33 posts tagged with "Scalability"

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.

Zero-knowledge rollups were supposed to be the future of blockchain scaling. Instead, they've become hostages to a $97 million centralized prover market where a handful of companies extract 60-70% of fees — while users wait minutes for proofs that should take seconds.

Boundless, RISC Zero's decentralized proof marketplace that launched on mainnet in September 2025, claims to have cracked this problem. By turning ZK proof generation into an open market where GPU operators compete for work, Boundless promises to make verifiable computation "as cheap as execution." But can a token-incentivized network really break the centralization death spiral that's kept ZK technology expensive and inaccessible?

The Billion-Dollar Bottleneck: Why ZK Proofs Are Still Expensive​

The promise of zero-knowledge rollups was elegant: execute transactions off-chain, generate a cryptographic proof of correct execution, and verify that proof on Ethereum for a fraction of the cost. In theory, this would deliver Ethereum-level security at sub-cent transaction costs.

Reality proved messier.

A single ZK proof for a batch of 4,000 transactions takes two to five minutes to generate on a high-end A100 GPU, costing $0.04 to $0.17 in cloud computing fees alone. That's before factoring in the specialized software, engineering expertise, and redundant infrastructure needed to run a reliable proving service.

The result? Over 90% of ZK-L2s rely on a handful of prover-as-a-service providers. This centralization introduces exactly the risks that blockchain was designed to eliminate: censorship, MEV extraction, single points of failure, and web2-style rent extraction.

The Technical Challenge​

The bottleneck isn't network congestion — it's the mathematics itself. ZK proving relies on multi-scalar multiplications (MSMs) and number-theoretic transforms (NTTs) over elliptic curves. These operations are fundamentally different from the matrix math that makes GPUs excellent for AI workloads.

After years of MSM optimization, NTTs now account for up to 90% of proof generation latency on GPUs. The cryptography community has hit diminishing returns on software optimization alone.

Enter Boundless: The Open Proof Market​

Boundless attempts to solve this problem by decoupling proof generation from blockchain consensus entirely. Instead of each rollup running its own prover infrastructure, Boundless creates a marketplace where:

1. Requestors submit proof requests (from any chain)
2. Provers compete to generate proofs using GPUs and commodity hardware
3. Settlement happens on the destination chain specified by the requester

The key innovation is "Proof of Verifiable Work" (PoVW) — a mechanism that rewards provers not for useless hashes (like Bitcoin mining) but for generating useful ZK proofs. Each proof carries cryptographic metadata proving how much computation went into it, creating a transparent record of work.

How It Actually Works​

Under the hood, Boundless builds on RISC Zero's zkVM — a zero-knowledge virtual machine that can execute any program compiled for the RISC-V instruction set. This means developers can write applications in Rust, C++, or any language that compiles to RISC-V, then generate proofs of correct execution without learning specialized ZK circuits.

The three-layer architecture includes:

• zkVM Layer: Executes arbitrary programs and generates STARK proofs
• Recursion Layer: Aggregates multiple STARKs into compact proofs
• Settlement Layer: Converts proofs to Groth16 format for on-chain verification

This design allows Boundless to generate proofs that are small enough (around 200KB) for economical on-chain verification while supporting complex computations.

The ZKC Token: Mining Proofs Instead of Hashes​

Boundless introduced ZK Coin (ZKC) as the native token powering its proof market. Unlike typical utility tokens, ZKC is actively mined through proof generation — provers earn ZKC rewards proportional to the computational work they contribute.

Tokenomics Overview​

• Total Supply: 1 billion ZKC (with 7% inflation in Year 1, tapering to 3% by Year 8)
• Ecosystem Growth: 41.6% allocated to adoption initiatives
• Strategic Partners: 21.5% with 1-year cliff and 2-year vesting
• Community: 8.3% for token sale and airdrops
• Current Price: ~$0.12 (down from $0.29 ICO price)

The inflationary model has sparked debate. Proponents argue ongoing emissions are necessary to incentivize a healthy prover network. Critics point out that 7% annual inflation creates constant sell pressure, potentially limiting ZKC's value appreciation even as the network grows.

