219 posts tagged with "Ethereum"

Ethereum validators currently process transactions the way a grocery store checkout works with a single lane: one item at a time, in order, no matter how long the line stretches. The Glamsterdam upgrade, scheduled for mid-2026, fundamentally changes this architecture. By introducing Block Access Lists (BAL) and enshrined Proposer-Builder Separation (ePBS), Ethereum is preparing to scale from roughly 21 transactions per second to 10,000 TPS—a 476x improvement that could reshape DeFi, NFTs, and on-chain applications.

When Ethereum L2s paid $3.83 per megabyte to post data using blobs, Eclipse was paying Celestia $0.07 for the same megabyte. That's not a typo—55 times cheaper, enabling Eclipse to post over 83 GB of data without bankrupting its treasury. This cost differential isn't a temporary market anomaly. It's the structural advantage of purpose-built infrastructure.

Celestia has now processed over 160 GB of rollup data, generates daily blob fees that have grown 10x since late 2024, and commands roughly 50% market share in the data availability sector. The question isn't whether modular data availability works—it's whether Celestia can maintain its lead as EigenDA, Avail, and Ethereum's native blobs compete for the same rollup customers.

Understanding Blob Economics: The Foundation​

Before analyzing Celestia's numbers, it's worth understanding what makes data availability economically distinct from other blockchain services.

What Rollups Actually Pay For​

When a rollup processes transactions, it produces state changes that need to be verifiable. Rather than trust the rollup operator, users can verify by re-executing transactions against the original data. This requires that transaction data remains available—not forever, but long enough for challenges and verification.

Traditional rollups posted this data directly to Ethereum calldata, paying premium prices for permanent storage on the world's most secure ledger. But most rollup data only needs availability for a challenge window (typically 7-14 days), not eternity. This mismatch created the opening for specialized data availability layers.

Celestia's PayForBlob Model​

Celestia's fee model is straightforward: rollups pay per blob based on size and current gas prices. Unlike execution layers where computation costs dominate, data availability is fundamentally about bandwidth and storage—resources that scale more predictably with hardware improvements.

The economics create a flywheel: lower DA costs enable more rollups, more rollups generate more fee revenue, and increased usage justifies infrastructure investment for even greater capacity. Celestia's current throughput of approximately 1.33 MB/s (8 MB blocks every 6 seconds) represents early-stage capacity with a clear path to 100x improvement.

The 160 GB Reality: Who's Using Celestia​

The aggregate numbers tell a story of rapid adoption. Over 160 GB of data has been published to Celestia since mainnet launch, with daily data volume averaging around 2.5 GB. But the composition of this data reveals more interesting patterns.

Eclipse: The Volume Leader​

Eclipse—a Layer 2 combining Solana's virtual machine with Ethereum settlement—has published over 83 GB of data to Celestia, more than half of all network volume. Eclipse uses Celestia for data availability while settling to Ethereum, demonstrating the modular architecture in practice.

The volume isn't surprising given Eclipse's design choices. Solana Virtual Machine execution generates more data than EVM equivalents, and Eclipse's focus on high-throughput applications (gaming, DeFi, social) means transaction volumes that would be cost-prohibitive on Ethereum DA.

The Enterprise Cohort​

Beyond Eclipse, the rollup ecosystem includes:

• Manta Pacific: Over 7 GB posted, an OP Stack rollup focused on ZK applications with Universal Circuits technology
• Plume Network: RWA-specialized L2 using Celestia for tokenized asset transaction data
• Derive: On-chain options and structured products trading
• Aevo: Decentralized derivatives exchange processing high-frequency trading data
• Orderly Network: Cross-chain orderbook infrastructure

Twenty-six rollups now build on Celestia, with major frameworks—Arbitrum Orbit, OP Stack, Polygon CDK—all offering Celestia as a DA option. Rollups-as-a-Service platforms like Conduit and Caldera have made Celestia integration a standard offering.

Fee Revenue Growth​

At the end of 2024, Celestia generated approximately $225 per day in blob fees. That number has grown nearly 10x, reflecting both increased usage and the network's ability to capture value as demand rises. The fee market remains early-stage—capacity utilization is low relative to tested limits—but the growth trajectory validates the economic model.

Cost Comparison: Celestia vs. The Competition​

Data availability has become a competitive market. Understanding the cost structures helps explain rollup decisions.

Celestia vs. Ethereum Blobs​

Ethereum's EIP-4844 (Dencun upgrade) introduced blob transactions, reducing DA costs by 90%+ compared to calldata. But Celestia remains significantly cheaper:

Metric	Ethereum Blobs	Celestia
Cost per MB	~$3.83	~$0.07
Cost advantage	Baseline	55x cheaper
Capacity	Limited blob space	8 MB blocks (scaling to 1 GB)

For high-volume rollups like Eclipse, this difference is existential. At Ethereum blob prices, Eclipse's 83 GB of data would have cost over $300,000. On Celestia, it cost approximately $6,000.

Celestia vs. EigenDA​

EigenDA offers a different value proposition: Ethereum-aligned security through restaking, with claimed throughput of 100 MB/s. The tradeoffs:

Aspect	Celestia	EigenDA
Security model	Independent validator set	Ethereum restaking
Throughput	1.33 MB/s (8 MB blocks)	100 MB/s claimed
Architecture	Blockchain-based	Data Availability Committee
Decentralization	Public verification	Trust assumptions

EigenDA's DAC architecture enables higher throughput but introduces trust assumptions that fully blockchain-based solutions avoid. For teams deeply embedded in Ethereum's ecosystem, EigenDA's restaking integration may outweigh Celestia's independence.

Celestia vs. Avail​

Avail positions as the most flexible option for multichain applications:

Aspect	Celestia	Avail
Cost per MB	Higher	Lower
Economic security	Higher	Lower
Mainnet capacity	8 MB blocks	4 MB blocks
Test capacity	128 MB proven	128 MB proven

Avail's lower costs come with lower economic security—a reasonable tradeoff for applications where the marginal cost savings matter more than maximum security guarantees.

The Scaling Roadmap: From 1 MB/s to 1 GB/s​

Celestia's current capacity—approximately 1.33 MB/s—is intentionally conservative. The network has demonstrated dramatically higher throughput in controlled testing, providing a clear upgrade path.

Mammoth Testing Results​

In October 2024, the Mammoth Mini devnet achieved 88 MB blocks with 3-second block times, delivering approximately 27 MB/s throughput—over 20x current mainnet capacity.

In April 2025, the mamo-1 testnet pushed further: 128 MB blocks with 6-second block times, achieving 21.33 MB/s sustained throughput. This represented 16x current mainnet capacity while incorporating new propagation algorithms like Vacuum! designed for efficient large-block data movement.

Mainnet Upgrade Progress​

The scaling is happening incrementally:

• Ginger Upgrade (December 2024): Reduced block times from 12 seconds to 6 seconds
• 8 MB Block Increase (January 2025): Doubled block size via on-chain governance
• Matcha Upgrade (January 2026): Enabled 128 MB blocks through improved propagation mechanics, reducing node storage requirements by 77%
• Lotus Upgrade (July 2025): V4 mainnet release with further TIA holder improvements

The roadmap targets gigabyte-scale blocks by 2030, representing a 1,000x increase from current capacity. Whether market demand grows to justify this capacity remains uncertain, but the technical path is clear.

TIA Tokenomics: How Value Accrues​

Understanding Celestia's economics requires understanding TIA's role in the system.

Token Utility​

TIA serves three functions:

1. Blob fees: Rollups pay TIA for data availability
2. Staking: Validators stake TIA to secure the network and earn rewards
3. Governance: Token holders vote on network parameters and upgrades

The fee mechanism creates direct linkage between network usage and token demand. As blob submissions increase, TIA is purchased and spent, creating buy pressure proportional to network utility.

Supply Dynamics​

TIA launched with 1 billion genesis tokens. Initial inflation was set at 8% annually, decreasing over time toward 1.5% terminal inflation.

The January 2026 Matcha upgrade introduced Proof-of-Governance (PoG), slashing annual token issuance from 5% to 0.25%. This structural change:

• Reduces sell pressure from inflation
• Aligns rewards with governance participation
• Strengthens value capture as network usage grows

Additionally, the Celestia Foundation announced a $62.5 million TIA buyback program in 2025, further reducing circulating supply.

