Chain Selection Update Jan 2022

It’s been a bit since the last chain update. We have evaluated so many chains trying to decide which chain to build DNSP on top of first. We have looked at more than 35 chains and managed to narrow down the field to just eight!

Before we get to the list of eight, it is important to note that just because these other chains didn’t work out for DSNP right now, doesn’t mean that they are bad. All of them have interesting and innovative features now or promise of such in the future. New blockchain ideas are abounding and that’s great. We just don’t think they are a good fit for DSNP right now.

Note: We are often just listing the primary reason we didn’t choose these chains. Limited time and resources (and a fast changing environment) mean that the reasons might already not apply. That said, there is something we liked about each of the chains we looked at and are happy to see new blockchain ideas and will be following developments closely.

Chains that are not a good match for the first DSNP chain (in alphabetical order):

  • Arbitrum
    • Issue: Mainnet is limited access currently
    • Like: Our existing contracts will work natively
  • Arweave
    • Issue: Smart contract support is still in early development
    • Like: It might be a fit for a supported storage protocol in the DSNP ecosystem
  • Avalanche
    • Issue: Very new Mainnet
    • Like: Trying new things with multiple chains
  • Cardano
    • Issue: Very new smart contract support on Mainnet
    • Like: Lots of great research and work on verification
  • Celo
    • Issue: Worries about decentralization and potentially leaking personal information through the phone number identity system
    • Like: The phone number identity makes onboarding easier
  • Ceramic
    • Issue: Mainnet is still access limited
    • Like: Integration with IPFS and DID
  • Constellation
    • Issue: Access limited Mainnet and may not yet be decentralized
    • Like: Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) might lead to lower costs.
  • Dfinity
    • Issue: Decentralization and reputation concerns
    • Like: Low costs and data storage options
  • Diem (aka Libra)
    • Issue: Mainnet is not live yet
    • Like: Goals of reducing costs
    • Issue: Decentralization concerns
    • Like: Speed and scalability
  • Skale
    • Issue: Complexity and limited benefits over Cosmos
    • Like: dApp sidechain model
  • Stacks (aka Blockstack)
    • Issue: Interacting with Bitcoin and expensive
    • Like: Security and smart contract focused
  • Ethereum
    • Issue: Cost
    • Like: Great tooling and documentation
  • Fantom
    • Issue: Maturity and cost concerns
    • Like: Pushing the boundaries of what is possible
  • Hathor
    • Issue: No smart contract support yet and some reliance on Proof of Work
    • Like: Interesting partial Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) system
  • IOTA
    • Issue: Decentralization concerns
    • Like: Mature mainnet
  • Klaytn
    • Issue: Decentralization concerns
    • Like: Partial state sharding
  • Koinos
    • Issue: Mainnet is not live yet
    • Like: Free accounts & smart contracts
  • Lamden
    • Issue: Maturity and decentralization concerns
    • Like: Developer focused
  • Lukso
    • Issue: Mainnet is not live yet
    • Like: Moving away from a pure finance focus
  • Radix
    • Issue: No smart contract support yet
    • Like: Interesting future plans for royalties
  • Rchain
    • Issue: Decentralization concerns
    • Like: Pushing the boundaries of blockchain models
  • TRON
    • Issue: Mismatch in vision
    • Like: Highly scalable
  • Terra
    • Issue: Build on Cosmos, but without the benefit of first class DSNP support
    • Like: Pushing CosmWasm development forward
  • Tezos
    • Issue: Adoption concerns
    • Like: Governance and protocol upgrades
  • TomoChain
    • Issue: Decentralization concerns
    • Like: Potential for better private direct messaging
  • Zilliqa
    • Issue: Limited token availability in the US
    • Like: Sharding approach to solve state growth concerns
  • zkSync
    • Issue: No smart contract support yet
    • Like: zk-proofs could potentially allow for easier validation of content

That’s a long list, and doesn’t do justice to the hard work that has been done on each of these chains. However, you read this far to see what the list of eight we are looking much more closely at are. So here you go (also in alphabetical order):

  • Algorand
    • Mature
    • Ecosystem
  • Cosmos
    • DSNP could be built into the fabric of the blockchain
    • Interesting IBC options
    • Could subsidize some interactions
  • Elrond
    • Sharding built in and hidden from developer concerns
  • Flow
    • Good tooling
    • Potential architecture improvements in DSNP possible
  • Polkadot
    • Governance systems and ecosystem
    • Options for funding validation besides gas
  • NEAR
    • Shards state and transactions
    • Low cost
  • Polygon
    • Low cost
    • Wouldn’t need to completely rewrite our existing contract code
  • Solana
    • Proven high TPS capability
    • Community enthusiasm

Have thoughts on these eight chains? Throw in a comment and look for more updates on these eight chains coming soon!


Solana should be removed imo as it is not really decentralized in a meaningful way. All the others are solid choices. I would prefer chains that use WASM for smart contracts as then this decision may become a 2-way door.

I am partial to Elrond or NEAR personally, but long term I’m very excited about Koinos.

1 Like

I was very enjoying if NEAR had been chosen. It’s not the ultimate choice but I’m very happy that this chain was attentively looked.

I really like NEAR ecosystem and I’m developing DAO on it, WASM and RUST are very pleasant (for me).