NFT Platforms Review: Where do you find to build your digital brand?

After years of development and iteration, a multifaceted cryptocurrency ecosystem is finally beginning to emerge. Innovations are still happening, especially in industries like DeFi and NFT. Each application is new and uses the output data from the previous one. Ethereum alone generated $1.5 trillion in the first quarter, and none of this would have happened without Ethereum. Ethereum collects most of the revenue, tools, and users, and that's where the work happens. For organizations that have their own NFT concept, Ethereum is arguably the best ecosystem to develop it. Currently there is a big problem, and Ethereum has a big scalability problem.

Ethereum's unfortunate situation is its greatest strength: security, flexibility and transparency. But all of this comes at a cost, and that's network throughput. When demand exceeds capacity, exchange rates increase, which is inexpensive for small users and businesses. From a market perspective, cost and customer knowledge are important. Therefore, it is not easy to understand why Ethereum network congestion is such a big problem. However, Ethereum and other public chains have solutions to help achieve this goal. The purpose of these posts is to compare the differences between online ecosystems to better answer the question of where you want to grow your digital business.

In subsequent descriptions of the article, some will make the comparison as clear as possible, but not exhaustive. There are now development-ready NFT solutions on the market. We will focus on the core processes of Ethereum: Immutable X (Starkware / Volition), Polygon (PoS Chain), Flow and WAX (EOS based on L1). However, it seems that other alternatives are still being developed, without interest for the market, or with solutions for the human chain. Before going any further, I would like to mention a few environmental issues that have recently been criticized in the NFT environment. However, all solutions in these publications are considered green or are moving towards a greener implementation (e.g. Ethereum PoS).

At a high level, we have analyzed these situations with a few key points (processes) that are all relevant to end users. Now let's look at network-level solutions.

As mentioned earlier, we have made the Ethereum network problem real. The diagram above shows how these different solutions are available with Ethereum and the unique characteristics of each solution: security and compatibility. To the left of the image you will see L1 for "Layer 1 Network" and L2 for "Layer 2 Network". Simply put, Layer 1 is an independent network with its own validators and security guarantees, while Layer 2 is a scalable solution built on top of the existing Process 1 with network security similarities. Almost the same. For newcomers to cryptocurrencies, strong security in this case means that validators running decentralized networks cannot easily manipulate or steal user data.

It should be noted that the security of different L1s is different, and Ethereum is better than other L1s. Immutable X is an advanced continuous technology developed by StarkWare and only the latest version 2 ("L2") technology is shown. It can offer more benefits than the first layer of Ethereum while running almost as secure as Ethereum. Polygon PoS, Flow and WAX (developed on EOS Layer 1) are no longer secure. However, Polygon can run true plasma and can be considered a layer 2 solution with better security. However, it does not currently support NFTs (even in the future), so I won't consider them in this article. However, we only focus on the PoS chain. Polygon also plans to support other future L2 solutions such as Optimistic and ZK Rollups. Again, these are not yet alive, so we decided not to consider them in this test. This time is uncertain, but if Polygon adds support to the running plane, it will put Immutable X in the same position for safety and visibility, depending on usage. If you're interested in learning more about Polygon, we encourage you to check out our in-depth research here.

Whether it's NFT or not, the main blockchain scalability issues to consider are scalability, security, decentralization, and more commonly the "isn't triangle" that can satisfy customers. two simultaneously. To simplify this report, we adjust decentralization and security based on the comparisons. The latter is usually the result of the former.

The trade in security and scalability is true for all platforms, but the level of trade-off varies between platforms, depending on the specific application. Ethereum L1 greatly guarantees security and distribution, so transit is only about 15 per second (TPS). Immutable X, on the other hand, is not a bit secure (depending on your packaging options) but increases the TPS up to 9,000. That's why everyone has great faith in the future of Ethereum.

Overcurrent estimates vary, but Polygon's PoS chain can reach up to 7200 TPS on an instrument with 100 users. At this stage of decentralization, the throughput is already impressive. On the mainnet, we are hitting 300 TPS at the top of the network, but we need more stress testing before we hit the real limit. We want to score based on mainnet data, but in fairness, we think testnet TPS is the true throughput, ranking Polygon after Immutable X and coming in second place. Indeed, the PoS chain has 99 certifications and no affiliations. However, validator nodes are the mainstay, with Binance accounting for 37% of all nodes.

WAX's L1, an EOS chain, peaked at 4000 TPS, third in penetration. However, since there are 21 approved people in the entire blockchain network, the scalability of the market varies widely. Our team (and others) therefore believe that EOS has a low level of distribution and that security will be a thing of the past. After all, Flow's throughput is around 100 TPS, which isn't good enough if mainstream adoption is standard, but already high in truly decentralized networks. However, the fact is that although Flow has 140 certifications approvals, most of them have been managed directly by the Flow team itself, and it is not easy to see that the Text Flow is very important because it needs permission to work on the nodes. So in terms of security, I think it's superior to WAX. However, we believe that in the future Flow will be easier to decentralize than EOS, as we believe that Dapper Labs (the company after Flow) is less likely to deceive users than EOS.