Market Turbulence​

ZKC's first months weren't smooth. In October 2025, South Korean exchange Upbit flagged the token with an "investment warning," triggering a 46% price crash. Upbit lifted the warning after Boundless clarified its tokenomics, but the episode highlighted the volatility risks of infrastructure tokens tied to emerging markets.

Mainnet Reality: Who's Actually Using Boundless?​

Since launching mainnet beta on Base in July 2025 and full mainnet in September, Boundless has secured notable integrations:

Wormhole Integration​

Wormhole is integrating Boundless to add ZK verification to Ethereum consensus, making cross-chain transfers more secure. Instead of relying purely on multi-sig guardians, Wormhole NTT (Native Token Transfers) can now include optional ZK proofs for users who want cryptographic guarantees.

Citrea Bitcoin L2​

Citrea, a Bitcoin Layer-2 zk-rollup built by Chainway Labs, uses RISC Zero's zkVM to generate validity proofs posted to Bitcoin via BitVM. This enables EVM-equivalent programmability on Bitcoin while using BTC for settlement and data availability.

Google Cloud Partnership​

Through its Verifiable AI Program, Boundless partnered with Google Cloud to enable ZK-powered AI proofs. Developers can build applications that prove AI model outputs without revealing inputs — a crucial capability for privacy-preserving machine learning.

Stellar Bridge​

In September 2025, Nethermind deployed RISC Zero verifiers for Stellar zk Bridge integration, enabling cross-chain proofs between Stellar's low-cost payment network and Ethereum's security guarantees.

The Competition: Succinct SP1 and the zkVM Wars​

Boundless isn't the only player racing to solve ZK's scalability problem. Succinct Labs' SP1 zkVM has emerged as a major competitor, sparking a benchmarking war between the two teams.

RISC Zero's Claims​

RISC Zero asserts that properly configured zkVM deployments are "at least 7x less expensive than SP1" and up to 60x cheaper for small workloads. They point to tighter proof sizes and more efficient GPU utilization.

Succinct's Response​

Succinct counters that RISC Zero's benchmarks "misleadingly compared CPU performance to GPU results." Their SP1 Hypercube prover claims $0.02 proofs with ~2 minute latency — though it remains closed source.

Independent Analysis​

A Fenbushi Capital comparison found RISC Zero demonstrated "superior speed and efficiency across all benchmark categories in GPU environments," but noted SP1 excels in developer adoption, powering projects like Celestia's Blobstream with $3.14B in total value secured versus RISC Zero's $239M.

The real competitive advantage may not be raw performance but ecosystem lock-in. Boundless plans to support competing zkVMs including SP1, ZKsync's Boojum, and Jolt — positioning itself as a protocol-agnostic proof marketplace rather than a single-vendor solution.

2026 Roadmap: What's Next for Boundless​

RISC Zero's roadmap for Boundless includes several ambitious targets:

Ecosystem Expansion (Q4 2025 - 2026)​

• Extend ZK proof support to Solana
• Bitcoin integration via BitVM
• Additional L2 deployments

Hybrid Rollup Upgrades​

The most significant technical milestone is transitioning optimistic rollups (like Optimism and Base chains) to use validity proofs for faster finality. Instead of waiting 7 days for fraud proof windows, OP chains could settle in minutes.

Multi-zkVM Support​

Support for competing zkVMs is on the roadmap, allowing developers to switch between RISC Zero, SP1, or other proving systems without leaving the marketplace.

Decentralization Completion​

RISC Zero terminated its hosted proof service in December 2025, forcing all proof generation through the decentralized Boundless network. This marked a significant commitment to the decentralization thesis — but also means the network's reliability now depends entirely on independent provers.

The Bigger Picture: Will Decentralized Proving Become the Standard?​

The success of Boundless hinges on a fundamental bet: that proof generation will commoditize the way cloud computing did. If that thesis holds, having the most efficient prover network matters less than having the largest and most liquid marketplace.

