Avalanche Subnets, Polygon Supernets, & Cosmos App Chains: Research Report

An Examination of the Scalability, Interoperability, and Customizability Provided across Avalanche Subnets, Polygon Supernets, and Cosmos App Chains.

In the current blockchain development environment, there is a large amount of technology being built to solve the issue of scalability present within blockchain-based networks. As the demand for blockspace in traditional blockchain networks escalates, so does the network traffic, resulting in reduced performance, higher transaction fees, and increased congestion, all of which render the network less effective. In response to this, the industry has evolved to address these challenges and build forward.

This has led to a mass influx of new solutions being built and broadly speaking, these solutions tend to fall into one of three categories: Layer 2 Scaling Solutions, Application Specific Environments, and Modular Focused Development.

• Layer 2 Scaling Solutions: These systems aim to alleviate the stress on the main blockchain network, referred to as Layer 1, by handling transactions off-chain. Examples include Lightning Network for Bitcoin and Zero Knowledge and Optimistic Rollups for Ethereum. By conducting transactions off the main chain, these solutions allow for higher transaction throughput and lower fees, while still ensuring a level of security and decentralization.
• Application Specific Environments: These are intricately tailored platforms designed for dedicated applications — taking the load off the primary network and offloading to a dedicated chain. This offers a high degree of customization to optimize and align with the requirements of a specific use case, with the intent of bolstering both performance and operational efficiency. The flexibility and targeted nature of these environments allow them to deliver high throughput and enhanced user experiences, potentially revolutionizing the way blockchain technology is applied across various sectors.
• Modular Focused Development: This approach emphasizes the creation of modular, reusable components. By allowing developers to focus on individual modules, this model promotes flexibility, efficiency, and easier maintenance, speeding up development and ensuring robustness in the face of changing requirements or technological landscapes.

Each of these strategies presents its own advantages, offering unique solutions to the scalability issue, and contributing to the ongoing evolution and refinement of blockchain technology. However, our exploration doesn’t stop there. A fourth category is emerging, paving a new path in this dynamic landscape and representing a different approach to scalability and customization in blockchain technology.

In the pursuit of addressing inherent challenges with blockchains surrounding scalability and customization, we reviewed 3 different platforms and architectures, each with its own solutions that allow developers or groups to launch and operate their individual blockchains.

These three solutions are:

• Avalanche Subnets
• Polygon Supernets
• Cosmos Zones

(Note: We acknowledge that this list is not exhaustive and future work will focus on other app chain scaling solutions and architectures)

In this analysis, we have reviewed each solution and will specifically comment on the following variables:

• Core Architecture/Technology: This refers to the fundamental design and structure of the blockchain network, including the algorithms and protocols used for transaction processing, consensus, and security. Different architectures can lead to significant differences in the capabilities and characteristics of a blockchain.
• Scalability: Scalability is the ability of a blockchain to handle a growing amount of work or its potential to accommodate growth. Scalability is a major concern for many blockchains, as increased usage can lead to slower transaction times and higher costs.
• Speed: This refers to the rate at which transactions are processed and confirmed on the blockchain. Speed is a crucial factor for many applications of blockchain technology, especially those that require real-time or near-real-time transaction processing.
• Customizability: This refers to the extent to which a blockchain system can be tailored or modified to meet specific needs or requirements. Some blockchains are designed to be highly customizable, allowing developers to create their own smart contracts or applications on top of the blockchain. Customizability can be a key factor for businesses or developers looking to use blockchain technology for specific use cases.
• Security: Security in a blockchain context refers to the measures and features that protect the blockchain and its users from different types of attacks or fraudulent activities, including cryptographic techniques, consensus mechanisms, and other protective measures.

Core Network Architecture

Avalanche

Fundamentally, Avalanche is an open-source, permissionless protocol that anyone can leverage to establish their own distinct blockchain network powered by a novel consensus mechanism. The Avalanche family of consensus protocols enables Avalanche to provide sub-second, immutable finality.

