Comparing Polkadot — SKALE — Cosmos
Introduction
This time we will compare the SKALE, Cosmos and Polkadot networks. Such a review could be done from many different perspectives, but I will be most interested in the approach of these networs to creating Multichain solutions.
Are there any similarities or differences in these networks and protocols, that allow us to assess the usefulness of these solutions for Web3 development ?
SKALE
SKALE is a modular multi-chain network consisting of scalable, interconnected blockchains. It allows developers to migrate their projects from the Ethereum network to one of the blockchains managed by SKALE to achieve high throughput, with zero gas fees. Of course, you don’t have to migrate from Ethereum, you can build your solutions from scratch straight on SKALE — both ways are possible.
Founded in 2018 by Jack O’Holleran and Stan Kladko, SKALE was designed to improve the overall user experience in the blockchain space. The vision of the project is to make blockchain applications fast, simple and free for all users.
With EVM (Ethereum Virtual Machine) compatible blockchains, SKALE creates a fast, gas-free ecosystem that supports the development of NFTs, games, DApps and more.
SKALE works in an Ethereum-integrated manner while running its own consensus mechanism. It also benefits Web3 and DeFi applications in terms of cost and performance, contributing to the development of Ethereum’s scalability for mass adoption.
SKALE is a multi-chain network. There could potentially be an unlimited number of SKALE chains that can act as independent blockchains that are interoperable and compatible with EVM. This means users can deploy their existing Ethereum-based smart contracts directly on SKALE chains and enjoy high throughput and low latency. Developers can also use SKALE chains to run smart contracts, decentralised storage, rollup contract, and much more.
Polkadot
Polkadot was designed to allow blockchains to exchange messages and perform transactions with each other without a trusted third party. This allows cross-chain data or asset transfer between different blockchains and the creation of decentralized applications (DApps) using the Polkadot network.
The Polkadot network has its origins in 2016. The underlying blockchain that is the consensus layer is the called a Relay Chain, into which many user-created chains called Parachains are docked. Relay Chain acts as a network management layer, while Parachains slots are auctioned, allowing independent projects to build and operate their own blockchains that live on Polkadot’s infrastructure
The RelayChain is responsible for validating data, reaching consensus, and ensuring transaction execution. It is estimated that the network can process 1,000 transactions per second.
The Polkadot team has developed its set of tools to make it easy to build chains compatible with this network. Many Parachains use Substrate as their Framework to build on the Polkadot environment.
Cosmos
Cosmos is an ecosystem of networks and tools for creating interoperable blockchains. Its main chain — Cosmos Hub — acts as a central point of contact for compatible blockchains called Zones. Each Zone is highly customizable, allowing developers to design their own cryptocurrency with custom block validation settings and other features.
Cosmos is a project that focuses on creating networks from various interoperable blockchains. Founded in 2014, it consists of a mainnet (blockchain Proof of Stake, or Cosmos HUB) and custom blockchains called Zones.
The main chain, Cosmos Hub, transfers resources and data between connected Zones and provides a common layer of security. They all work together using Tendermint, Cosmos’ custom consensus engine, and the overall app interface.
The Cosmos network is divided into three different layers: 1. Networking 2. Application 3. Consensus.
These three layers are connected through a set of tools and open source applications. Tendermint packs network layers and consensus into a ready-to-use engine. Blockchain developers using Tendermint only need to focus on the application layer, saving time and resources.
Comparing…
Now, comparing these networks, one could look at many different dimensions. Let’s take a look at how they support the creation of blockchains, how they ensure general security, interoperability, how capacious they are in terms of chains, speed, functionality and what adoption looks like currently.
Flexible blockchain development
Here, all three networks give us quite a lot of flexibility to create our own blockchains.
In the case of Polkadot, we have the Substrate as an environment that will allow us to easily create a chain that will be compatible with the ecosystem.
In the case of Cosmos, we have Tendermint which also allows us to create a blockchain compatible with the ecosystem. We can choose whether the created blockchain will be connected to the main network or will function independently.
In the case of Skale, we also have a great environemtn to create an independent chain based on Solidity and tools known from Ethereum, as it is based on EVM / Solidity . Well, programmers familiar with Ethereum tools will easily cope with creating their own chain on SKALE.
Well, in this respect, all networks look very good, providing ready-made solutions for creating blockchains, in any case they can leverage Ethereum practices.
Providing Security to Custom Chains
In the case of SKALE, developers who create their independent blockchains receive a random and rotating set of validators from the wide pool of SKALE Network validators, and for the services of these validators they will incur a Subscription fee. However, they do not have to worry about the most basic security services, transaction validation, consensus layers, because it comes with the service they pay for.
In the case of Polkadot, the creator of his chain can choose to be an independent entity and not join the network ecosystem. In this case, he must take care of his own safety. Most often, however, creators will want to be part of the ecosystem and use its services, so they will strive to join, fighting (through auctions) for being the chosen one to join the security chain described as Relay Chain. Participation in such an auction carries specific costs that, in one way or another, the operator of a given chain must incur if he wants to be part of the Polkadot ecosystem and be connected to RelayChain. A certain convenience is the Kusama *polka’s younger sister* environment, which gives a slightly lower level of security, it will allow a given chain to join a wider set of services,
In the case of the Cosmos network, each chain must take care of building its validators set, so building the security is in the resposibility of the builder. Connecting to the Cosmos HUB is possible and in the future it will also be possible to use the HUB as a security center (thanks to InterChainSecurity), while at the moment the Cosmos Hub serves as a communication and service center. Individual chains (built thanks to Tendermint) decides whether it wants to build its bridge using IBC to Hub or not. However, in the context of shared security, new opportunities will emerge, probably later this year.