Validator Economics​

Effective January 2026, maximum validator commission increased from 10% to 20%. This addresses validators' rising operational expenses—particularly as block sizes grow—while maintaining competitive staking yields.

The Competitive Moat: First-Mover or Sustainable Advantage?​

Celestia's 50% DA market share and 160+ GB of posted data represent clear traction. But moats in infrastructure can erode quickly.

Advantages​

Framework Integration: Every major rollup framework—Arbitrum Orbit, OP Stack, Polygon CDK—supports Celestia as a DA option. This integration creates switching costs and reduces friction for new rollups.

Proven Scale: The 128 MB block testing provides confidence in future capacity that competitors haven't demonstrated at the same level.

Economic Alignment: The Proof-of-Governance tokenomics and buyback programs create stronger value capture than alternative models.

Challenges​

EigenDA's Ethereum Alignment: For teams prioritizing Ethereum-native security, EigenDA's restaking model may be more attractive despite architectural trade-offs.

Avail's Cost Advantage: For cost-sensitive applications, Avail's lower fees may outweigh security differences.

Ethereum's Native Improvement: If Ethereum expands blob capacity significantly (as proposed in various roadmap discussions), the cost differential shrinks.

The Ecosystem Lock-in Question​

Celestia's real moat may be ecosystem lock-in. Eclipse's 83+ GB of data creates path dependency—migrating to a different DA layer would require significant infrastructure changes. As more rollups accumulate history on Celestia, switching costs increase.

What the Data Tells Us​

Celestia's blob economics validate the modular thesis: specialized infrastructure for data availability can be dramatically cheaper than general-purpose L1 solutions. The 55x cost advantage over Ethereum blobs isn't magic—it's the result of purpose-built architecture optimized for a specific function.

The 160+ GB of posted data proves market demand exists. The 10x growth in fee revenue demonstrates value capture. The scaling roadmap provides confidence in future capacity.

For rollup developers, the calculus is straightforward: Celestia offers the best-tested, most integrated DA solution with a clear path to gigabyte-scale capacity. EigenDA makes sense for Ethereum-native projects willing to accept DAC trust assumptions. Avail serves multichain applications prioritizing flexibility over maximum security.

The data availability market has room for multiple winners serving different segments. But Celestia's combination of proven scale, deep integrations, and improving tokenomics positions it well for the coming wave of rollup expansion.

---

Building rollups that need reliable data availability infrastructure? BlockEden.xyz provides RPC endpoints across 30+ networks including major L2s built on Celestia DA. Explore our API marketplace to access the infrastructure your modular stack needs.

What if the blockchain performance debates of 2021-2023 already feel ancient? In 2025, the industry quietly crossed a threshold that venture capitalists and skeptics alike thought was years away: multiple mainnets now routinely process thousands of transactions per second while keeping fees below a single cent. The era of "blockchain can't scale" has officially ended.

This isn't about theoretical benchmarks or testnet claims. Real users, real applications, and real money are flowing through networks that would have been science fiction just two years ago. Let's examine the hard numbers behind blockchain's performance revolution.

The New TPS Leaders: No Longer a Two-Horse Race​

The performance landscape has fundamentally shifted. While Bitcoin and Ethereum dominated blockchain conversations for years, 2025 established a new generation of speed champions.

Solana set the headline-grabbing record on August 17, 2025, processing 107,664 transactions per second on its mainnet—not in a laboratory, but under real-world conditions. This wasn't a one-off spike; the network demonstrated sustained high throughput that validates years of architectural decisions prioritizing performance.

But Solana's achievement is just one data point in a broader revolution:

• Aptos has demonstrated 13,367 TPS on mainnet without failures, delays, or gas fee spikes. Their Block-STM parallel execution engine theoretically supports up to 160,000 TPS.
• Sui has proven 297,000 TPS in controlled testing, with mainnet peaks reaching 822 TPS under typical usage and the Mysticeti v2 consensus achieving just 390ms latency.
• BNB Chain consistently delivers around 2,200 TPS in production, with the Lorentz and Maxwell hard forks delivering 4x faster block times.
• Avalanche processes 4,500 TPS through its unique subnet architecture, enabling horizontal scaling across specialized chains.

These numbers represent a 10x to 100x improvement over what the same networks achieved in 2023. More importantly, they're not theoretical maximums—they're observed, verifiable performance under actual usage conditions.

Firedancer: The Million-TPS Client That Changed Everything​

The most significant technical breakthrough of 2025 wasn't a new blockchain—it was Firedancer, Jump Crypto's complete reimplementation of the Solana validator client. After three years of development, Firedancer went live on mainnet on December 12, 2025.

The numbers are staggering. In demonstrations at Breakpoint 2024, Jump's Chief Scientist Kevin Bowers showed Firedancer processing over 1 million transactions per second on commodity hardware. Benchmarks consistently showed 600,000 to 1,000,000 TPS in controlled tests—20x higher than the previous Agave client's demonstrated throughput.

What makes Firedancer different? Architecture. Unlike Agave's monolithic design, Firedancer uses a modular, tile-based architecture that splits validator tasks to run in parallel. Written in C rather than Rust, every component was optimized for raw performance from the ground up.

The adoption trajectory tells its own story. Frankendancer, a hybrid implementation combining Firedancer's networking stack with Agave's runtime, now runs on 207 validators representing 20.9% of all staked SOL—up from just 8% in June 2025. This isn't experimental software anymore; it's infrastructure that secures billions of dollars.

Solana's Alpenglow upgrade in September 2025 added another layer, replacing the original Proof of History and TowerBFT mechanisms with new Votor and Rotor systems. The result: 150ms block finality and support for multiple concurrent leaders enabling parallel execution.

Sub-Penny Fees: EIP-4844's Quiet Revolution​

While TPS numbers grab headlines, the fee revolution is equally transformative. Ethereum's EIP-4844 upgrade in March 2024 fundamentally restructured how Layer 2 networks pay for data availability, and by 2025, the effects became impossible to ignore.

The mechanism is elegant: blob transactions provide temporary data storage for rollups at a fraction of previous costs. Where Layer 2s previously competed for expensive calldata space, blobs offer 18-day temporary storage that rollups actually need.

The impact on fees was immediate and dramatic:

• Arbitrum fees dropped from $0.37 to $0.012 per transaction
• Optimism fell from $0.32 to $0.009
• Base achieved fees as low as $0.01

These aren't promotional rates or subsidized transactions—they're sustainable operating costs enabled by architectural improvement. Ethereum now effectively provides 10-100x cheaper data storage for Layer 2 solutions.

The activity surge followed predictably. Base saw a 319.3% increase in daily transactions post-upgrade, Arbitrum increased 45.7%, and Optimism rose 29.8%. Users and developers responded exactly as economics predicted: when transactions become cheap enough, usage explodes.

The May 2025 Pectra upgrade pushed further, expanding blob throughput from 6 to 9 blobs per block and raising the gas limit to 37.3 million. Ethereum's effective TPS through Layer 2s now exceeds 100,000, with average transaction costs dropping to $0.08 on L2 networks.

The Real-World Performance Gap​

Here's what the benchmarks don't tell you: theoretical TPS and observed TPS remain very different numbers. This gap reveals important truths about blockchain maturity.

Consider Avalanche. While the network supports 4,500 TPS theoretically, observed activity averages around 18 TPS, with the C-Chain closer to 3-4 TPS. Sui demonstrates 297,000 TPS in testing but peaks at 822 TPS on mainnet.

This isn't failure—it's proof of headroom. These networks can handle massive demand spikes without degradation. When the next NFT frenzy or DeFi summer arrives, the infrastructure won't buckle.

The practical implications matter enormously for builders:

• Gaming applications need consistent low latency more than peak TPS
• DeFi protocols require predictable fees during volatility
• Payment systems demand reliable throughput during holiday shopping spikes
• Enterprise applications need guaranteed SLAs regardless of network conditions

Networks with significant headroom can offer these guarantees. Those operating near capacity cannot.

Move VM Chains: The Performance Architecture Advantage​

A pattern emerges when examining 2025's top performers: the Move programming language shows up repeatedly. Both Sui and Aptos, built by teams with Facebook/Diem heritage, leverage Move's object-centric data model for parallelization advantages impossible in account-model blockchains.