Several factors support this view:

1. Hardware commoditization: ZK-specific ASICs from companies like Cysic promise 50x energy efficiency improvements, potentially lowering barriers to entry
2. Proof aggregation: Networks like Boundless can batch proofs from multiple applications, amortizing fixed costs
3. Cross-chain demand: As more chains adopt ZK verification, demand for proof generation could outpace any single provider's capacity

But risks remain:

1. Centralization creep: Early prover networks tend toward concentration as economies of scale favor large operators
2. Token dependency: If ZKC price collapses, prover incentives evaporate — potentially causing a death spiral
3. Technical complexity: Running a competitive prover requires significant expertise, potentially limiting decentralization in practice

What This Means for Developers​

For builders considering ZK integration, Boundless represents a pragmatic middle ground:

• No infrastructure overhead: Submit proof requests via API without running your own provers
• Multi-chain settlement: Generate proofs once, verify on any supported chain
• Language flexibility: Write in Rust or any RISC-V compatible language instead of learning ZK DSLs

The trade-off is dependency on a token-incentivized network whose long-term stability remains unproven. For production applications, many teams may prefer Boundless for testnet and experimentation while maintaining fallback prover infrastructure for critical workloads.

Conclusion​

Boundless represents the most ambitious attempt yet to solve ZK's centralization problem. By turning proof generation into an open market incentivized by ZKC tokens, RISC Zero is betting that competition will drive costs down faster than any single vendor could achieve alone.

The mainnet launch, major integrations with Wormhole and Citrea, and commitment to supporting rival zkVMs suggest serious technical capability. But the inflationary tokenomics, exchange volatility, and unproven decentralization at scale leave important questions unanswered.

For the ZK ecosystem, Boundless's success or failure will signal whether decentralized infrastructure can compete with centralized efficiency — or whether the blockchain industry's scaling future remains in the hands of a few well-funded prover services.

---

Building applications that need ZK verification across multiple chains? BlockEden.xyz provides enterprise RPC endpoints and APIs for Ethereum, Base, and 20+ networks — the reliable connectivity layer your cross-chain ZK applications need.

In December 2025, two seismic upgrades landed within weeks of each other: Ethereum's Pectra hard fork on May 7 and Solana's Firedancer validator client on December 12. For the first time in years, the performance narrative isn't hypothetical—it's measurable, deployed, and fundamentally reshaping the Ethereum vs Solana debate.

The old talking points are obsolete. Ethereum isn't just "slow but decentralized" anymore, and Solana isn't just "fast but risky." Both chains delivered their most ambitious infrastructure upgrades since The Merge and the network restart crisis, respectively. The question isn't which chain is "better"—it's which architecture wins specific use cases in a multi-chain world where L2s process 40,000 TPS and Solana aims for 1 million.

Let's dissect what actually changed, what the data shows, and where each chain stands heading into 2026.

Pectra: Ethereum's Biggest Upgrade Since The Merge​

Ethereum's Pectra upgrade combined the Prague execution layer and Electra consensus layer updates, delivering 11 EIPs focused on three core improvements: account abstraction, validator efficiency, and L2 scalability.

Account Abstraction Goes Mainstream​

EIP-7702 introduces temporary smart contract functionality to Externally Owned Accounts (EOAs), enabling gas abstraction (pay fees in any token), batched transactions, and customizable security—all without permanently converting to a contract account. This bridges the UX gap between EOAs and smart wallets, making Ethereum accessible to users who don't want to manage gas tokens or sign every transaction individually.

For developers, this means building wallet experiences that rival Web2 apps: social recovery, sponsored transactions, and automated workflows—without forcing users into smart wallet migration. The upgrade eliminates a major onboarding friction point that has plagued Ethereum since inception.

Validator Staking Overhaul​

Pectra raised the maximum effective balance from 32 ETH to 2,048 ETH per validator—a 64x increase. For institutional stakers running thousands of validators, this change dramatically simplifies operations. Instead of managing 1,000 separate 32 ETH validators, institutions can consolidate into ~16 validators staking 2,048 ETH each.