Interoperability inside and outside of the ecosystem
Typically, all these networks provide great interoperability within their ecosystem. i.e. if on Polkadot a given chain is connected to Relay Chain, it can communicate with other chains which are also connected. And there are already dozens of them. However, if chain would like to communicate with external ecosystems such as Ethereum, Bitcoin or Algorand, it must rely on infrastructure elements that are created by other builders. So in the case of Polkadot, these would be other parachains that are plugged into the ecosystem and serve as bridges. Of course, such solutions are starting to appear, but they have their limitations and imperfections.
The situation is slightly different in the case of Cosmos. Because here, by definition, our Tendermint chain is stand-alone chain. However, it will be very easy to communicate with other chains in the ecosystem thanks to Cosmo Hub, which is to play just such a role of a routing hub between services (read chains). And here we have the choice to build a connection to the Hub thanks to IBC. If we do this, we become interoperable within the ecosystem. However, interoperability with other chains is a similar to what we know from Polkadot, i.e. we assume that someone has built such bridges for us. And of course, such bridges are slowly being created both to bitcoin and Ethereum, and in the future to other ecosystems.
The situation is not completely different in the case of Skale Network. Here, our Skale chain will by definition be interoperable within the Skale Network ecosystem. Skale also builds such unique chains within the ecosystem called HUBs. Hubs are chains that provide generic services that most other chains will probably want to use, such as liquidity hube or bridge to the outside world. One such bridge already exists, called the IMA bridge, and it is a bridge with Ethereum. And the whole matter of interoperability outside the ecosystems looks very similar to the competition, so again we rely on the fact that someone has to add modules that will connect to bitcoin, Polka or Algorand.
Transaction speed
Polkadot: The network currently operates at an average speed of 1,000 TPS, which is the declared value. Since Relay Chain plays a key role in the functionality of the Polkadot protocol, implementing asynchronous support will allow network speeds of 100,000 to 1,000,000 transactions per second (TPS) to be achieved.
Cosmos: Each Cosmos chain is theoretically capable of processing up to 10,000 TPS. Currently, there are nearly 50 Cosmos SDK chains connected by IBC, i.e. from 250,000 to 500,000 TPS is the estimated number of transactions of the entire network
SKALE: Recent measurements by Darmouth Blockchain proves 400 TPS per 1 blockchain (Transactions per Second) on SKALE, as well as a nice Time to Finality of 1.5 sec (TTF). With a total of 20 chains, this gives a measure of 8,000 TPS on the SKALE Network overall, and this number will depend on the increasing number of SKALE chains.
I wouldn’t be too excited about any of these results. All of them are good enough for the time being. And the most important thing is who will be the first to “clog their network”, i.e. reach the limit as a result of growing adoption.
Adoption
Each of these Network presents its level of adoption and the Ecosystem in a slightly different way, so it’s hard to compare it very diligently. At the same time, various websites are trying to compare the number of active developers, the number of projects, the number of transactions, and here too we have large discrepancies, so I encourage you to review it with your own research.
What I would really pay attention to is that Cosmos and Polkadot have been with us for a longer time. On the other hand, SKALE is relatively new compared to the competition, so it can’t be compared apple to apple.
If we look at how many applications are currently running on the SKALE mainnet, there are 19 Skale Chains.
Cosmos has 54 chains attached by IBC.
Polkadot has 42 parachains connected to the relay chain.
So we can say that in this respect Cosmos and Polka are ahead, more or less twice ahead of Skala, but also with a head start of 2–3 years.
PolkaDOT and Cosmos have been on the market twice as long, and SKALE is developing adoption quite strongly -> a year ago this network was almost empty in terms of the number of Chains, so progress is promising.
SKALE will attract users / creators / who need very fast finality and super low transaction cost. So games can be an interesting case of using this network and a contribution to exponentially growing adoption. We see that as of today, around 10M transactions is being executed over 30d period, and we will see how this develops further.
On the other hand, Cosmos, apart from the 50 chains that are currently connected to the HUB, has a very rich ecosystem of chains not in the heels of the ecosystem, so it has a very large number of developers interested in this ecosystem. Therefore, Polkadot and Cosmos are leaders in terms of the number of developers actively developing the Ecosystem, which is their long-term benefit, but we hope that SKALE will catch up with them, as the time goes by, having the advantage of leverage Ethereum toolkit, which is well familiar to Devs.
It seems to me that each of the ecosystems has a slightly different offer. Cosmos gives a lot of flexibility in what we can do with our own chain, Polkadot imposes certain limits and quite high costs of joining the ecosystem, attracts rather fatter players, and on the other hand, SKALE gives flexibility of construction and probably the greatest proximity to the Ethereum ecosystem, programmers might be happy seeing SKALE addressing the challenges knowf from Ethereum. Of course, it also costs money — so if speed and zero gas fees are important to someone, then they are probably willing to look for SKALE as a dev environment.
To sum up — adoption seems to me that it has a chance to progress quickly in all these ecosystems, while attracting slightly different players.
How it will actually evolve— time will tell, we will measure it in a few years! :)
Andrzej / DDD