This consensus mechanism is a significant improvement over previous consensus protocols. By combining the best features of Classical and Nakamoto consensus mechanisms, Avalanche consensus sets a new standard for powering high throughput, enabling near-instant finality, maintaining energy efficiency, and providing the ability to scale to infinite validators.

This efficiency is achieved through a process called “random subsampling,” where nodes in the network query a random subset of other nodes in the network to accept or reject a proposed transaction.

Random subsampling allows for sub-second transaction finality — meaning that transactions are finalized on the Avalanche blockchain in under 1 second before being propagated into the block, which has block times of less than 2 seconds, ensuring that transactions are quickly confirmed and irreversible. This also allows Avalanche to theoretically handle thousands of transactions per second, as the nodes can reach consensus faster and more efficiently, enabling the network to scale to an infinite number of participants. You can learn more about the novel Avalanche Consensus here.

On top of that consensus mechanism lies the Avalanche Primary Network, which is composed of 3 primary blockchains, each of which serves a unique purpose within the chain.

The Platform Chain (P-Chain) is responsible for coordinating validators, managing Subnets (custom validator sets), and handling the creation of new blockchains within the Avalanche ecosystem. It also handles the staking provisions for validators to participate in Avalanche Consensus.

The Contract Chain (C-Chain) runs an instance of the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) running on the Avalanche Network. It is compatible with Ethereum’s Solidity smart contracts and tooling, allowing developers to easily deploy Ethereum-based decentralized applications dApps) on Avalanche while utilizing Avalanche’s robust consensus. Smart contract execution with a high level of security, speed, and scalability.

The Exchange Chain (X-Chain) is the default asset chain on Avalanche for creating, issuing, or transferring assets. It powers asset transfers internally across the Avalanche ecosystem and externally to bridge to networks like Bitcoin and Ethereum.

Subnets: A subset of the Primary Network validators that agree to validate and host one or many blockchains.

The unique design of Avalanche Subnets allows for a highly personalized set of validators, with the ability to define their governing rules, facilitating the creation of a network of blockchains capable of running any virtual machine, and configured in either a permissioned or permissionless way. Learn more about Subnets here.

At the virtual machine level, this flexibility allows developers to run a dedicated instance of the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) for specific applications or as a scalability solution for Ethereum. Alternatively, they can operate a modified version of the EVM, equipped with stateful precompiles, to tailor its functionalities to their needs, such as adding allow lists, ensuring KYC/AML compliance, or enabling gasless relayers.

Developers also have the freedom to launch entirely custom non-EVM virtual machines. This could include complete smart contract virtual machines such as MoveVM or Solana VM, or even application-specific VMs, such as TokenVM or IndexVM, designed to cater to specific use cases.

At the validator level, this flexibility supports both permissionless and permissioned building models. Projects can set restrictions based on various parameters such as geographical locations and KYC compliance for validators or opt for a completely permissionless configuration with their native staking token through Elastic Subnets. All of these diverse setups are interconnected seamlessly through Warp Messaging, enhancing the overall network efficiency and scalability.

Paired with a managed blockchain service platform like AvaCloud, the suite of tooling surrounding the Subnet ecosystem is growing.

Polygon

(As of the time of writing this, the latest information is based on developments up to May of 2023. At this point, there has not been any announcement regarding a significant update or evolution such as a “Polygon 2.0.” Consequently, some of the details and insights shared here may have evolved or become outdated after this date. Please consult the most recent resources or directly visit the official Polygon website for the latest and most accurate information.)

Polygon is a scaling solution built to improve the performance of the Ethereum blockchain by using “sidechains,” which are separate blockchain networks that run parallel to the Ethereum main chain. These side chains handle computations and transactions off of the Ethereum main chain, which reduces the load on the main chain. The side chains periodically provide the main chain with a summary of their activity through their ‘plasma bridge’.