Deposit activation time dropped from hours to approximately 13 minutes due to simpler processing. Validator queue times, which previously stretched to weeks during high-demand periods, are now negligible. Staking became operationally cheaper and faster—critical for attracting institutional capital that views validator management overhead as a barrier.

Blob Throughput Doubles​

Ethereum increased the target blob count from 3 to 6 per block, with a maximum of 9 (up from 6). This effectively doubles the data availability bandwidth for L2 rollups, which rely on blobs to post transaction data affordably.

Combined with PeerDAS (activated December 8, 2025), which expands blob capacity from 6 to 48 per block by distributing blob data across nodes, Layer 2 fees are expected to drop an additional 50-70% through 2026 on top of the 70-95% reduction achieved post-Dencun. Data availability currently represents 90% of L2 operating costs, so this change directly impacts rollup economics.

What Didn't Change​

Ethereum's base layer still processes 15-30 TPS. Pectra didn't touch Layer 1 throughput—because it doesn't need to. Ethereum's scaling thesis is modular: L1 provides security and data availability, while L2s (Arbitrum, Optimism, Base) handle execution. Arbitrum already achieves 40,000 TPS theoretically, and PeerDAS aims to push combined L2 capacity toward 100,000+ TPS.

The trade-off remains: Ethereum prioritizes decentralization (8,000+ nodes) and security, accepting lower L1 throughput in exchange for credible neutrality and censorship resistance.

Firedancer: Solana's Path to 1 Million TPS​

Solana's Firedancer validator client, developed by Jump Crypto and written in C for hardware-level optimization, went live on mainnet December 12, 2024, after 100 days of testing and 50,000 blocks produced. This isn't a protocol upgrade—it's a complete reimplementation of the validator software designed to eliminate bottlenecks in the original Agave (formerly Labs) client.

Architecture: Parallel Processing at Scale​

Unlike Agave's monolithic architecture, Firedancer uses a "tile-based" modular design where different validator tasks (consensus, transaction processing, networking) run in parallel across CPU cores. This allows Firedancer to extract maximum performance from commodity hardware without requiring specialized infrastructure.

The results are measurable: Kevin Bowers, Chief Scientist at Jump Trading Group, demonstrated over 1 million transactions per second on commodity hardware at Breakpoint 2024. While real-world conditions haven't reached that yet, early adopters report significant improvements.

Real-World Performance Gains​

Figment's flagship Solana validator migrated to Firedancer and reported:

• 18-28 basis points higher staking rewards compared to Agave-based validators
• 15% reduction in missed voting credits (improved consensus participation)
• Vote latency optimized at 1.002 slots (near-instantaneous consensus contributions)

The rewards boost comes primarily from better MEV capture and more efficient transaction processing—Firedancer's parallel architecture allows validators to process more transactions per block, increasing fee revenue.

As of late 2025, the hybrid "Frankendancer" client (combining Firedancer's consensus with Agave's execution layer) captured over 26% of validator market share within weeks of mainnet launch. Full Firedancer adoption is expected to accelerate through 2026 as remaining edge cases are resolved.

The 1 Million TPS Timeline​

Firedancer's 1 million TPS capability was demonstrated in controlled environments, not production. Solana currently processes 3,000-5,000 real-world TPS, with peak capacity around 4,700 TPS. Reaching 1 million TPS requires not just Firedancer, but network-wide adoption and complementary upgrades like Alpenglow (expected Q1 2026).

The path forward involves:

1. Full Firedancer migration across all validators (currently ~26% hybrid, 0% full Firedancer)
2. Alpenglow upgrade to optimize consensus and state management
3. Network hardware improvements as validators upgrade infrastructure

Realistically, 1 million TPS is a 2027-2028 target, not 2026. However, Firedancer's immediate impact—doubling or tripling effective throughput—is already measurable and positions Solana to handle consumer-scale applications today.

Head-to-Head: Where Each Chain Wins in 2026​

Transaction Speed and Cost​

Solana: 3,000-5,000 real-world TPS, with $0.00025 average transaction cost. Firedancer adoption should push this toward 10,000+ TPS by mid-2026 as more validators migrate.