Aptos's Block-STM engine demonstrates this clearly. By processing transactions simultaneously rather than sequentially, the network achieved 326 million successful transactions in a single day during peak periods—while maintaining approximately $0.002 average fees.

Sui's approach differs but follows similar principles. The Mysticeti consensus protocol achieves 390ms latency by treating objects rather than accounts as the fundamental unit. Transactions that don't touch the same objects execute in parallel automatically.

Both networks attracted significant capital in 2025. BlackRock's BUIDL fund added $500 million in tokenized assets to Aptos in October, making it the second-largest BUIDL chain. Aptos also powered the official digital wallet for Expo 2025 in Osaka, processing 558,000+ transactions and onboarding 133,000+ users—real-world validation at scale.

What High TPS Actually Enables​

Beyond bragging rights, what do thousands of TPS unlock?

Institutional-grade settlement: When processing 2,000+ TPS with sub-second finality, blockchains compete directly with traditional payment rails. BNB Chain's Lorentz and Maxwell upgrades specifically targeted "Nasdaq-scale settlement" for institutional DeFi.

Microtransaction viability: At $0.01 per transaction, business models impossible at $5 fees become profitable. Streaming payments, per-API-call billing, and granular royalty distribution all require sub-penny economics.

Game state synchronization: Blockchain gaming requires updating player states hundreds of times per session. 2025's performance levels finally enable genuine on-chain gaming rather than the settlement-only models of previous years.

IoT and sensor networks: When devices can transact for fractions of a cent, supply chain tracking, environmental monitoring, and machine-to-machine payments become economically viable.

The common thread: 2025's performance improvements didn't just make existing applications faster—they enabled entirely new categories of blockchain usage.

The Decentralization Trade-off Debate​

Critics correctly note that raw TPS often correlates with reduced decentralization. Solana runs fewer validators than Ethereum. Aptos and Sui require more expensive hardware. These trade-offs are real.

But 2025 also demonstrated that the binary choice between speed and decentralization is false. Ethereum's Layer 2 ecosystem delivers 100,000+ effective TPS while inheriting Ethereum's security guarantees. Firedancer improves Solana's throughput without reducing validator counts.

The industry is learning to specialize: settlement layers optimize for security, execution layers optimize for speed, and proper bridging connects them. This modular approach—data availability from Celestia, execution from rollups, settlement on Ethereum—achieves speed, security, and decentralization through composition rather than compromise.

Looking Forward: The Million-TPS Mainnet​

If 2025 established high-TPS mainnets as reality rather than promise, what comes next?

Ethereum's Fusaka upgrade will introduce full danksharding via PeerDAS, potentially enabling millions of TPS across rollups. Firedancer's production deployment should push Solana toward its tested 1 million TPS capacity. New entrants continue emerging with novel architectures.

More importantly, the developer experience has matured. Building applications that require thousands of TPS is no longer a research project—it's standard practice. The tooling, documentation, and infrastructure supporting high-performance blockchain development in 2025 would be unrecognizable to a 2021 developer.

The question is no longer whether blockchain can scale. The question is what we'll build now that it has.

---

BlockEden.xyz provides enterprise-grade RPC and API access for high-performance chains including Sui, Aptos, and Solana. When your application demands the throughput and reliability that 2025's performance revolution enables, explore our infrastructure designed for production-grade blockchain development.

What if you could verify a 500-page book exists without reading a single page? That's essentially what Ethereum just learned to do with PeerDAS—and it's quietly reshaping how blockchains can scale without sacrificing decentralization.

On December 3, 2025, Ethereum activated its Fusaka upgrade, introducing PeerDAS (Peer Data Availability Sampling) as the headline feature. While most headlines focused on the 40-60% fee reductions for Layer 2 networks, the underlying mechanism represents something far more significant: a fundamental shift in how blockchain nodes prove data exists without actually storing all of it.

In April 2025, Vitalik Buterin proposed something that would have seemed heretical a year earlier: replacing Ethereum's EVM with RISC-V. The suggestion sparked immediate debate. But what most commentators missed was that Polkadot had already been building exactly this architecture for over a year—and was months away from deploying it to production.

Polkadot's JAM (Join-Accumulate Machine) isn't just another blockchain upgrade. It represents a fundamental rethinking of what a "blockchain" even means. Where Ethereum's worldview centers on a global virtual machine processing transactions, JAM eliminates the transaction concept entirely at its core layer, replacing it with a computation model that promises 850 MB/s data availability—42 times Polkadot's previous capacity and 650 times Ethereum's 1.3 MB/s.

The implications extend far beyond performance benchmarks. JAM may be the clearest articulation yet of a post-Ethereum paradigm for blockchain architecture.

The Gray Paper: Gavin Wood's Third Act​

Dr. Gavin Wood wrote the Ethereum Yellow Paper in 2014, providing the formal specification that made Ethereum possible. He followed with the Polkadot White Paper in 2016, introducing heterogeneous sharding and shared security. In April 2024, he released the JAM Gray Paper at Token2049 in Dubai—completing a trilogy that spans the entire history of programmable blockchains.

The Gray Paper describes JAM as "a global singleton permissionless object environment—akin to Ethereum's smart-contract environment—paired with secure sideband computation parallelized over a scalable node network." But this undersells the conceptual shift.

JAM doesn't just improve on existing blockchain designs. It asks: what if we stopped thinking about blockchains as virtual machines entirely?

The Transaction Problem​

Traditional blockchains—Ethereum included—are fundamentally transaction-processing systems. Users submit transactions, validators order and execute them, and the blockchain records state changes. This model has served well but carries inherent limitations:

• Sequential bottlenecks: Transactions must be ordered, creating throughput constraints
• Global state contention: Every transaction potentially touches shared state
• Execution coupling: Consensus and computation are tightly bound

JAM decouples these concerns through what Wood calls the "Refine-Accumulate" paradigm. The system operates in two phases:

Refine: Computation happens in parallel across the network. Work is divided into independent units that can execute simultaneously without coordination.

Accumulate: Results are collected and merged into global state. Only this phase requires consensus on ordering.

The result is a "transactionless" core protocol. JAM itself doesn't process transactions—applications built on JAM do. This separation allows the base layer to focus purely on secure, parallel computation.

PolkaVM: Why RISC-V Matters​

At the heart of JAM sits PolkaVM, a purpose-built virtual machine based on the RISC-V instruction set. This choice has profound implications for blockchain computation.

The EVM's Architectural Debt​

Ethereum's EVM was designed in 2013-2014, before many modern assumptions about blockchain execution were understood. Its architecture reflects that era:

• Stack-based execution: Operations push and pop values from an unbounded stack, requiring complex tracking
• 256-bit word size: Chosen for cryptographic convenience but wasteful for most operations
• Single-dimensional gas: One metric attempts to price vastly different computational resources
• Interpretation-only: EVM bytecode cannot be compiled to native code efficiently

These design decisions made sense as initial choices but create ongoing performance penalties.

RISC-V's Advantages​

PolkaVM takes a fundamentally different approach:

Register-based architecture: Like modern CPUs, PolkaVM uses a finite set of registers for argument passing. This aligns with actual hardware, enabling efficient translation to native instruction sets.

64-bit word size: Modern processors are 64-bit. Using a matching word size eliminates the overhead of emulating 256-bit operations for the vast majority of computations.

Multi-dimensional gas: Different resources (computation, storage, bandwidth) are priced independently, better reflecting true costs and preventing mispricing attacks.

Dual execution modes: Code can be interpreted for immediate execution or JIT-compiled for optimized performance. The system chooses the appropriate mode based on workload characteristics.

Performance Impact​

The architectural differences translate to real performance gains. Benchmarks show PolkaVM achieving 10x+ improvements over WebAssembly for arithmetic-intensive contracts—and the EVM is slower still. For complex, multi-contract interactions, the gap widens further as JIT compilation amortizes setup costs.

Perhaps more importantly, PolkaVM supports any language that compiles to RISC-V. While EVM developers are limited to Solidity, Vyper, and a handful of specialized languages, PolkaVM opens the door to Rust, C++, and eventually any LLVM-supported language. This dramatically expands the potential developer pool.

Maintaining Developer Experience​

Despite the architectural overhaul, PolkaVM maintains compatibility with existing workflows. The Revive compiler provides complete Solidity support, including inline assembler. Developers can continue using Hardhat, Remix, and MetaMask without changing their processes.