Polygon employs a Proof of Stake (PoS) consensus algorithm for securing its side chain. In this system, validators actively participate in the network and voluntarily lock up or ‘stake’ their tokens as a form of collateral, making their role involves validating transactions and appending new blocks to the blockchain.

Polygon pairs this approach with the use of the Istanbul Byzantine Fault Tolerance (IBFT) consensus protocol. IBFT is a variation of the Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance (PBFT) algorithm, specifically designed to cope with adverse conditions in public networks and provides a certain level of finality. IBFT limits permissionless participation, meaning that validators have to be explicitly specified, and only those specified can participate in the consensus process. This design might seem at odds with the decentralized ethos of blockchain, as it establishes a certain level of central control in the system. While this model enables effective consensus even in the presence of faulty nodes, it does so at the cost of limiting open network participation.

The Polygon network consists of three main layers:

1. Ethereum Layer: This layer consists of a series of smart contracts deployed on the Ethereum mainnet, which oversee critical functions such as staking management, rewards distribution, and validator registration, serving as essential components for the network's operation and security.
2. Heimdall Layer: This layer consists of the PoS Heimdall nodes that run in parallel to the Ethereum mainnet. The nodes monitor the staking contracts on Ethereum’s mainnet and commit checkpoints of the network’s state to Ethereum - this periodic snapshot allows for a checkpoint into the network’s state and helps ensure data availability and finality. Heimdall nodes employ Tendermint consensus
3. Bor Layer: This layer hosts the block-producing nodes, which are periodically rearranged by nodes operating on the Heimdall layer. The primary function of the Bor nodes is to compile transactions into blocks within the Polygon sidechain infrastructure. These nodes function utilizing GoEthereum, a widely recognized implementation of the Ethereum protocol.

On top of this architecture, Polygon has a suite of different services it offers to developers, with many different product offerings. These offerings include Polygon Supernets, PolygonID, Polygon Hermes, Polygon Edge (which is being sunsetted into a new offering), and Polygon zkEVM. For this report, we will focus on their primary scaling solution — Polygon Supernets.

Supernets are Polygon’s version of the infrastructure required to spin up application-specific blockchain networks. These networks allow applications to separate themselves from Ethereum and the main Polygon Sidechain by becoming their own chain. They are designed to increase the block space on the root chain, enhancing scalability and interoperability for decentralized applications. You can learn more about Supernets here.

Cosmos

The Cosmos Network is a network of different blockchains that are interoperable with each other. The blockchains are built using the Cosmos SDK, which is an open-source framework designed for building application-specific blockchains, either public and permissionless (PoS) or permissioned running Proof of Authority.

The primary objective of the Cosmos SDK is to allow developers to create application-specific blockchains from scratch while allowing these blockchains to interoperate with one another, similar to those mentioned above.

This vision is achieved through a modular architecture, where SDK-based blockchains are constructed using composable modules, which are open source and readily available for use. Modules are essentially self-contained pieces of code that encapsulate specific functionality for a blockchain application and are designed to be composable, meaning they can be used and combined in various ways to create a custom blockchain application. Each module defines its own state and transactions and contains its own message handlers, and they also expose an interactable interface for other modules. This allows developers to build complex applications by composing simple modules together, creating their own modules, and easily integrating them into their blockchain applications.

Cosmos introduces a concept known as the Object-Capability Model, a form of Capability-Based Security. This is an approach to managing access to the state that avoids hardcoding permissions into the state machine. Instead, the state machine is initialized with a set of capabilities. These capabilities, which are defined by the references an object holds, determine what the state machine can and cannot do, including its core functionalities and limits. This model is designed to address the threat of faulty or malicious modules in a Cosmos SDK ecosystem, favoring modularity in code design and ensuring reliable encapsulation in code implementation.

All of this operates on top of the CometBFT consensus engine, a state replication engine designed for the “interchain ecosystem and beyond.” It was initially a fork of Tendermint Core but ended up succeeding Tendermint Core as the official replication engine for the interchain stack. CometBFT’s long-term vision is to become the primary choice for a replication engineer that powers application-specific blockchains.