Ethereum L1: 15-30 TPS, with variable gas fees ($1-50+ depending on congestion). L2 solutions (Arbitrum, Optimism, Base) achieve 40,000 TPS theoretically, with transaction costs of $0.10-1.00—still 400-4,000x more expensive than Solana.

Winner: Solana for raw throughput and cost efficiency. Ethereum L2s are faster than Ethereum L1 but remain orders of magnitude more expensive than Solana for high-frequency use cases (payments, gaming, social).

Decentralization and Security​

Ethereum: ~8,000 validators (each representing a 32+ ETH stake), with client diversity (Geth, Nethermind, Besu, Erigon) and geographically distributed nodes. Pectra's 2,048 ETH staking limit improves institutional efficiency but doesn't compromise decentralization—large stakers still run multiple validators.

Solana: ~3,500 validators, with Firedancer introducing client diversity for the first time. Historically, Solana ran exclusively on the Labs client (now Agave), creating single-point-of-failure risks. Firedancer's 26% adoption is a positive step, but full client diversity remains years away.

Winner: Ethereum maintains a structural decentralization advantage through client diversity, geographic distribution, and a larger validator set. Solana's history of network outages (most recently September 2022) reflects centralization trade-offs, though Firedancer mitigates single-client risk.

Developer Ecosystem and Liquidity​

Ethereum: $50B+ TVL across DeFi protocols, with established infrastructure for RWA tokenization (BlackRock's BUIDL), NFT markets, and institutional integrations. Solidity remains the dominant smart contract language, with the largest developer community and audit ecosystem.

Solana: $8B+ TVL (growing rapidly), with dominance in consumer-facing apps (Tensor for NFTs, Jupiter for DEX aggregation, Phantom wallet). Rust-based development attracts high-performance engineers but has a steeper learning curve than Solidity.

Winner: Ethereum for DeFi depth and institutional trust; Solana for consumer apps and payment rails. These are increasingly divergent use cases, not direct competition.

Upgrade Path and Roadmap​

Ethereum: Fusaka upgrade (Q2/Q3 2026) will expand blob capacity to 48 per block, with PeerDAS pushing L2s toward 100,000+ combined TPS. Long-term, "The Surge" aims to enable L2s to scale indefinitely while maintaining L1 as the settlement layer.

Solana: Alpenglow (Q1 2026) will optimize consensus and state management. Firedancer's full rollout should complete by late 2026, with 1 million TPS feasible by 2027-2028 if network-wide migration succeeds.

Winner: Ethereum has a clearer, more predictable roadmap. Solana's roadmap depends heavily on Firedancer adoption rates and potential edge cases that emerge during migration.

The Real Debate: Monolithic vs Modular​

The Ethereum vs Solana comparison increasingly misses the point. These chains solve different problems:

Ethereum's modular thesis: L1 provides security and data availability; L2s handle execution. This separates concerns, allowing L2s to specialize (Arbitrum for DeFi, Base for consumer apps, Optimism for governance experiments) while inheriting Ethereum's security. The trade-off is complexity—users must bridge between L2s, and liquidity fragments across chains.

Solana's monolithic thesis: One unified state machine maximizes composability. Every app shares the same liquidity pool, and atomic transactions span the entire network. The trade-off is centralization risk—higher hardware requirements (validators need powerful machines) and single-client dependency (mitigated but not eliminated by Firedancer).

Neither approach is "correct." Ethereum dominates high-value, low-frequency use cases (DeFi, RWA tokenization) where security justifies higher costs. Solana dominates high-frequency, low-value use cases (payments, gaming, social) where speed and cost are paramount.