Then, we will assess the liquidity of the assets and the ecological compatibility of these platforms. PS: The product can demonstrate that NFTs can be easily transferred from one chain to another (eg deletion to Ethereum L1). Eco-friendliness refers to the number of fine applications that can easily be used on strings and can create valuable assets (like OpenSea support). For platforms that complement both, token holders benefit from moving their assets anywhere and more efficiently.

First of all, nothing beats Ethereum in terms of having a large application ecosystem and multiple cross-chain links between assets. With that in mind, it's not hard to imagine why Ethereum's L2 sends are getting so much attention.

Dark purple shows EVM relationships. Because Polygon uses Solidity, the same smart contract as Ethereum, anything used on Ethereum can also be easily returned to Polygon. Is it easy to ask? Think "copy-paste". This is good for Polygon as it offers the lowest conversion costs and an improved design for applications that want to switch to other chains. To date, Polygon's DeFi ecosystem has flourished and continued. Polygon's compatibility with Ethereum is at the second level of ecological compatibility.

Flow and WAX are designed to be different, so Ethereum developers cannot send resources and tools directly to the app chain. The token models for these networks also vary, and combined with less security, the cost of on-chain assets will be lower in the market. We'll talk about that later. Not only is there a bridge on Ethereum, but they rank WAX higher than Flow in the asset-based chain on development.

The case of Immutable X is unique. This is the newly developed CAIRO programming language for L2 use developed by Starkware and unknown to most developers. Also, the existing rules are not easy to transfer directly from Ethereum. However, since it can interact with Ethereum and use the same token model as Ethereum, it is marked as "equal" in the figure above. Whether it's Ethereum, Polygon, or Immutable X, where NFTs were designed, assets can flow between them at different speeds. By default, Immutable offers a better asset polygon because it enables faster NFT removal for Ethereum without compromising security.

With regard to ecosystem relationships, it should be noted that in practice the composability of NFT sites is now relatively low. This is because NFT tools have many unique features (after all, they can't be faked) and often don't have much value/reliability. What we focus on when we talk about ecological compatibility is the important NFT operation. If you've seen the Yearn Vault charts, you already know that setup plays an important role in DeFi. Polygon, which is configurable like Ethereum, displays well. It has quickly become the best DeFi ecosystem and has accumulated over $3.5 billion in water. From the point of view of environmental friendliness, this is worth noting.

However, the growth of Polygon's DeFi ecosystem could also be a double-edged sword for NFT operations. Applications moving to Polygon will also compete for a block's insufficient space on the PoS chain, and if DeFi games continue to grow rapidly, this PoS could become the dominant chain. Ultimately, this will depend on the actual peak of the Polygon PoS chain and the growth in demand for DeFi. This may not be a problem, but low cost NFT performance will cost as much as in Ethereum L1. Of course, NFT-related tasks will be referred to another Polygon solution in the future. Compared to Immutable X's scalable architecture, this is less of a problem as it focuses on NFT and batch processing efficiency at scale.

Now that we can discuss each solution and its components, let's take a look at the list. As you can see in the figure below, we offer these solutions according to several criteria. A score of 5 represents the best choice in that category and a score of 1 represents the worst choice. It's not hard to see Ethereum dominating all teams except for access where the options are strongest. Of course, we have done our best to provide reasons, but training must be involved. Below, we'll look at each of these categories, what they mean, and the content determined in their scores.

Because throughput is quantifiable, results are intuitive. The TPS of Immutable X can reach 9000, Polygon 7200TPS, WAX 4000TPS, Flow 100TPS, Ethereum 15TPS.

Next, let's measure security. The Starkware L2 design with Immutable X may provide close security to Ethereum, but it's in the second because it will be different. Given ~100 unsecured, Polygon is in third. The river is four, but now it is very concentrated. As mentioned earlier, Flow has the potential to have more real-time impact and believes the Dapper Labs team has over 21 trusted EOS users that WAX relies on (personal opinion).

** Wallet: ** Adding a relationship to a wallet is easy, but it has a direct impact on the user experience. Polygon takes second place because it now supports most wallets, although users will need to do some additional configuration. Immutable X can support any Ethereum wallet with heavy user loads, but now only MetaMask is available, so we have to put it in the third one for now. WAX has created a very intuitive weather wallet, and Flow still seems to only offer storage solutions.