The network is designed around a unique architecture that consists of Hubs and Zones, which work together to facilitate inter-blockchain communication and ensure the overall security of the system.

1. Zones: Independent blockchains that are connected to one or more Hubs. Each Zone operates as its own blockchain network, runs its own consensus protocol, and maintains its own ledger. This allows each Zone to be tailored for specific use cases or applications, providing the flexibility to meet different needs within the ecosystem. For example, one Zone might be optimized for high-speed transactions, while another might be designed to handle complex smart contracts. Zones are not isolated and can communicate and interact with each other by passing messages through Hubs, enabling the transfer of assets and data across different blockchains.
2. Hubs: Blockchains that are specifically designed to connect different Zones and serve as the central connection point for Zones, facilitating communication and interoperability between them. Hubs maintain the security of the network by tracking the state of each connected Zone and managing the inter-zone communication process. The Cosmos Hub, the first hub in the Cosmos Network, is an example of such a blockchain. However, the architecture of Cosmos is designed to support multiple Hubs, with the intent of creating a network of interconnected blockchains.

Having delved into the fundamental architecture of these platforms and explored the diverse capabilities they offer, it's time to assess their real-world applicability. Ultimately, these solutions are tools, and their value lies in their ability to meet the needs of those who wield them. Developers, whether they're part of large enterprises or independent innovators, have specific requirements when it comes to building their blockchains.

The main areas we will assess:

• Scalability
• Customizability
• Speed
• Security

Scalability

Scalability is a critical aspect to consider when building a blockchain network. Traditional blockchain networks often face significant challenges as they expand, leading to issues such as high transaction fees, network congestion, and an overall inability to cope with increased demand. These challenges can render a blockchain network practically inoperable at scale, posing a significant concern for any developer or enterprise aiming to launch their blockchain. In light of these challenges, it’s crucial to select a platform that can scale effectively without succumbing to these common obstacles. It’s advisable to choose a platform that not only supports growth but also maintains performance and usability even as demand escalates.

The scalability of such a platform primarily hinges on two factors:

• Ability to Scale to Infinite Validators: The platform should be able to support an increasing number of validators without compromising on performance or security. This means that as the network grows, it should be able to accommodate more validators to maintain the decentralization and security of the network.
• High Throughput: The platform should have a high transaction throughput, meaning it can process a large number of transactions per second. This is crucial for maintaining fast and efficient operations, especially as the network grows, and the number of transactions increases.

Scalability Considerations in Supernets

Supernets, with their independent blockchains for transaction processing, initially appear to offer a scalable solution compared to a primary network. However, upon closer examination, there are significant technical considerations that could potentially impact their scalability.

Limited Validators: Supernets use the PolyBFT consensus mechanism, which imposes a cap of 100 on the total number of validators across the network. This cap can have significant implications for both scalability and decentralization. Having a limited number of validators can make the consensus process more efficient, as fewer nodes need to communicate with each other to reach consensus. This can lead to faster transaction processing times, especially when the network is not heavily loaded.

This cap can limit the network’s ability to scale. As the number of Supernets and the volume of transactions increase, these 100 validators may not be able to process transactions quickly enough to keep up with the demand. This could lead to network congestion, slower transaction processing times, and potentially higher transaction fees. Moreover, the cap on validators also has implications for the decentralization of the network. Fewer validators mean that control of the network is concentrated in fewer hands, which could lead to centralization. This could potentially make the network more vulnerable to attacks or manipulation by a small group of validators.

High Throughput: Supernets operate on the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) and zkEVM. While the EVM is robust and widely adopted, it has faced challenges with network congestion and high transaction fees during periods of high demand. zkEVM, on the other hand, uses zero-knowledge proofs to improve scalability, but it is still in its early stages of development.