What Developers Should Know​

If you're building in 2026, here's the decision framework:

Choose Ethereum (+ L2) if:

• Your application requires maximum security and decentralization (DeFi protocols, custody solutions)
• You're targeting institutional users or RWA tokenization
• You need access to Ethereum's $50B+ TVL and liquidity depth
• Your users tolerate $0.10-1.00 transaction costs

Choose Solana if:

• Your application requires high-frequency transactions (payments, gaming, social)
• Transaction costs must be sub-cent ($0.00025 avg)
• You're building consumer-facing apps where UX latency matters (400ms Solana finality vs 12-second Ethereum finality)
• You prioritize composability over modular complexity

Consider both if:

• You're building cross-chain infrastructure (bridges, aggregators, wallets)
• Your application has distinct high-value and high-frequency components (DeFi protocol + consumer payment layer)

Looking Ahead: 2026 and Beyond​

The performance gap is narrowing, but not converging. Pectra positioned Ethereum to scale L2s toward 100,000+ TPS, while Firedancer set Solana on a path toward 1 million TPS. Both chains delivered on multi-year technical roadmaps, and both face new challenges:

Ethereum's challenge: L2 fragmentation. Users must bridge between dozens of L2s (Arbitrum, Optimism, Base, zkSync, Starknet), fragmenting liquidity and complicating UX. Shared sequencing and native L2 interoperability are 2026-2027 priorities to address this.

Solana's challenge: Proving decentralization at scale. Firedancer introduces client diversity, but Solana must demonstrate that 10,000+ TPS (and eventually 1 million TPS) doesn't require hardware centralization or sacrifice censorship resistance.

The real winner? Developers and users who finally have credible, production-ready options for both high-security and high-performance applications. The blockchain trilemma isn't solved—it's bifurcated into two specialized solutions.

BlockEden.xyz provides enterprise-grade API infrastructure for both Ethereum (L1 and L2s) and Solana, with dedicated nodes optimized for Pectra and Firedancer. Explore our API marketplace to build on infrastructure designed to scale with both ecosystems.

Sources​

• Ethereum's Pectra Upgrade: What Should Investors Know? - Fidelity Digital Assets
• Ethereum Pectra upgrade: What it means for ETH holders - Kraken
• From Pectra to Fusaka: How Ethereum's protocol changed in 2025 - The Block
• Ethereum Pectra Upgrade: Everything you need to know - Consensys
• What is the Ethereum Pectra Upgrade? Dev Guide to 11 EIPs - Alchemy
• Jump Crypto's Firedancer hits Solana mainnet as the network aims to unlock 1 million TPS - The Block
• Figment's Migration to Firedancer: Unlocking Next-Generation Solana Validator Performance - Figment
• Solana vs Ethereum: Which is Better in 2026? - Backpack
• Solana vs Ethereum TPS Comparison - Chainspect
• The Fusaka Upgrade: Scaling Meets Value Accrual - Fidelity Digital Assets
• Layer 2 Adoption 2026 Predictions - Cryptopolitan
• 2026 Layer 2 Outlook - The Block

On January 14, 2026, BNB Chain will activate the Fermi hard fork, slashing block times from 0.75 seconds to 0.45 seconds. That's faster than a human blink—and it represents the culmination of an aggressive scaling roadmap that has transformed BSC from a three-second-block chain to one of the fastest EVM-compatible networks in production.

The implications extend far beyond bragging rights. With finality now achievable in just 1.125 seconds and throughput targets of 5,000 DEX swaps per second, BNB Chain is positioning itself as the infrastructure layer for applications where milliseconds translate directly to money—or lost opportunities.

---

The Evolution: From 3 Seconds to 0.45 Seconds in Under a Year​

BNB Chain's block time reduction has been methodical and aggressive. Here's the progression:

Upgrade	Date	Block Time	Finality
Pre-upgrade baseline	-	3.0 seconds	~7.5 seconds
Lorentz Hard Fork	April 2025	1.5 seconds	~3.75 seconds
Maxwell Hard Fork	June 30, 2025	0.75 seconds	~1.875 seconds
Fermi Hard Fork	January 14, 2026	0.45 seconds	~1.125 seconds

Each upgrade required careful engineering to maintain network stability while doubling or nearly doubling performance. The Maxwell upgrade alone, powered by BEP-524, BEP-563, and BEP-564, improved peer-to-peer messaging between validators, allowed faster block proposal communication, and created a more stable validator network to reduce the risk of missed votes or sync delays.

