Cosmos, Polkadot, Avalanche aim at horizontal scaling using an asynchronous heterogeneous network model, where blockchains for specific applications have different virtual machines and can interoperate with other chains when needed. These infrastructure platforms provide capabilities to create their own blockchains, which greatly enhances the possibilities when designing decentralized applications and developing new assets. Running a project as its own blockchain instead of a set of smart contracts has three fundamental advantages:
Performance isolation: isolating your network from other networks ensures that your users’ experience is not affected by unrelated high activity on the network, so it provides better performance and you can connect to other networks when needed.
Predictable and customizable fees
The fees on the universal network are not under your control. The high activity of some applications on the network can increase the fee, which will be arbitrary for your application. Having a customizable board structure allows you to have a predictable board and eliminates the infrastructure between applications and their users. You don’t need ATOM, DOT, or AVAX to use application-specific chains. Not having to force users to use an infrastructure token to pay for services is critical for mass adoption.
Customizable Acknowledgments
Customizable Acknowledger rules and requirements orient your chain to the specific needs of a particular domain. Your network’s Acknowledgers may meet the requirements of certain jurisdictions, have high hardware performance requirements, or have specific evidence to qualify as an Acknowledger.
These next-generation networks also have bridges to Ethereum and to Bitcoin, and bridges to each other are under development to fully realize the vision of a blockchain inter-network.
Cosmos, Polkadot, and Avalanche have significant differences at the protocol level (e.g., consensus mechanism, economic security topology) that affect platform characteristics (e.g., interchain communication, token economics, types of possible applications) and how networks scale (e.g., confirmer participation, share assignment). The following comparison is intended to help developers, entrepreneurs, researchers, and anyone considering next-generation infrastructures. This comparison will help you understand the differences between these architectures and understand the tradeoffs that developers have made.