The Papermoon team demonstrated this compatibility by successfully migrating Uniswap V2's contract code to the PolkaVM testnet—proving that even complex, battle-tested DeFi code can transition without rewrites.

JAM's Performance Targets​

The numbers Wood projects for JAM are staggering by current blockchain standards.

Data Availability​

JAM targets 850 MB/s of data availability—roughly 42 times the vanilla Polkadot capacity before recent optimizations and 650 times Ethereum's 1.3 MB/s. For context, this approaches the throughput of enterprise database systems.

Computational Throughput​

The Gray Paper estimates JAM can achieve approximately 150 billion gas per second at full capacity. Translating gas to transactions is imprecise, but theoretical maximum throughput reaches 3.4+ million TPS based on the data availability target.

Real-World Validation​

These aren't purely theoretical numbers. Stress tests have validated the architecture:

• Kusama (August 2025): Achieved 143,000 TPS at only 23% load capacity
• Polkadot "Spammening" (2024): Reached 623,000 TPS in controlled testing

These figures represent genuine transaction throughput, not optimistic projections or testnet conditions that don't reflect production environments.

Development Status and Timeline​

JAM development follows a structured milestone system, with 43 implementation teams competing for a prize pool exceeding $60 million (10 million DOT + 100,000 KSM).

Current Progress (Late 2025)​

The ecosystem has reached several critical milestones:

• Multiple teams have achieved 100% conformance with Web3 Foundation test vectors
• Development has progressed through Gray Paper versions 0.6.2 through 0.8.0, approaching v1.0
• The JAM Experience conference in Lisbon (May 2025) brought together implementation teams for deep technical collaboration
• University tours reached over 1,300 attendees across nine global locations, including Cambridge, Peking University, and Fudan University

Milestone Structure​

Teams progress through a series of milestones:

1. IMPORTER (M1): Passing state-transitioning conformance tests and importing blocks
2. AUTHORER (M2): Full conformance including block production, networking, and off-chain components
3. HALF-SPEED (M3): Achieving Kusama-level performance, with access to JAM Toaster for full-scale testing
4. FULL-SPEED (M4): Polkadot mainnet-level performance with professional security audits

Multiple teams have completed M1, with several progressing toward M2.

Timeline to Mainnet​

• Late 2025: Final Gray Paper revisions, continued milestone submissions, expanded testnet participation
• Q1 2026: JAM mainnet upgrade on Polkadot following governance approval via OpenGov referendum
• 2026: CoreChain Phase 1 deployment, official public JAM testnet, full network transition

The governance process has already shown strong community support. A near-unanimous DOT holder vote approved the upgrade direction in May 2024.

JAM vs. Ethereum: Complementary or Competitive?​

The question of whether JAM represents an "Ethereum killer" misses the architectural nuance.

Different Design Philosophies​

Ethereum builds outward from a monolithic foundation. The EVM provides a global execution environment, and scaling solutions—L2s, rollups, sharding—layer on top. This approach has created an enormous ecosystem but also accumulated technical debt.

JAM starts with modularity at its core. The separation of Refine and Accumulate phases, the domain-specific optimization for rollup handling, and the transactionless base layer all reflect a ground-up design for scalability.

Convergent Technical Choices​

Despite different starting points, the projects are converging on similar conclusions. Vitalik's April 2025 RISC-V proposal acknowledged that the EVM's architecture limits long-term performance. Polkadot had already deployed RISC-V support to testnet months earlier.

This convergence validates both projects' technical judgment while highlighting the execution gap: Polkadot is shipping what Ethereum is proposing.

Ecosystem Realities​

Technical superiority doesn't automatically translate to ecosystem dominance. Ethereum's developer community, application diversity, and liquidity depth represent substantial network effects that can't be replicated overnight.

The more likely outcome isn't replacement but specialization. JAM's architecture is optimized for certain workloads—particularly high-throughput applications and rollup infrastructure—while Ethereum retains advantages in ecosystem maturity and capital formation.

In 2026, they look less like competitors and more like complementary layers of a multi-chain internet.

What JAM Means for Blockchain Architecture​

JAM's significance extends beyond Polkadot. It represents the clearest articulation of a post-EVM paradigm that other projects will study and selectively adopt.

Key Principles​

Computation separation: Decoupling execution from consensus enables parallel processing at the base layer, not as an afterthought.

Domain-specific optimization: Rather than building a general-purpose VM and hoping it scales, JAM is architected specifically for the workloads blockchains actually run.

Hardware alignment: Using RISC-V and 64-bit words aligns virtual machine architecture with physical hardware, eliminating emulation overhead.

Transaction abstraction: Moving transaction handling to the application layer allows the protocol to focus on computation and state management.

Industry Impact​

Whether JAM succeeds or fails commercially, these architectural choices will influence blockchain design for the next decade. The Gray Paper provides a formal specification that other projects can study, critique, and selectively implement.

Ethereum's RISC-V proposal already demonstrates this influence. The question isn't whether these ideas will spread, but how quickly and in what form.

The Road Ahead​

JAM represents Gavin Wood's most ambitious technical vision since Polkadot itself. The stakes match the ambition: success would validate an entirely different approach to blockchain architecture, while failure would leave Polkadot competing with newer L1s without a differentiated technical narrative.

The next 18 months will determine whether JAM's theoretical advantages translate to production reality. With 43 implementation teams, a nine-figure prize pool, and a clear roadmap to mainnet, the project has resources and momentum. What remains to be seen is whether the complexity of the Refine-Accumulate paradigm can deliver on Wood's vision of a "distributed computer that can run almost any kind of task."

For developers and projects evaluating blockchain infrastructure, JAM merits serious attention—not as hype, but as a technically rigorous attempt to solve problems that every major blockchain faces. The blockchain-as-virtual-machine paradigm served the industry well for a decade. JAM bets that the next decade requires something fundamentally different.

---

Building on next-generation blockchain infrastructure? BlockEden.xyz provides high-performance RPC endpoints across the Polkadot ecosystem and 30+ other networks. Explore our API marketplace to access enterprise-grade infrastructure for your applications.

In 2022, Vitalik Buterin posed a simple question that would define the next four years of Ethereum scaling: how much Ethereum compatibility are you willing to sacrifice for faster zero-knowledge proofs? His answer came in the form of a five-type classification system for zkEVMs that has since become the industry standard for evaluating these critical scaling solutions.

Fast forward to 2026, and the answer isn't so simple anymore. Proving times have collapsed from 16 minutes to 16 seconds. Costs have dropped 45x. Multiple teams have demonstrated real-time proof generation faster than Ethereum's 12-second block times. Yet the fundamental trade-off Vitalik identified remains—and understanding it is essential for any developer or project choosing where to build.

The Vitalik Classification: Types 1 Through 4​

Vitalik's framework categorizes zkEVMs along a spectrum from perfect Ethereum equivalence to maximum proving efficiency. Higher type numbers mean faster proofs but less compatibility with existing Ethereum infrastructure.

Type 1: Fully Ethereum-Equivalent​

Type 1 zkEVMs don't change anything about Ethereum. They prove the exact same execution environment that Ethereum L1 uses—same opcodes, same data structures, same everything.

The upside: Perfect compatibility. Ethereum execution clients work as-is. Every tool, every contract, every piece of infrastructure transfers directly. This is ultimately what Ethereum needs to make L1 itself more scalable.

The downside: Ethereum wasn't designed for zero-knowledge proofs. The EVM's stack-based architecture is notoriously inefficient for ZK proof generation. Early Type 1 implementations required hours to generate a single proof.

Leading project: Taiko aims for Type 1 equivalence as a based rollup using Ethereum's validators for sequencing, enabling synchronous composability with other based rollups.

Type 2: Fully EVM-Equivalent​

Type 2 zkEVMs maintain full EVM compatibility but change internal representations—how state is stored, how data structures are organized—to improve proof generation.

The upside: Contracts written for Ethereum run without modification. The developer experience remains identical. Migration friction approaches zero.

The downside: Block explorers and debugging tools may need modifications. State proofs work differently than on Ethereum L1.

Leading projects: Scroll and Linea target Type 2 compatibility, achieving near-perfect EVM equivalence at the VM level without transpilers or custom compilers.

Type 2.5: EVM-Equivalent with Gas Cost Changes​

Type 2.5 is a pragmatic middle ground. The zkEVM remains EVM-compatible but increases gas costs for operations that are particularly expensive to prove in zero-knowledge.