Fermi continues this trajectory with five BEPs:

• BEP-590: Extended voting rules for fast finality stability
• BEP-619: The actual block interval reduction to 0.45 seconds
• BEP-592: Non-consensus based block-level access list
• BEP-593: Incremental snapshot
• BEP-610: EVM super instruction implementation

The result: a chain that processed 31 million daily transactions at peak (October 5, 2025) while maintaining zero downtime and handling up to five trillion gas daily.

---

Why Sub-Second Blocks Matter: The DeFi Perspective​

For decentralized finance, block time isn't just a technical metric—it's the heartbeat of every trade, liquidation, and yield strategy. Faster blocks create compounding advantages.

Reduced Slippage and Better Price Discovery​

When blocks occur every 0.45 seconds instead of every 3 seconds, the price oracle updates 6-7x more frequently. For DEX traders, this means:

• Tighter spreads as arbitrageurs keep prices aligned more quickly
• Reduced slippage on larger orders as the order book updates more frequently
• Better execution quality for retail traders competing against sophisticated actors

Enhanced Liquidation Efficiency​

Lending protocols like Venus or Radiant depend on timely liquidations to maintain solvency. With 0.45-second blocks:

• Liquidation bots can respond to price movements almost instantly
• The window between a position becoming undercollateralized and liquidation shrinks dramatically
• Protocol bad debt risk decreases, enabling more aggressive capital efficiency

MEV Reduction​

Here's where it gets interesting. BNB Chain reports a 95% reduction in malicious MEV—specifically sandwich attacks—through a combination of faster blocks and the Good Will Alliance security enhancements.

The logic is straightforward: sandwich attacks require bots to detect pending transactions, front-run them, and then back-run them. With only 450 milliseconds between blocks, there's far less time for bots to detect, analyze, and exploit pending transactions. The attack window has shrunk from seconds to fractions of a second.

Fast finality compounds this advantage. With confirmation times under 2 seconds (1.125 seconds with Fermi), the window for any form of transaction manipulation narrows substantially.

---

Gaming and Real-Time Applications: The New Frontier​

The 0.45-second block time opens possibilities that simply weren't practical with slower chains.

Responsive In-Game Economies​

Blockchain games have struggled with latency. A three-second block time means a minimum three-second delay between player action and on-chain confirmation. For competitive games, that's unplayable. For casual games, it's annoying.

At 0.45 seconds:

• Item trades can confirm in under 1.5 seconds (including finality)
• In-game economies can respond to player actions in near-real-time
• Competitive game state updates become feasible for more game types

Live Betting and Prediction Markets​

Prediction markets and betting applications require rapid settlement. The difference between 3-second and 0.45-second blocks is the difference between "tolerable" and "feels instant" for end users. Markets can:

• Accept bets closer to event outcomes
• Settle positions more quickly
• Enable more dynamic, in-play betting experiences

High-Frequency Automated Agents​

The infrastructure is increasingly well-suited for automated trading systems, arbitrage bots, and AI agents executing on-chain strategies. BNB Chain explicitly notes that the network is designed for "high-frequency trading bots, MEV strategies, arbitrage systems, and gaming applications where microseconds matter."

---

The 2026 Roadmap: 1 Gigagas and Beyond​

Fermi is not the end state. BNB Chain's 2026 roadmap targets ambitious goals:

1 Gigagas Per Second: A 10x increase in throughput capacity, designed to support up to 5,000 DEX swaps per second. This would put BNB Chain's raw capacity ahead of most competing L1s and many L2s.

Sub-150ms Finality: The longer-term vision calls for a next-generation L1 with finality under 150 milliseconds—faster than human perception, competitive with centralized exchanges.

20,000+ TPS for Complex Transactions: Not just simple transfers, but complex smart contract interactions at scale.

Native Privacy for 200+ Million Users: A significant expansion of privacy-preserving capabilities at the network level.

The explicit goal is to "rival centralized platforms" in user experience while maintaining decentralized guarantees.

---

Validator and Node Operator Implications​

The Fermi upgrade isn't free. Faster blocks mean more work per unit time, creating new requirements for infrastructure operators.

