Ethereum Killers
The phrase “Ethereum Killers” describes competing open-source blockchain systems that have surfaced with the goal of surpassing or surpassing Ethereum. Between 2016 and 2017, as alternative blockchains like Cardano and EOS started to emerge, this idea gained popularity. These initiatives are meant to rectify the perceived flaws in Ethereum’s initial design, specifically its high transaction costs and scalability constraints.
Motivation for “Ethereum Killers”
With the introduction of smart contracts and decentralized applications (dApps), Ethereum has completely changed the market since its launch in 2015. However, as its user base and popularity increased rapidly, it had several difficulties:
Scalability Issues: A maximum of 15–30 transactions per second (TPS) may be processed on Ethereum’s network, with a historical average of 12–15 TPS. Because all applications worldwide share this throughput, network congestion occurs during periods of high demand, briefly making dApps unavailable.
High Gas Fees: Exorbitant transaction costs, or “gas fees,” caused by network congestion were typically prohibitively high, rendering ordinary use cases unfeasible.
Energy Consumption (Pre-Merge): Ethereum’s early dependence on a Proof of Work (PoW) consensus method was criticized for its environmental impact since it was thought to be wasteful and energy-intensive, much like Bitcoin’s mining.
Blockchain Trilemma: Decentralization and security were given precedence over transaction volume in Ethereum. In the “blockchain trilemma” security, scalability, and decentralization this is a basic trade-off, as a blockchain is currently unable to optimize all three aspects at once. By sacrificing partial decentralization for scalability, which offers higher transaction throughput and reduced gas fees, “Ethereum Killers” frequently seek to compromise Ethereum at its most vulnerable point.
Developers saw these flaws as a chance to make money and created new blockchains with various trilemma priorities.
Characteristics and Examples of “Ethereum Killers”
Numerous alternative cryptocurrencies, or “Altcoins,” were created to enhance the features and architecture of Ethereum or Bitcoin. Their consensus processes, Layer 2 (L2) solutions, or other architectural advancements are usually how they set themselves apart. Simple comparisons based only on data and facts are no longer adequate because the scene has changed dramatically before 2021.
Highlighting their special qualities and disadvantages:
Solana (SOL): Established in 2020, Solana is renowned for its quick transactions and affordable prices. With the use of a Proof of History (PoH) consensus method and PoS, it processes transactions in parallel by timestamping them, enabling up to 65,000 TPS, or tens of thousands of transactions per second. Miner Extractable Value (MEV) chances are further diminished by Solana’s architecture, which processes transactions in the order they are received. Its reliance on top-notch hardware for whole nodes, however, raises the possibility of centralization issues, and network disruptions have caused dependability problems. In the NFT and gaming industries, it is well-liked.
Cardano (ADA): Consistently ranked among the top cryptocurrencies by market capitalization, Cardano was co-founded by Charles Hoskinson, a co-founder of Ethereum. In order to produce blocks, it used Ouroboros, a safe and scalable Proof of Stake (PoS) model that splits time into epochs and slots. Cardano takes great satisfaction in using an academic, peer-reviewed, scientific research methodology. Although it has the potential to sustain up to 1 million TPS, its actual performance has not yet attained such levels. It allows upgrades without chain splits by addressing hard forks with a hard fork combinator. Its Hydra update is designed to scale indefinitely. Development hold-ups and a smaller developer pool than Ethereum are trade-offs.
Fantom (FTM): Fantom was introduced in the latter part of 2019 and uses a Proof of Stake variation known as Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG). It makes use of the Lachesis consensus process, which permits simultaneous transactions and frequently reaches finality in less than a second. The EVM compatibility of Fantom facilitates application porting for Ethereum developers. The use of network validators is a drawback that could hinder decentralization.
Tezos (XTZ): Popular since its launch in 2018, Tezos is known for its “self-amending Blockchain protocol” and its distinctive Liquid Proof of Stake (LPoS) consensus methodology. Users can choose updates without a hard fork with Tezos’ self-governing on-chain governance. Without giving up ownership, users can trust a validator with their tokens and receive benefits.
BNB Chain (BSC): It was introduced by Binance in 2020 and integrated with BNB Chain in February 2022. Its speed and effectiveness have garnered a lot of interest. Fast block production and cheap transaction costs are made possible by its combination of Delegated Proof of Stake (DPoS) and Proof of Authority (PoA) into Proof of Staked Authority (PoSA). The EVM compatibility of BSC enables Ethereum-based dApps to function on its network. It is criticized for being too centralized, though, because Binance controls a small number of validators.
Avalanche (AVAX): Launched in 2020, Avalanche uses a subnet system to create custom subnetworks, improving scalability and modular security, and a special sub-sampled voting technique for quick consensus. Transactional finality is reached in less than two seconds. Being compatible with EVM, Avalanche has drawn alliances with businesses like as Deloitte and Mastercard. Among the trade-offs include the need for subnetworks to pay validators and maintain their own security, which can add complexity and expense.