The trade-off: Since Ethereum has a gas limit per block, increasing gas costs for specific opcodes means fewer of those opcodes can execute per block. Applications work, but certain computational patterns become prohibitively expensive.

Type 3: Almost EVM-Equivalent​

Type 3 zkEVMs sacrifice specific EVM features—often related to precompiles, memory handling, or how contract code is treated—to dramatically improve proof generation.

The upside: Faster proofs, lower costs, better performance.

The downside: Some Ethereum applications won't work without modification. Developers may need to rewrite contracts that rely on unsupported features.

Reality check: No team actually wants to stay at Type 3. It's understood as a transitional stage while teams work on adding the complex precompile support needed to reach Type 2.5 or Type 2. Both Scroll and Polygon zkEVM operated as Type 3 before advancing up the compatibility ladder.

Type 4: High-Level Language Compatible​

Type 4 systems abandon EVM compatibility entirely at the bytecode level. Instead, they compile Solidity or Vyper to a custom VM designed specifically for efficient ZK proofs.

The upside: Fastest proof generation. Lowest costs. Maximum performance.

The downside: Contracts may behave differently. Addresses might not match Ethereum deployments. Debugging tools need complete rewrites. Migration requires careful testing.

Leading projects: zkSync Era and StarkNet represent the Type 4 approach. zkSync transpiles Solidity to custom bytecode optimized for ZK. StarkNet uses Cairo, an entirely new language designed for provability.

Performance Benchmarks: Where We Stand in 2026​

The numbers have transformed dramatically since Vitalik's original post. What was theoretical in 2022 is production reality in 2026.

Proving Times​

Early zkEVMs required approximately 16 minutes to generate proofs. Current implementations complete the same process in roughly 16 seconds—a 60x improvement. Several teams have demonstrated proof generation in under 2 seconds, faster than Ethereum's 12-second block times.

The Ethereum Foundation has set an ambitious target: proving 99% of mainnet blocks in under 10 seconds using less than $100,000 in hardware and 10kW of power consumption. Multiple teams have already demonstrated capability close to this target.

Transaction Costs​

The Dencun upgrade in March 2024 (EIP-4844 introducing "blobs") reduced L2 fees by 75-90%, making all rollups dramatically more cost-effective. Current benchmarks show:

Platform	Transaction Cost	Notes
Polygon zkEVM	$0.00275	Per transaction for full batches
zkSync Era	$0.00378	Median transaction cost
Linea	$0.05-0.15	Average transaction

Throughput​

Real-world performance varies significantly based on transaction complexity:

Platform	TPS (Complex DeFi)	Notes
Polygon zkEVM	5.4 tx/s	AMM swap benchmark
zkSync Era	71 TPS	Complex DeFi swaps
Theoretical (Linea)	100,000 TPS	With advanced sharding

These numbers will continue improving as hardware acceleration, parallelization, and algorithmic optimizations mature.

Market Adoption: TVL and Developer Traction​

The zkEVM landscape has consolidated around several clear leaders, each representing different points on the type spectrum:

Current TVL Rankings (2025)​

• Scroll: $748 million TVL, largest pure zkEVM
• StarkNet: $826 million TVS
• zkSync Era: $569 million TVL, 270+ deployed dApps
• Linea: ~$963 million TVS, 400%+ growth in daily active addresses

The overall Layer 2 ecosystem has reached $70 billion in TVL, with ZK rollups capturing increasing market share as proving costs continue declining.

Developer Adoption Signals​

• Over 65% of new smart contracts in 2025 deployed on Layer 2 networks
• zkSync Era attracted approximately $1.9 billion in tokenized real-world assets, capturing ~25% of on-chain RWA market share
• Layer 2 networks handled an estimated 1.9 million daily transactions in 2025

The Compatibility-Performance Trade-off in Practice​

Understanding the theoretical types is useful, but the practical implications for developers are what matter.

Type 1-2: Zero Migration Friction​

For Scroll and Linea (Type 2), migration means literally zero code changes for most applications. Deploy the same Solidity bytecode, use the same tools (MetaMask, Hardhat, Remix), expect the same behavior.

Best for: Existing Ethereum applications prioritizing seamless migration; projects where proven, audited code must remain unchanged; teams without resources for extensive testing and modification.

Type 3: Careful Testing Required​

For Polygon zkEVM and similar Type 3 implementations, most applications work but edge cases exist. Certain precompiles may behave differently or be unsupported.

Best for: Teams with resources for thorough testnet validation; projects not relying on exotic EVM features; applications prioritizing cost efficiency over perfect compatibility.

Type 4: Different Mental Model​

For zkSync Era and StarkNet, the development experience differs meaningfully from Ethereum:

zkSync Era supports Solidity but transpiles it to custom bytecode. Contracts compile and run, but behavior may differ in subtle ways. Addresses aren't guaranteed to match Ethereum deployments.

StarkNet uses Cairo, requiring developers to learn an entirely new language—though one specifically designed for provable computation.

Best for: Greenfield projects not constrained by existing code; applications prioritizing maximum performance; teams willing to invest in specialized tooling and testing.

Security: The Non-Negotiable Constraint​

The Ethereum Foundation introduced clear cryptographic security requirements for zkEVM developers in 2025:

• 100-bit provable security by May 2026
• 128-bit security by end of 2026

These requirements reflect the reality that faster proofs mean nothing if the underlying cryptography isn't bulletproof. Teams are expected to meet these thresholds regardless of their type classification.

The security focus has slowed some performance improvements—the Ethereum Foundation explicitly chose security over speed through 2026—but ensures the foundation for mainstream adoption remains solid.

Choosing Your zkEVM: A Decision Framework​

Choose Type 1-2 (Taiko, Scroll, Linea) if:​

• You're migrating existing battle-tested contracts
• Audit costs are a concern (no reaudit needed)
• Your team is Ethereum-native without ZK expertise
• Composability with Ethereum L1 matters
• You need synchronous interoperability with other based rollups

Choose Type 3 (Polygon zkEVM) if:​

• You want a balance of compatibility and performance
• You can invest in thorough testnet validation
• Cost efficiency is a priority
• You don't rely on exotic EVM precompiles

Choose Type 4 (zkSync Era, StarkNet) if:​

• You're building from scratch without migration constraints
• Maximum performance justifies tooling investment
• Your use case benefits from ZK-native design patterns
• You have resources for specialized development

What Comes Next​

The type classifications won't remain static. Vitalik noted that zkEVM projects can "easily start at higher-numbered types and jump to lower-numbered types over time." We're seeing this in practice—projects that launched as Type 3 are advancing toward Type 2 as they complete precompile implementations.

More intriguingly, if Ethereum L1 adopts modifications to become more ZK-friendly, Type 2 and Type 3 implementations could become Type 1 without changing their own code.

The endgame appears increasingly clear: proving times will continue compressing, costs will continue declining, and the distinction between types will blur as hardware acceleration and algorithmic improvements close the performance gap. The question isn't which type will win—it's how quickly the entire spectrum converges toward practical equivalence.

For now, the framework remains valuable. Understanding where a zkEVM sits on the compatibility-performance spectrum tells you what to expect during development, deployment, and operation. That knowledge is essential for any team building on Ethereum's ZK-powered future.

---

Building on zkEVM infrastructure? BlockEden.xyz provides high-performance RPC endpoints across multiple zkEVM chains including Polygon zkEVM, Scroll, and Linea. Explore our API marketplace to access the infrastructure layer your ZK applications need.

What happens when the company behind a 1.4 billion-user payment network decides to build on Ethereum? The answer arrived in October 2025 when Ant Digital, the blockchain arm of Jack Ma's Ant Group, launched Jovay—a Layer-2 network designed to bring real-world assets on-chain at a scale the crypto industry has never seen.

This isn't another speculative L2 chasing retail traders. Jovay represents something far more significant: a $2 trillion fintech giant placing a strategic bet that public blockchain infrastructure—specifically Ethereum—will become the settlement layer for institutional finance.

The Technical Architecture: Built for Institutional Scale​

Jovay's specifications read like a wishlist for institutional adoption. During testnet trials, the network achieved 15,700–22,000 transactions per second, with a stated goal of reaching 100,000 TPS through node clustering and horizontal expansion. For context, Ethereum's mainnet processes roughly 15 TPS. Even Solana, celebrated for speed, averages around 4,000 TPS in real-world conditions.

