Top 100 chains rated on: Scalability (1), Governance (2), Decentralisation (3), Economics (4), & Reliability (5): 🧵 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. BTC: ❌❌✅❌✅ ETH: ❌❌✅✅✅ BNB: ✅❌❌❌❌ XRP: ❌❌❌❌✅ SOL: ✅❌✅✅❌ TRX: ✅✅❌✅✅ ADA: ❌✅✅❌✅ DOGE:❌❌✅❌✅ BCH: ✅❌✅❌✅ XMR: ❌❌✅❌✅ HYPE: ✅✅❌❌❌ XLM: ✅❌❌❌✅ SUI: ✅❌❌❌❌ ZEC: ❌❌✅❌✅ AVAX: ✅❌✅✅❌ LTC: ❌❌✅❌✅ HBAR: ✅❌❌❌✅ CC: ✅❌❌❌✅ TON: ✅✅✅❌❌ DOT: ❌✅✅❌❌ NEAR: ✅❌✅❌✅ ICP: ❌✅❌❌✅ ETC: ❌❌✅❌✅ PI: ❌❌❌❌✅ APT: ✅✅✅✅❌ ATOM:❌✅✅❌❌ KAS: ✅❌✅❌✅ ALGO: ✅✅❌❌✅ FIL: ❌❌✅❌✅ VET: ✅❌❌❌✅ DASH: ✅✅✅❌✅ S: ✅✅❌✅✅ SEI: ✅✅✅❌✅ XTZ: ✅✅✅❌✅ TIA: ❌✅❌❌✅ No chain is perfect. Despite that, most claim they are the best in all categories; that is clearly false. The key difference is that we are not cherry-picking an evaluation methodology. We are instead applying a consistent, but simple standard & to all cryptocurrencies fairly. Let me explain, before you unfollow me out of sheer rage: Scalability: Any chain that exceeds 2k TPS of "theoretical max capacity" gets a check mark. This is calculated by taking the smallest basic TX type & dividing that by the current capacity (block size/gas limit), making it a fair & objective measurement. I also deducted any "fake" TX's, such as consensus messaging. However, I did not count parachains/subchains or L2's. I am strictly measuring the capacity of the L1 here, as I remain sceptical of all modern modular designs. Scaling matters, both to maximize decentralization, security & scarcity through fees. But also because the empowering world-changing aspects of crypto can only be achieved by bringing it to the masses. Governance: Any chain that has fully implemented on-chain governance (direct stakeholder voting/token voting) gets a check mark; plans & half-implemented systems do not count! This matters, as the only alternative to on-chain governance is centralized control (off-chain governance), a concept totally antithetical to crypto & even worse: Leads to bad & often corrupt decision making Decentralization: This is far too complex to measure so simply, so we went with the lowest possible bar: Permissionlessness, in every possible aspect, when it comes to the L1. This gives us a binary for every blockchain. Though this is definitely still a gross undersimplification, which I can acknowledge here, it does mean that some of the chains we define as "decentralised" here are often far from that in practice. So, to help alleviate that situation, we will add another criterion: validator count! Requiring a minimum of 150 validators (block producers) is reasonable. Though this is sufficient for a simplistic analysis, a more granular approach would consider far more decentralisation metrics. Decentralization is not the goal; it is a means to an end. That end includes freedom, censorship resistance, privacy, immutability, financial sovereignty & far more. Decentralization is the key innovation that has allowed us to achieve these goals. That is why decentralization matters Economics: This category might be the most contentious. As there are many competing theories over what good token economics looks like. So, I acknowledge that I might be in the minority on this one, making it a contrarian view: Specifically, a good token economic design has to include a LOW long-term tail inflation (below 2%) combined with a fee burn. This ensures long-term sustainability & maximum scarcity depending on economic conditions, as the supply is now determined algorithmically. Where it reacts to market conditions, making it more scarce during good times & giving it a low inflation rate during bad times. It is beyond the scope of this thread to defend this theory more here, but I am absolutely convinced that this is the best economic design. This means all chains with supply caps get a cross; as such, a limit is far too risky for long-term security & sustainability from my perspective. Economic design matters because these cryptocurrencies are not only platforms & forms of money but also Stores of Value. My crypto economic theory demands that an L1 combine all three into a single asset, for competitive reasons. Because we can, that is why scarcity & concepts of sound money are still tantamount to all blockchain design. Reliability: Another simple metric: If a chain has not gone down in the last two years, it will get a check mark! This has to be a complete downtime period during which ZERO users were able to use the blockchain at all. We should expect absolute uptime for all blockchains; it is one of the big competitive advantages of decentralization. However, growing pains are to be expected & are the norm. That is why I set the time period to 2 years, as otherwise the vast majority of chains would have failed this check. Fortunately, events such as BTC's 2010 inflation bug have become ancient history, forgotten by most. What matters is the reliability of the chain right now. Nothing is perfect: As you can see from this list, nothing is perfect or unique. Not a single chain passed all the checks or stood on its own within a single category. This is the main point I wanted to drive home, counteracting some of the irrational thinking we often see in the crypto industry. It is human nature to think your tribe is special, set above everyone else. However, this is more often just another psychological trap within our human nature. This definitely makes some of the quasi-religious tribalism in the space all the more ridiculous & insane. That is why we must always take a pluralist approach by never exclusively aligning ourselves with a single blockchain ecosystem. That way, we are better able to maintain our objectivity & steer away from biases. As you will undoubtedly see in the comments, this will upset many people. But as I hope some of the more reasonable people can also see, I am setting up objective measures & comparing these blockchains fairly according to those objective measures. If your favourite chain does not get a checkmark, it is not my fault; blame the chain, not the science or the messenger! Conclusion: The number of checks or crosses a project gets on this list does not necessarily reflect my support, so please do not take this as financial advice; there is far more to consider than these five metrics. It is simply an interesting exercise for the sake of comparative analysis. I certainly cringed at how few or how many checks some of these got. That is because this is not a subjective popularity contest; it is not about how you "feel" about a chain. Good fundamentals can be measured, cutting through our preconceived biases. It is tempting to write these differences off as trade-offs. However, that is not the case. The feature sets I measured in this thread are not mutually exclusive in any way. We can have our cake & eat it, too, so to speak. My ideal blockchain does not exist yet, as nothing checks all of the boxes, even though theoretically, something could. Please also understand that this list is far from complete; at @cybercapital, we use over a hundred fundamental parameters within our own internal price target models. Demonstrating how this type of thinking can be scaled to operational extremes, requiring the coordination of large teams of researchers over many years. Something Cyber Capital has specialized in for over a decade. I hope this was informative & insightful. Let's aim to have all chains pass these checks one day, to create a sea of green: For your sake, for freedom, justice, civilisation, cypherpunk & humanity! 🔥