The ability of a platform to process a large number of transactions per second, known as transaction throughput, is a critical factor in assessing its scalability. High throughput is essential for maintaining fast and efficient operations, especially as the network grows, and the number of transactions increases.The transaction throughput is influenced by several factors, including the consensus mechanism, the cap on validators, and the limitations of EVM and zkEVM.

Scalability Considerations in Cosmos Hubs and Zones:

Cosmos, with its unique architecture of Hubs and Zones, offers a distinct approach to scalability. The Cosmos network is structured around a Hub, a blockchain that connects to multiple other blockchains known as Zones. This structure allows each Zone to operate independently, processing its transactions and maintaining a separate ledger, and can potentially offer significant scalability advantages, as each Zone can process transactions concurrently with others.

However, there are important considerations to bear in mind. The consensus mechanism of Cosmos, known as CometBFT, also limits the active validator set. According to the Cosmos documentation, the Cosmos Hub has 180 validators, (but it’s important to mention that over time the number of validators can be increased with governance proposals). The validators are determined by the total number of ATOM tokens delegated to them — the top 180 validator candidates with the most voting power are the current Cosmos validators.

Limited Validators: The cap on validators can have implications for both scalability and decentralization. Having a limited number of validators can make the consensus process more efficient, as fewer nodes need to communicate with each other to reach consensus. This can lead to faster transaction processing times, especially when the network is not heavily loaded.

This cap can limit the network's ability to scale. As the number of Zones and the volume of transactions increase, these validators may not be able to process transactions quickly enough to keep up with the demand. This could lead to network congestion, slower transaction processing times, and potentially higher transaction fees. Moreover, the cap on validators also has implications for the decentralization of the network. Fewer validators mean that control of the network is concentrated in fewer hands, which could lead to centralization. This could potentially make the network more vulnerable to attacks or manipulation by a small group of validators.

High Throughput: Cosmos uses the Inter-Blockchain Communication (IBC) protocol to allow different Zones to communicate with each other. This means that while you can have multiple Zones operating concurrently, there is a built-in mechanism for these Zones to communicate and share load. This could potentially lead to efficiencies and increased scalability as the network scales.

Since the Cosmos network is not solely EVM-based, it does not suffer from the same scalability issues as Ethereum. This also means that it may not be fully compatible with Ethereum's tooling and ecosystem, potentially creating additional challenges for developers. The ability of a platform to process a large number of transactions per second, known as transaction throughput, is a critical factor in assessing its scalability. High throughput is essential for maintaining fast and efficient operations, especially as the network grows and the number of transactions increases. With Cosmos, the transaction throughput is influenced by several factors, including the consensus mechanism, the cap on validators, and the use of the IBC protocol.

Scalability Considerations in Avalanche Subnets:

Avalanche employs a unique approach to scalability through the use of Subnets, which are essentially sub-networks within the larger Avalanche network. Each Subnet is a collection of validators working together to achieve consensus on the state of a set of blockchains. Each Subnet can have its own set of validators, and these validators can be a subset of the validators of the Avalanche network.

Unlimited Validators: Unlike some other blockchain networks, the Subnets in Avalanche are not limited by a cap on the number of validators. This allows for potentially unlimited scalability as the network can continue to grow with the addition of more validators. This is a significant advantage for large-scale applications that require high transaction throughput. The absence of a cap on validators not only enhances scalability but also promotes decentralization. With more validators, the control of the network is distributed among a larger group, reducing the risk of centralization and making the network more resilient to attacks or manipulation.

High Throughput: Avalanche employs a unique consensus protocol known as Avalanche Consensus, which allows for rapid finality of transactions and scales well as the network grows. This consensus protocol is highly efficient and enables high transaction throughput, further enhancing the scalability of the network. The ability of a platform to process a large number of transactions per second, known as transaction throughput, is a critical factor in assessing its scalability.