The network operates as a zkRollup, inheriting Ethereum's security guarantees while achieving the throughput necessary for high-frequency financial operations. A single node, running on standard enterprise hardware (32-core CPU, 64GB RAM), can sustain 30,000 TPS for ERC-20 transfers with approximately 160ms end-to-end latency.

But raw performance tells only part of the story. Jovay's architecture centers on a five-stage pipeline specifically designed for asset tokenization: registration, structuring, tokenization, issuance, and trading. This structured approach reflects the compliance requirements of institutional finance—assets must be properly documented, legally structured, and regulatory-approved before they can be traded.

Critically, Jovay launched without a native token. This deliberate choice signals that Ant Digital is building infrastructure, not generating speculative assets. The network makes money through transaction fees and enterprise partnerships, not token inflation.

Chainlink Integration: The Oracle Infrastructure for RWA Markets​

In October 2025, Chainlink announced that its Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol (CCIP) would serve as Jovay's canonical cross-chain infrastructure, with Data Streams providing real-time market data for tokenized assets.

This integration solves a fundamental problem in RWA tokenization: connecting on-chain assets to off-chain reality. A tokenized bond is only valuable if investors can verify coupon payments. A tokenized solar farm is only investable if performance data can be trusted. Chainlink's oracle network provides the trusted data feeds that make these verification systems possible.

The partnership also addresses cross-chain liquidity. CCIP enables secure asset transfers between Jovay and other blockchain networks, allowing institutions to move tokenized assets without relying on centralized bridges—the source of billions in hacks over the past few years.

Why a Chinese Fintech Giant Chose Ethereum​

For years, major corporations favored permissioned blockchains like Hyperledger for enterprise applications. The logic was simple: private networks offered control, predictability, and freedom from the volatility associated with public chains.

That calculus is changing. By building Jovay on Ethereum rather than a proprietary network, Ant Digital validates public blockchain infrastructure as a foundation for institutional finance. The reasons are compelling:

Network effects and composability: Ethereum hosts the largest ecosystem of DeFi protocols, stablecoins, and developer tools. Building on Ethereum means Jovay assets can interact with existing infrastructure—lending protocols, exchanges, and cross-chain bridges—without requiring custom integrations.

Credible neutrality: Public blockchains offer transparency that private networks cannot match. Every transaction on Jovay can be verified on Ethereum's mainnet, providing audit trails that satisfy both regulators and institutional compliance teams.

Settlement finality: Ethereum's security model, backed by approximately $100 billion in staked ETH, provides settlement guarantees that private networks cannot replicate. For institutions moving millions in assets, this security matters.

The decision is particularly notable given China's regulatory environment. While mainland China prohibits cryptocurrency trading and mining, Ant Digital has strategically positioned Jovay's global headquarters in Hong Kong and established a presence in Dubai—jurisdictions with forward-thinking regulatory frameworks.

The Hong Kong Regulatory Gateway​

Hong Kong's regulatory evolution has created a unique opportunity for Chinese tech giants to participate in crypto markets while maintaining mainland compliance.

In August 2025, Hong Kong enacted its Stablecoin Ordinance, establishing comprehensive requirements for stablecoin issuers including stringent KYC/AML standards. Ant Digital has engaged in multiple rounds of discussions with Hong Kong regulators and completed pioneering trials in the government-backed stablecoin sandbox (Project Ensemble).

The company designated Hong Kong as its international headquarters in early 2025, a strategic move that allows Ant Group to build crypto infrastructure for overseas markets while its mainland operations remain separate. This "one country, two systems" approach has become the template for Chinese companies seeking crypto exposure without violating mainland regulations.

Through partnerships with regulated entities like OSL, a licensed digital asset infrastructure provider in Hong Kong, Jovay is positioning itself as a "regulated RWA tokenization layer" for institutional investors—compliant by design rather than retrofit.

$8.4 Billion in Tokenized Energy Assets​

Ant Digital hasn't just built infrastructure—it's already using it. Through its AntChain platform, the company has linked $8.4 billion in Chinese energy assets to blockchain systems, tracking over 15 million renewable energy devices including solar panels, EV charging stations, and battery infrastructure.

This existing asset base provides immediate utility for Jovay. Green finance tokenization—representing ownership stakes in renewable energy projects—has emerged as one of the most compelling RWA use cases. These assets generate predictable cash flows (energy production), have established valuation methodologies, and align with growing ESG mandates from institutional investors.

The company has already raised 300 million yuan ($42 million) for three clean energy projects through tokenized asset issuances, demonstrating market demand for on-chain renewable energy investments.

The Competitive Landscape: Jovay vs. Other Institutional L2s​

Jovay enters a market with established institutional blockchain players:

Polygon has secured partnerships with Starbucks, Nike, and Reddit, but remains primarily focused on consumer applications rather than financial infrastructure.

Base (Coinbase's L2) has attracted significant DeFi activity but is US-focused and doesn't specifically target RWA tokenization.

Fogo, the "institutional Solana," targets similar high-throughput financial applications but lacks Ant Group's existing institutional relationships and asset base.

Canton Network (JPMorgan's blockchain) operates as a permissioned network for traditional finance, sacrificing public chain composability for institutional control.

Jovay's differentiation lies in the combination of public chain accessibility, institutional-grade compliance, and immediate connection to Ant Group's 1.4 billion-user ecosystem. No other blockchain network can claim comparable distribution infrastructure.

Market Timing: The $30 Trillion Opportunity​

Standard Chartered projects the tokenized RWA market will expand from $24 billion in mid-2025 to $30 trillion by 2034—a 1,250x increase. This projection reflects growing institutional conviction that blockchain settlement will eventually replace traditional financial infrastructure for many asset classes.

The catalyst for this transition is efficiency. Tokenized securities can settle in minutes rather than days, operate 24/7 rather than during market hours, and reduce intermediary costs by 60-80% according to various industry estimates. For institutions managing trillions in assets, even marginal efficiency gains translate to billions in savings.

BlackRock's BUIDL fund, Ondo Finance's tokenized treasuries, and Franklin Templeton's on-chain money market funds have demonstrated that major institutions are willing to embrace tokenized assets when the infrastructure meets their requirements.

Jovay's timing positions it to capture institutional capital as the RWA tokenization trend accelerates.

Risks and Open Questions​

Despite the compelling vision, significant uncertainties remain:

Regulatory risk: While Ant Digital has positioned strategically, Beijing reportedly instructed the company to pause stablecoin issuance plans in October 2025 due to concerns about capital flight. The company operates in regulatory gray areas that could shift unexpectedly.

Adoption timeline: Enterprise blockchain initiatives have historically taken years to achieve meaningful adoption. Jovay's success depends on convincing traditional financial institutions to migrate existing operations to a new platform.

Competition from TradFi: JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, and other major banks are building their own blockchain infrastructure. These institutions may prefer networks they control over public chains built by potential competitors.

Token issuance uncertainty: Jovay's decision to launch without a native token could change. If the network eventually issues tokens, early institutional adopters may face unexpected regulatory complications.

What This Means for Web3​

Ant Group's entry into Ethereum's Layer-2 ecosystem represents validation of the thesis that public blockchains will become settlement infrastructure for global finance. When a company processing over $1 trillion in annual transactions chooses to build on Ethereum rather than a private network, it signals confidence in the technology's institutional readiness.

For the broader crypto industry, Jovay demonstrates that the "institutional adoption" narrative is materializing—just not in the form many expected. Instead of institutions buying Bitcoin as a treasury asset, they're building on Ethereum as operational infrastructure.

The next two years will determine whether Jovay delivers on its ambitious vision or joins the long list of enterprise blockchain initiatives that promised revolution but delivered modest improvements. With 1.4 billion potential users, $8.4 billion in tokenized assets, and the backing of one of the world's largest fintech companies, Jovay has the foundation to succeed where others have failed.

The question isn't whether institutional-grade blockchain infrastructure will emerge—it's whether Ethereum's Layer-2 ecosystem, including projects like Jovay, will capture the opportunity or watch as traditional finance builds its own walled gardens.