**Fiat Trading:** Since most people have yet to trade cryptocurrency, access to fiat currency will be crucial for major platforms. Being able to pay directly with your debit card is paramount to the success of NBA Top Shot and that's why Flow is #2. However, credit card payments can negatively impact user experience due to refunds. Polygon ranks third in the fiat industry due to its potential to interact with Ethereum. When considering the capabilities of cloud wallets, WAX is in fourth place. Immutable X should be in the last category for now, as there is currently no fiat-related market, but that will soon change.

** Developer Experience: ** We measure developer by ease of creation. Many things can affect this, such as detailed files, Github repositories, programming languages ​​used, existing tools, etc. When considering strong EVM relationships, Ethereum (strength) is number one and Polygon (strength) is number two. According to the manufacturers surveyed, the decision should be Flow (Cadence), WAX (C) and Immutable X (CAIRO). CAIRO is a very new language and should be used more widely over time.

Ecosystem compatibility relates to the ease with which each channel uses existing building blocks and the degree of ecosystem integration. Polygon's EVM compatibility ranks second. Here is the immutable X. As mentioned earlier, while not an EVM like Polygon, Immutable X can still benefit from the existing Ethereum ecosystem. EOS is far from the Ethereum ecosystem, but it still has its advantages, and WAX can benefit from it. Flow comes last because it doesn't yet have the same kind of open ecosystem or external business support.

** NFT "Brand Effect": ** We believe that the power of existing branded products is key to attracting new IPs to a particular platform. So, considering the huge success of NBA Top Shot and other IPs, Flow is only second to Ethereum. Immutable X lags behind and has already enjoyed plenty of solid game titles. Next up is Polygon, which has favored various DeFi bluechip and NFT projects, such as Aavegotchi. Last but not least WAX, which has recently become a popular product on the Topps MLB NFT side. WAX's relatively low-volume packaging industry (on a purchase price basis) was directly driven by low investment and market share, largely because it offered products cheaper and lower.

** Asset Liquidity: ** Finally, we define asset based on the ability to easily transfer assets from one chain to another (e.g. transfer to Ethereum L1). . Technically, Immutable X can improve the smooth content of NFTs on Ethereum without any risk. This is a polygon that can take up to 30 minutes to be removed from the PoS NFT chain. WAX is in fourth place because it is building a bridge to Ethereum, which has been on the map for quite some time. The debit plans for the two-way bridge are not yet clear, so they are on the final list.

** PS: ** Not all of these scores are comparable, not all values ​​are equal, and some are difficult to correct. For example, increasing the wallet supported by the solution is easier than immediately providing better security and access. The latter will require refinement and a redesign of the design. With that in mind, we started measuring their own characteristics so that we could use weights to correct our previous scores. The end result is a more accurate dashboard, as shown below.

We've adjusted the scores and final grade for the weight-matching options above. Although this weight is a bit elaborate, we have done our best to provide an accurate estimate.

As shown above, Immutable X ranks second to Ethereum in all scores, mainly due to its good understanding and security. It performs well in all the most important and difficult to improve situations. The polygon is behind. Polygon doesn't get the highest score of all, but it does get the worst score. In any case Polygon is a good solution that has no drawbacks in its field. Here are the two key factors that made the NBA Top Shot a success: strong energy and a fiat industry, Flow. Finally, there's WAX, which lags behind everything but some crossovers.

But things are changing rapidly in this business. As you can see from the figure below, Flow had a few indicators that captured the market until January 2021, but since then it has risen to a surprising level. . We are encouraged by the significant benefits NFT has received and will continue to focus on this path as it continues.

In the context of NFT cracking, we are often faced with the question: "Do decentralization and security matter?" This is an interesting question, especially when NFTs draw on the knowledge available from participating organizations.

When it comes to decentralization, the differences over the past ten years have been subtle by the average person to tell the difference with the community model. People are starting to think about the true (digital) heritage of open spaces, and the basic “walled garden” is still unclear. The emergence of reliable, intermediate and shared digital processes has led to NFTs. It is this foundation and potential that makes NFTs appealing and different from other forms of information passing through digital members. NFT is the smallest "internet share" that can be used to represent a wide range of digital devices, and has a unique background, assets, and resources. We believe that the reliability and integrity of networks providing NFTs are key factors that make NFTs profitable. These networks are attractive because everyone has them simultaneously, but in fact no one has them. Does the market value these devices as much as we do? The image below looks like a review of them.

To explain why security is so important for reputation and users, you can discuss the emergence of insecurity. Lack of security can lead to infiltrations and thefts, as well as uncertainty about the future of the NFT site. For large IPs attempting to put 3A mode on the chain, the risks posed by inadequate security should not be ignored.

Finally, if NFTs are successful in gaining adoption, end users won't even know what the core technology is. A good user experience included all the difficulties that were discussed. We hope that the information provided in this article will be useful to you. Now that you know what to think about, have you thought about where you are going to grow your digital business in the future?