the underlying cost of block space. Instead, true scaling improvements come from Layer 2 solutions and protocol upgrades like sharding.

The Evolution: 2022–2025 Major Network Upgrades

The Merge (September 15, 2022): Proof-of-Stake Transition

Subsequently, Ethereum moved to proof-of-stake, slashing energy use by approximately 99.95% and cutting ETH issuance by roughly 90%. Consequently, this amplifies the relative impact of fee burns. Notably, base fees still burn exactly as before—only now validators replace miners as block proposers.

Learn more about Ethereum’s proof-of-stake consensus on the official Ethereum website.

Dencun Upgrade (March 13, 2024): The Layer 2 Revolution

Later, the Dencun upgrade activated EIP-4844 (proto-danksharding), adding cheap “blob” data storage for rollups. Consequently, Layer 2 fees collapsed, often to cents, while L1 fees remained demand-driven. However, there’s a trade-off: cheaper fees can reduce burn, occasionally nudging ETH supply inflationary again.

Real-World Impact on Transaction Costs

Concrete impact: After Dencun, L2s like Optimism and Base routinely priced transactions at pennies. Meanwhile, popular Layer 2 networks include:

  • Arbitrum – One of the largest rollups by TVL
  • Optimism – Pioneer in optimistic rollup technology
  • Base – Coinbase’s leading Layer 2 solution
  • zkSync – Leading zero-knowledge rollup

Furthermore, by March 13, 2025, average gas price dropped from approximately 72 gwei (2024) to around 2.7 gwei. Nevertheless, that reflects demand cycles plus scaling effects—not EIP-1559 alone.

Investor Perspective: When Does the Burn Mechanism Help?

Total ETH Burned: The Numbers Tell a Story

Since the London upgrade in August 2021, the network has burned over 5.3 million ETH as of October 2025. Clearly, that’s a massive, usage-linked supply sink. Additionally, you can track real-time burn data at ultrasound.money or beaconcha.in.

For a comprehensive look at how this burn rate affects Ethereum’s overall metrics, check out our detailed statistical analysis of Ethereum’s key numbers.

Understanding Net Supply Dynamics: Deflation vs. Inflation

Importantly, post-Merge issuance dropped sharply. Therefore, when network activity and fees are high, burn exceeds issuance, creating net deflation. However, after Dencun lowered fees, burn slowed and ETH briefly turned inflationary in 2024. Thus, the deflationary effect is state-dependent, not permanent.

Investment Implications: The Bottom Line

Ultimately, EIP-1559 tightens ETH economics by converting network activity into burn. Consequently, that can support price over long horizons, especially alongside lower issuance. Nevertheless, it’s not automatic: if fees fall (great for users!), burn falls (less supply contraction). Therefore, the long-term investment thesis relies on sustained usage growth across L1 and L2 and continued execution of the scaling roadmap.

For deeper analysis, check Ethereum’s official roadmap.

For Beginners: Understanding EIP-1559 Through a Simple Analogy

To illustrate, before EIP-1559, Ethereum was a crowded highway with auction-style toll booths—everyone shouting prices. In contrast, with EIP-1559, the protocol posts a clear toll (base fee) that adjusts gradually with traffic. Moreover, you can add a tip to pass sooner. Meanwhile, the posted toll gets shredded (burned) instead of going to the operator—making “tickets” (ETH) a bit scarcer over time.

2025 Reality Checks: Key Facts and Figures

Timeline and Technical Specifications

First and foremost, EIP-1559 went live August 5, 2021 with the London upgrade. Specifically, the design includes elastic blocks up to 2× target size and ±12.5% per-block base-fee adjustment. Furthermore, the base fee is burned, while tips go to the proposer.

Historical Fee Comparison

Notably, peak fee pain before EIP-1559 saw average L1 transaction fees top $60 in May 2021 during surging DeFi demand. In contrast, post-Dencun, L2 fees dropped approximately 10× or more. As a result, many L2 transfers now cost just cents.

Does EIP-1559 Make Ethereum “Cheaper and More Profitable”?

Analyzing Cost Reduction Claims

Cheaper in Practice?

On one hand, EIP-1559 reduces overpayment and fee volatility and enables wallets to set fees sensibly. However, true “cheap” transactions come mainly from scaling upgrades like EIP-4844 and demand cycles.

More Profitable: The Investment Thesis

On the other hand, the burn ties ETH scarcity to network usage. Combined with lower issuance post-Merge, it can support value over time—if activity stays strong. Nevertheless, when fees are very low, burn slows and supply can expand slightly. Therefore, it’s a conditional tailwind, not a guarantee. Investors interested in alternative smart contract platforms may also want to explore how BNB’s tokenomics compare to Ethereum’s model.

Key Takeaways: EIP-1559 in Plain English

  1. EIP-1559 equals predictable fees plus burn mechanism: Primarily, it fixes user experience more than it slashes L1 costs.
  2. Scaling drives fee reduction: Specifically, Layer 2 solutions plus EIP-4844 are why 2024–2025 fees feel dramatically lower.
  3. Millions of ETH burned: Notably, the burn has destroyed millions of ETH since 2021. However, whether net supply shrinks depends on activity versus issuance.

Additional Resources for Learning More

To further expand your knowledge:

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Cryptocurrency investments carry significant risk. Always conduct your own research and consult with financial professionals before making investment decisions.

1...91011...15Page 10 of 15

About us

Support

Resources

Get In Touch

© © 2025 blocktown.info