---

BlockEden.xyz provides enterprise-grade blockchain API services supporting Ethereum, Layer-2 networks, and 20+ other chains. As institutional infrastructure like Jovay expands the RWA tokenization ecosystem, developers need reliable node infrastructure to build applications that connect traditional finance with on-chain assets. Explore our API marketplace to access the infrastructure powering the next generation of financial applications.

Eight independent implementations in 24 hours. That's what happened when the Ethereum Foundation released ERC-8004 "Trustless Agents" in August 2025. For comparison, ERC-20—the standard that enabled the ICO boom—took months to see its first implementations. ERC-721, which powered CryptoKitties, waited six months for broad adoption. ERC-8004 exploded overnight.

The reason? AI agents finally have a way to trust each other without trusting anyone.

The Problem: AI Agents Can't Coordinate​

The AI agent market has crossed $7.7 billion in token market capitalization, with daily trading volumes approaching $1.7 billion. Projections suggest this sector could hit $60 billion by the end of 2025, according to Bitget CEO Gracy Chen. But there's a fundamental problem: these agents operate in isolation.

When an AI trading agent needs a code audit, how does it find a trustworthy auditing agent? When a DeFi optimizer wants to hire a specialized yield strategist, how does it verify that strategist won't steal its funds? The answer, until now, has been centralized intermediaries—which defeats the entire purpose of decentralized systems.

Traditional coordination requires someone in the middle: a marketplace operator, a reputation aggregator, a payment processor. Each intermediary introduces fees, censorship risk, and single points of failure. For autonomous agents operating 24/7 across global markets, these friction points are unacceptable.

ERC-8004 solves this by creating a trustless coordination layer directly on Ethereum.

The Architecture: Three Registries, One Trust Layer​

ERC-8004 introduces three lightweight on-chain registries that serve as the backbone for autonomous agent interactions. The standard was co-authored by Marco De Rossi from MetaMask, Davide Crapis from the Ethereum Foundation, Jordan Ellis from Google, and Erik Reppel from Coinbase—a coalition representing wallet infrastructure, protocol development, cloud computing, and exchange operations.

The Identity Registry gives every agent a unique on-chain identity using the ERC-721 standard. Each agent receives a portable, censorship-resistant identifier that maps to their domain and Ethereum address. This creates a global namespace for autonomous agents—think DNS for the machine economy.

The Reputation Registry provides a standard interface for posting and retrieving feedback signals. Rather than storing complex reputation scores on-chain (which would be expensive and inflexible), the registry handles feedback authorization between agents. Scores range from 0-100, with optional tags and links to off-chain detailed feedback. The protocol supports x402 payment proofs to verify that only paying customers can leave reviews, preventing spam and fraudulent feedback.

The Validation Registry provides hooks for requesting and recording independent validator checks through crypto-economic staking mechanisms. If an agent claims it can optimize yield, validators can stake tokens to verify that claim—and earn rewards for accurate assessments or face slashing for false ones.

The genius of this architecture is what it leaves off-chain. Complex agent logic, detailed reputation histories, and sophisticated validation algorithms all live outside the blockchain. Only the essential trust anchors—identity proofs, authorization records, and validation commitments—touch the chain.

How Agents Will Actually Use This​

Picture this scenario: A portfolio management agent holding $10 million in DeFi positions needs to rebalance across three protocols. It queries the Identity Registry for specialized strategy agents, filters by reputation scores from the Reputation Registry, and ultimately selects an agent with 500+ positive feedback entries and a 94/100 trust score.

Before delegating any capital, the portfolio agent requests independent validation. Three validator agents, each with $50,000 staked, re-execute the proposed strategy in simulation. All three confirm the expected outcomes. Only then does the portfolio agent authorize the transaction.

This entire process—discovery, reputation checking, validation, and authorization—happens in seconds, without human intervention, and without any centralized coordinator.

The use cases extend far beyond trading:

• Code Auditing: Security agents can build verifiable track records of vulnerabilities discovered, with validation from other auditors who stake on their findings.
• DAO Governance: Proposal agents can demonstrate histories of successful governance participation, with reputation weighted by the outcomes of previous votes.
• Healthcare AI: Medical diagnostic agents can maintain privacy-preserving credentials validated by authorized healthcare institutions.
• Decentralized Marketplaces: Service agents can accumulate cross-platform reputation that follows them regardless of which marketplace they operate on.

The Ethereum Foundation's AI Bet​

The Ethereum Foundation isn't leaving ERC-8004's success to chance. In August 2025, it established the dAI team specifically to promote the standard and build supporting infrastructure. The team, led by core developer Davide Crapis, has two priorities: enabling AI agents to pay and coordinate without intermediaries, and building a decentralized AI stack that avoids reliance on a small number of large companies.

This represents a strategic bet that Ethereum can become the coordination layer for the machine economy—not just a settlement layer for human transactions. Within 24 hours of ERC-8004's release, social media saw over 10,000 spontaneous mentions.

The timing is deliberate. NEAR Protocol has branded itself "the blockchain for AI," developing frameworks like Shade Agents that let autonomous bots operate across chains while maintaining data privacy. Solana is pushing agent infrastructure through various DeFi integrations. The competition to become the AI economy's base layer is intensifying.

Ethereum's advantage is network effects: the largest developer ecosystem, the deepest liquidity, and the broadest smart contract compatibility. ERC-8004 aims to convert these advantages into dominance in agent coordination.

The x402 Connection: How Agents Pay Each Other​

ERC-8004 doesn't exist in isolation. It's designed to integrate with x402, the HTTP payment protocol that Coinbase and partners developed to enable machine-to-machine micropayments. The combination creates a complete stack for agent economies.

x402 revives the long-unused HTTP 402 "Payment Required" status code. When an agent requests a service, the provider can respond with payment terms. The requesting agent automatically negotiates and settles the payment—in stablecoins, ETH, or other tokens—without human intervention.

Google's Agent Payments Protocol (AP2), developed in collaboration with Coinbase, extends this further. Announced in consultation with over 60 firms including Salesforce, American Express, and Etsy, AP2 provides security and trust infrastructure for agent-based payments. The A2A x402 extension specifically targets production-ready crypto payments between agents.

The open-source Agent-8004-x402 project demonstrates how these standards combine. A trading agent can discover counterparties through ERC-8004's Identity Registry, verify their reputation, request validation of their strategies, and then settle trades through x402—all autonomously.

What Could Go Wrong​

The standard isn't without risks. Security vulnerabilities in agent private keys or smart contracts could be catastrophic. A bug in the Identity Registry could allow agent impersonation. A flaw in the Reputation Registry could enable reputation manipulation. The Validation Registry's staking mechanism could be gamed by coordinated attackers.

Regulatory uncertainty looms large. Questions about liability, accountability, and the enforceability of agent-executed contracts remain largely unresolved. If an AI agent causes financial losses, who is responsible? The agent's developer? The user who deployed it? The validators who approved its strategy?

There's also concentration risk. If ERC-8004 succeeds, a small number of high-reputation agents could dominate the ecosystem. Early movers with strong feedback histories might create barriers to entry for new agents, potentially recreating the centralization problems the standard aims to solve.

The Ethereum Foundation is aware of these concerns. The standard includes provisions for reputation decay (so inactive agents don't maintain inflated scores), validator rotation (so no single validator group dominates), and identity recovery mechanisms (so key compromises don't permanently destroy agent identities).

The $47 Billion Opportunity​

The global AI agent market hit $5.1 billion in 2024 and is projected to reach $47.1 billion by 2030. Token Metrics projects AI smart agents could reach 15-20% of DeFi transaction volume by late 2025, placing AI-integrated protocols in the $200-300 billion TVL range by end of 2026.

Gas usage for agent identity and execution contracts is projected to rise 30-40% quarter over quarter once standards like ERC-8004 see broad adoption. This creates a feedback loop: more agents mean more coordination, more coordination means more on-chain activity, more activity means higher network revenue.

For Ethereum, ERC-8004 represents both an opportunity and a necessity. If agents become significant economic actors—and all signs suggest they will—the blockchain that captures their coordination layer captures an outsized share of the machine economy.

What Comes Next​

ERC-8004 remains under review, but deployment is already happening. Experiments run on Ethereum mainnet and Layer-2 networks like Taiko and Base. In January 2026, multiple crypto and AI platforms began discussing ERC-8004 as a key building block for agent markets.