Hardware Requirements​

Validators must upgrade to v1.6.4 or later before the January 14 activation. The upgrade involves:

• Snapshot regeneration (approximately 5 hours on BNB Chain's reference hardware)
• Log indexing updates
• Temporary performance impact during the upgrade process

Network Bandwidth​

With blocks arriving 40% faster (0.45s vs 0.75s), the network must propagate more data more quickly. BEP-563's improved peer-to-peer messaging helps, but operators should expect increased bandwidth requirements.

State Growth​

More transactions per second means faster state growth. While BEP-593's incremental snapshot system helps manage this, node operators should plan for increased storage requirements over time.

---

Competitive Positioning: Where Does BNB Chain Stand?​

The sub-second block landscape is increasingly crowded:

Chain	Block Time	Finality	Notes
BNB Chain (Fermi)	0.45s	~1.125s	EVM compatible, 5T+ gas/day proven
Solana	~0.4s	~12s (with vote lag)	Higher theoretical TPS, different trade-offs
Sui	~0.5s	~0.5s	Object-centric model, newer ecosystem
Aptos	~0.9s	~0.9s	Move-based, parallel execution
Avalanche C-Chain	~2s	~2s	Subnet architecture
Ethereum L1	~12s	~15min	Different design philosophy

BNB Chain's competitive advantage lies in the combination of:

1. EVM compatibility: Direct porting from Ethereum/other EVM chains
2. Proven scale: 31M daily transactions, 5T daily gas, zero downtime
3. Ecosystem depth: Established DeFi, gaming, and infrastructure projects
4. MEV mitigation: 95% reduction in sandwich attacks

The trade-off is centralization. BNB Chain's Proof of Staked Authority (PoSA) consensus uses a smaller validator set than fully decentralized networks, which enables the speed but raises different trust assumptions.

---

What Builders Should Know​

For developers building on BNB Chain, Fermi creates both opportunities and requirements:

Opportunities​

• Latency-sensitive applications: Games, trading bots, and real-time applications become more viable
• Better UX: Sub-2-second confirmation times enable smoother user experiences
• MEV-resistant designs: Less exposure to sandwich attacks simplifies some protocol designs
• Higher throughput: More transactions per second means more users without congestion

Requirements​

• Block producer assumptions: With faster blocks, code that assumes block timing may need updates
• Oracle update frequency: Protocols may want to leverage faster block times for more frequent price updates
• Gas estimation: Block gas dynamics may shift with faster block production
• RPC infrastructure: Applications may need higher-performance RPC providers to keep up with faster block production

---

Conclusion: Speed as Strategy​

BNB Chain's progression from 3-second to 0.45-second blocks over roughly 18 months represents one of the most aggressive scaling trajectories in production blockchain infrastructure. The Fermi upgrade on January 14, 2026, is the latest step in a roadmap that explicitly aims to compete with centralized platforms on user experience.

For DeFi protocols, this means tighter markets, better liquidations, and reduced MEV. For gaming applications, it means near-real-time on-chain interactions. For high-frequency traders and automated systems, it means microsecond advantages become meaningful.

The question isn't whether faster blocks are useful—they clearly are. The question is whether BNB Chain's centralization trade-offs remain acceptable to users and builders as the network scales toward its 1 gigagas and sub-150ms finality goals.

For applications where speed matters more than maximum decentralization, BNB Chain is making a compelling case. The Fermi upgrade is the latest proof point in that argument.

---

References​

• Fermi Hard Fork Accelerates BSC to 0.45-Second Block Times - BNB Chain Blog
• Fermi Hardfork Documentation - BNB Chain
• BNB Chain Announces Maxwell Hardfork - BNB Chain Blog
• BNB Chain's Infrastructure Just Levelled Up - BNB Chain Blog
• The Future of BNB Chain: Outlook for 2025 & 2026 - BNB Chain Blog
• Tech Roadmap 2026 - BNB Chain Blog
• BNB Smart Chain block times fall to 0.8 secs - Cointelegraph
• BSC's Fermi Hard Fork Slashes Block Times - Bitcoin Ethereum News