High throughput is essential for maintaining fast and efficient operations, especially as the network grows and the number of transactions increases. The transaction throughput is influenced by the consensus mechanism and the absence of a cap on validators. Avalanche's Subnet model also provides a high degree of flexibility and customization. Developers can create Subnets tailored to their specific needs, taking advantage of the best attributes from the initial Avalanche network. In addition to this, Avalanche's architecture allows for the creation of custom VMs. This means that developers can create VMs that are specifically designed to handle the requirements of their applications, further enhancing the scalability and efficiency of the network.

Customizability

In today’s rapidly evolving world, one size does not fit all. Different applications have different needs, and a blockchain network that works well for one use case may not be suitable for another. This is where the concept of customizability comes into play.

Blockchain customizability refers to the ability to tailor the network's features and functionalities to meet specific requirements. This can include aspects such as the consensus mechanism, the transaction validation process, the structure of the network, and even the programming language used for smart contracts. The ability to customize a blockchain network is crucial for developers and enterprises. It allows them to build solutions that are perfectly suited to their needs, rather than having to adapt their applications to fit the constraints of a pre-existing network. This can lead to more efficient, effective, and innovative solutions.

This adaptability hinges primarily on two factors:

1. Control Over Validator Sets: Developers should have the capacity to manage and regulate the validator sets. This includes the ability to decide whether the validation process is permissioned or permissionless, whether there are geographical restrictions or freedoms, and whether there are Know Your Customer (KYC) or Anti-Money Laundering (AML) compliance requirements. This level of control is vital as it directly influences the network's consensus mechanism, and consequently, its security and performance.

2. Technical Flexibility: Developers should have the freedom to construct any state machine or application as per their requirements. This encompasses the ability to create custom virtual machines, design unique smart contracts, gas token customization, and more. However, it's important to note that while this technical flexibility can drive innovation, it also requires a deep understanding of blockchain technology to ensure that the resulting applications are secure, efficient, and effective.

Customizability Considerations in Polygon Supernets:

Control Over Validator Sets: Polygon Supernets employ a consensus mechanism known as PolyBFT, which uses the Istanbul Byzantine Fault Tolerance (IBFT) 2.0 consensus engine. This engine is responsible for validating candidate blocks proposed by a randomly selected block proposer from the validator pool. The frequency of selection is proportional to the voting power of the validator. However, PolyBFT caps the number of validators at around 100 to maintain the system’s security and prevent it from becoming economically vulnerable. The validator set in PolyBFT does not update with each block but is fixed during block periods known as epochs. At the end of an epoch, a special state transaction is emitted to the validatorSetManagementContract, notifying the system about the validators’ uptime during the epoch. The smart contract then rewards validators based on their uptime and updates the validator set for the next epoch.

Technical Flexibility: In terms of technical freedom, Polygon Supernets only supports the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM). There have been discussions about integrating a variant of the zkEVM into Supernets, which would provide developers with a choice between the traditional EVM or the zkEVM. However, no projects have confirmed successful launches with this feature. This limitation could pose a significant constraint for developers interested in launching blockchains with custom virtual machines not specifically tied to the EVM.

Please note that the information provided here is based on the current state of Polygon Supernets and may change as the platform evolves. For the most accurate and up-to-date information, please refer to the official Polygon documentation and announcements.

Customizability Considerations in Cosmos Zones:

Control Over Validator Sets: Cosmos operates with a unique consensus mechanism known as Tendermint, which allows developers to have a significant degree of control over validator sets. Validators in Cosmos are chosen based on the amount of ATOM tokens they have staked, with the top 125 candidates by total voting power becoming validators. This process is not entirely permissionless, as it requires staking ATOM tokens and being among the top candidates in terms of total voting power. The number of validators can be increased through governance proposals, providing some flexibility in the network's consensus mechanism.

The Cosmos Hub operates with a designated set of validators, currently capped at 180, who shoulder the responsibility of committing new blocks to the blockchain. These validators engage in the consensus protocol by broadcasting cryptographically signed votes, authenticated with each validator's private key. The selection of validators is primarily based on the total delegation of ATOM tokens they receive, with the top 175 candidates, in terms of total voting power, becoming the active validators for the Cosmos Hub. Validators, along with their delegators, earn ATOM through block provisions and transaction fees. Validators have the discretion to set a commission rate on the fees their delegators receive. But, validators who engage in double signing or remain offline for an extended duration risk having their staked ATOM slashed, with the severity of the penalty contingent on the nature of the violation.