Near Protocol: One of its most notable features is its Nightshade sharding protocol, which distributes the computational and storage workload over several parallel chains and is designed for scalability and usability. The Rust language used to write the Near Virtual Machine (NVM) may present a learning curve for Solidity developers. Its degree of decentralization is a source of concern because it has less nodes and staked value than Ethereum.
Cosmos Network: Often referred to as the “Internet of Blockchains,” it is set apart by its Inter-Blockchain Communication (IBC) protocol and Tendermint core, which facilitate smooth cooperation and communication across different blockchains. A developer-friendly Cosmos SDK is provided. By introducing interchain security, it allows new chains to benefit from the Cosmos Hub’s security. But chains that don’t use interchain security have to set up their own security measures, which is difficult.
Polkadot (DOT): The “layer 0” blockchain Polkadot was introduced in 2020 by Gavin Wood, a co-founder of Ethereum. Multiple parallel blockchains known as parachains, which receive security from the Polkadot mainnet (relay chain), can benefit from its shared security and interoperability. Its high scalability is achieved by delegating finality and consensus to the relay chain. On-chain governance was introduced by Polkadot. Users and developers face difficulties due to its intricate architecture, which has hindered adoption. Additionally, its validator network is far smaller than Ethereum’s.
Sui: A new network that uses the Move programming language and a special parallel execution paradigm to rapidly and economically execute transactions. Like Solana, it may result in centralization since it requires costly hardware for its nodes. It is still in the “battle-tested” stage as a new entrant.
Hedera Hashgraph: In 2019, it was introduced, and because it is based on a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) platform instead of a conventional blockchain, it can execute more than 1 billion transactions in 6 months. It endorses Solidity as well.
EOS: Launched in 2018, EOS has a far higher throughput than Ethereum (about 3,996 TPS) and was designed to provide a decentralized operating system.
Polygon (MATIC): Ethereum is well-known for its widespread use and innovative Layer 2 (L2) technology, such as ZK-Rollups and Optimistic Rollups, which are intended to improve its scalability. Using Ethereum for consensus and settlement, Polygon zkEVM Validium uses a validium design, managing execution and data availability on Layer 2.
IOTA: By doing away with the requirement for miners and blocks, a Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) based on DAG enables high throughput transaction origination and confirmation in parallel.
Privacy Solutions: For processing private smart contracts, the Secret Network uses two components: enclaves, which are trusted, and tendermint, which is a trustless component. Silent Protocol provides client-side privacy solutions for Ethereum and other Layer 1 networks without integrated security. Dependency on external infrastructure and trust in enclaves are examples of trade-offs in privacy.
Ethereum’s Response and Evolution
In order to overcome its obstacles, Ethereum is actively changing and has not stayed the same.
Shift to Proof of Stake (PoS): When Ethereum switched from PoW to PoS in September 2022 (“The Merge”), energy usage was greatly decreased. However, transaction density was the main cause of high petrol prices, therefore this move didn’t significantly influence fee levels.
Layer-2 Solutions: Ethereum incorporated Layer-2 technologies like Arbitrum and Optimism and embraced a rollup-centric strategy. With the help of these subsidiary frameworks, which connect to the primary Layer 1, Ethereum can process transactions more quickly and affordably. This is an example of a modular strategy for scalability.
Modularity: Each layer of Ethereum’s blockchain—the Execution Layer, Data Availability Layer, Settlement Layer, and Consensus Layer has a distinct purpose. Scalability and efficiency are improved by this modularity, which also makes it possible to work with other networks. The comparison of blockchains as separate networks is becoming less feasible due to the growing interdependence and connectivity of different blockchain layers.
Dencun Upgrade: This update was introduced in March 2024 with the goal of improving data storage to increase the effectiveness of Layer-2 solutions, especially with relation to petrol fees.
Conclusion on the “Ethereum Killers” Narrative
It is necessary to re-examine “Ethereum Killers”‘ story. In a “winner-takes-all” conflict, Ethereum is not always directly competing with these specialist networks. Instead, they support the general expansion and diversity of the blockchain ecosystem. Although there may be some movement from Ethereum to these specialized networks, the blockchain ecosystem is large enough to support several flourishing networks, each of which serves different web3 needs and preferences.
Ethereum’s first-mover advantage, ease of use, wide developer community, and unparalleled degree of trust have made it possible for it to continue being a fundamental blockchain and a pillar of innovation. The sector is moving towards an ecosystem in which Ethereum serves as a pillar and is supported by a variety of specialized networks and Layer 2 solutions, resulting in a digital infrastructure that is more resilient and flexible. Not a single rival has “killed” Ethereum for good.