The standard may be included in Ethereum's 2026 hard forks—potentially Glamsterdam (Gloas-Amsterdam) or Hegota (Heze-Bogota). Full integration would mean native support for agent identity, reputation, and validation at the protocol level.

The eight implementations in 24 hours weren't a fluke. They were a signal that the market has been waiting for this infrastructure. AI agents exist. They have capital. They need to coordinate. ERC-8004 gives them a way to do it without trusting anyone but the math.

---

As AI agents become significant participants in blockchain ecosystems, the infrastructure supporting them becomes critical. BlockEden.xyz provides enterprise-grade API services across 20+ blockchains, ensuring developers building agent-based applications have the reliable infrastructure they need. Explore our API marketplace to build the autonomous systems of tomorrow.

Ethereum captured over 40% of all on-chain fees in 2021. By 2025, that number collapsed to less than 3%. This isn't a story of Ethereum's decline—it's a story of where value actually flows when transaction fees drop to fractions of a penny.

The fat protocol thesis, introduced by Joel Monegro in 2016, promised that base layer blockchains would capture the lion's share of value as applications built on top of them. For years, this held true. But something fundamental shifted in 2024-2025: applications started generating more fees than the blockchains they run on, and the gap is widening every quarter.

The Numbers That Flipped the Script​

In H1 2025, $9.7 billion was paid to protocols across the crypto ecosystem. The breakdown tells the real story: 63% went to DeFi and finance applications—led by trading fees from DEXs and perpetual derivatives platforms. Only 22% went to blockchains themselves, primarily L1 transaction fees and MEV capture. L2 and L3 fees remained marginal.

The shift accelerated throughout the year. DeFi and finance applications are on track for $13.1 billion in fees for 2025, representing 66% of total on-chain fees. Meanwhile, blockchain valuations continue to command over 90% of total market cap among fee-generating protocols, despite their share of actual fees declining from over 60% in 2023 to just 12% in Q3 2025.

This creates a striking disconnect: blockchains are valued at Price-to-Fee ratios in the thousands, while applications trade at ratios between 10 and 100. The market still prices infrastructure as if it captures the majority of value—even as that value migrates upward.

The Fee Collapse That Changed Everything​

Transaction costs on major chains have plummeted to levels that would have seemed impossible three years ago. Solana processes transactions for $0.00025—less than one-tenth of a cent. Ethereum mainnet gas prices hit record lows of 0.067 gwei in November 2025, with sustained periods below 0.2 gwei. Layer 2 networks like Base and Arbitrum routinely process transactions for under $0.01.

The Dencun upgrade in March 2024 triggered a 95% drop in average gas fees on Ethereum mainnet. The effects compounded throughout 2025 as major rollups optimized their batching systems to take full advantage of blob-based data posting. Optimism cut DA costs by more than half by switching from call data to blobs.

This isn't just good for users—it fundamentally restructures where value accumulates. When transaction fees drop from dollars to fractions of pennies, the protocol layer can no longer capture meaningful economic value through gas alone. That value has to go somewhere, and increasingly, it flows to applications.

Pump.fun: The $724 Million Case Study​

No example illustrates the app-over-infrastructure shift more clearly than Pump.fun, the Solana-based memecoin launchpad. As of August 2025, Pump.fun generated over $724 million in cumulative revenue—more than many Layer 1 blockchains.

The platform's business model is simple: a 1% swap fee on all tokens traded and 1.5 SOL when a coin graduates after hitting a $90,000 market cap. This captured more value than Solana itself earned in network fees during many periods. In July 2025, Pump.fun raised $1.3 billion through a token offering—$600 million public, $700 million private.

Pump.fun wasn't alone. Seven Solana applications generated more than $100 million in revenue during 2025: Axiom Exchange, Meteora, Raydium, Jupiter, Photon, and Bullx joined the list. Total app revenue across Solana reached $2.39 billion, up 46% year over year.

Meanwhile, Solana's network REV (realized extractable value) climbed to $1.4 billion—impressive growth, but increasingly overshadowed by the applications running on top of it. The apps are eating the protocol's lunch.

The New Power Centers​

The concentration of value at the application layer has created new power dynamics. In DEXs, the landscape shifted dramatically: Uniswap's dominance fell from roughly 50% to around 18% in a single year. Raydium and Meteora captured share by riding Solana's surge, while Uniswap lagged on Ethereum.

In perpetual derivatives, the shift was even more dramatic. Jupiter grew its fee share from 5% to 45%. Hyperliquid, launched less than a year ago, now contributes 35% of subsector fees and became a top-three crypto asset by fee revenue. The decentralized perpetuals market exploded as these platforms captured value that might otherwise flow to centralized exchanges.

Lending remained the domain of Aave, holding 62% of DeFi lending market share with $39 billion in TVL by August 2025. But even here, challengers emerged: Morpho increased its share to 10% from nearly zero in H1 2024.

The top five protocols (Tron, Ethereum, Solana, Jito, Flashbots) captured approximately 80% of blockchain fees in H1 2025. But that concentration obscured the real trend: a market once dominated by two or three platforms capturing 80% of fees is now far more balanced, with ten protocols collectively accounting for that same 80%.

The Fat Protocol Thesis on Life Support​

Joel Monegro's 2016 theory proposed that base layer blockchains, like Bitcoin and Ethereum, would accrue more value than their application layers. This inverted the traditional internet model, where protocols like HTTP and SMTP captured no economic value while Google, Facebook, and Netflix extracted billions.

Two mechanisms were supposed to drive this: shared data layers that reduced barriers to entry, and cryptographic access tokens with speculative value. Both mechanisms worked—until they didn't.

The emergence of modular blockchains and the abundance of blockspace fundamentally changed the equation. Protocols are becoming "thinner" as they outsource data availability, execution, and settlement to specialized layers. Applications, meanwhile, focus on what makes them successful: user experience, liquidity, and network effects.

Transaction fees trending toward zero make it harder for protocols to capture value. The 180-day cumulative revenue data backs this argument: seven of the ten largest revenue generators are now applications, not protocols.

The Revenue Redistribution Revolution​

Major protocols that historically avoided explicit value distribution are changing course. While only around 5% of protocol revenue was redistributed to holders before 2025, that number has tripled to roughly 15%. Aave and Uniswap, which long resisted direct value sharing, are moving in this direction.

This creates an interesting tension. Applications can now share more revenue with token holders because they're capturing more value. But this also highlights the gap between L1 valuations and actual revenue generation.

Pump.fun's approach illustrates the complexity. The platform's value accrual mechanism relies on token buybacks rather than direct dividends. Community members increasingly call for mechanisms like fee burns, validator incentives, or revenue redistribution that translate network success more directly into tokenholder benefits.

What This Means for 2026​

Projections suggest 2026 on-chain fees could reach $32 billion or more—60% year-over-year growth from 2025's projected $19.8 billion. Nearly all of that growth is attributable to applications rather than infrastructure.

Infrastructure tokens face continued pressure despite regulatory clarity in key markets. High inflation schedules, insufficient demand for governance rights, and concentration of value at the base layer suggest further consolidation ahead.

For builders, the implications are clear: application-layer opportunities now rival or exceed infrastructure plays. The path to sustainable revenue runs through user-facing products rather than raw blockspace.

For investors, the valuation disconnect between infrastructure and applications presents both risk and opportunity. L1 tokens trading at Price-to-Fee ratios in the thousands while applications trade at 10-100x face potential repricing as the market recognizes where value actually flows.

The New Equilibrium​

The infrastructure-to-application shift doesn't mean blockchains become worthless. Ethereum, Solana, and other L1s remain critical infrastructure that applications depend on. But the relationship is inverting: applications increasingly choose chains based on cost and performance rather than ecosystem lock-in, while chains compete on being the cheapest and most reliable substrate.

This mirrors the traditional tech stack. AWS and Google Cloud are enormously valuable, but the applications built on top of them—Netflix, Spotify, Airbnb—capture outsized attention and, increasingly, outsized value relative to their infrastructure costs.

The $2.39 billion in Solana app revenue versus sub-penny transaction fees tells the story. The value is there. It's just not where the 2016 thesis predicted it would be.

---

The infrastructure-to-application shift creates new opportunities and challenges for builders. BlockEden.xyz provides enterprise-grade API services across 20+ blockchains, helping developers build the applications capturing value in this new landscape. Explore our API marketplace to access the infrastructure powering the next generation of revenue-generating applications.