Technical Flexibility: Cosmos provides developers with a high degree of technical flexibility through the use of Cosmos SDK and the ability to create Cosmos Zones. The Cosmos SDK allows developers to build custom state machines and applications, with each module providing a specific piece of functionality. This could include account management, token transfers, or governance, among other things. Cosmos Zones, on the other hand, are independent blockchains that can be designed for specific purposes or applications, and they can communicate with each other by passing messages through Hubs.

Customizability Considerations in Avalanche Subnets:

Control Over Validator Sets: With Avalanche Subnets, developers have a high degree of control over their validator sets, allowing them to tailor the network to their specific needs. A Subnet is essentially a subset of validators, and developers can set any criteria they wish for validators to meet to participate in their network. This could range from creating a permissionless network where anyone can participate and validate transactions, to a permissioned network where only validators, who have undergone KYC (Know Your Customer) procedures, can participate and process transactions.

If a developer wants validators to be from certain geographical locations, Avalanche Subnets can accommodate this requirement. This level of customization and control is particularly beneficial for enterprises that need to operate their private blockchain network, providing them with the ability to set rules and parameters that best align with their business needs and regulatory requirements.

At the same time, it empowers individual developers to build open and distributed applications, fostering innovation and inclusivity in the blockchain space. This is possible due to the flexibility in Avalanche’s novel consensus protocol. Unlike other blockchain networks that have a fixed set of validators, Avalanche allows for the creation of multiple, dynamic validator sets (Subnets). Each Subnet operates its blockchain, or blockchains, and can have its own unique properties and validation rules. This design enables a high degree of customization and scalability.

Technical Flexibility: Avalanche provides developers with an unparalleled level of flexibility, enabling them to deploy virtually any application or virtual machine tailored to their specific use cases. This flexibility is largely due to Avalanche’s fluid consensus mechanism, which allows for the seamless integration of various virtual machines. Developers can launch their instances of a modified Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM), or even deploy complete Layer 1 virtual machines such as MoveVM or SolanaVM. They can also create application-specific virtual machines - using tools like the HyperSDK or RustSDK to create VMs like a TokenVM for token operations, an IndexVM for indexing data, or a SocialMediaVM for social media applications.

Speed

Speed, particularly in terms of time to finality, is a crucial factor in the performance and usability of a blockchain network. Time to finality refers to the amount of time it takes for a transaction to be confirmed and finalized on the blockchain, meaning it cannot be reversed or altered. This metric is important because it directly impacts the user experience: the faster the time to finality, the quicker users can be confident that their transactions have been securely processed.

Speed also affects the scalability of a blockchain network. A network that can process transactions quickly is better equipped to handle larger volumes of transactions, which is a key aspect of scalability. A fast time to finality can enhance the security of a blockchain network. The quicker a transaction is finalized, the less opportunity there is for malicious actors to attempt to double-spend or otherwise manipulate the transaction.

Achieving a fast time to finality can be a complex task. It requires a well-designed consensus mechanism that can quickly and efficiently validate and finalize transactions, while also maintaining the security and decentralization of the network. Therefore, when evaluating a blockchain platform, it's important to consider not only its current time to finality but also how it plans to maintain or improve this metric as the network scales.

Speed in Polygon Supernets:

Polygon Supernets utilize the Istanbul Byzantine Fault Tolerance (IBFT) 2.0 consensus engine, which plays a crucial role in adding new blocks to the blockchain. The validator pool in IBFT 2.0 is responsible for validating candidate blocks proposed by a randomly selected block proposer who is part of the validator pool. The frequency of selection is proportional to the voting power of the validator. In an ideal scenario, the validator pool reaches consensus on a candidate block in the first round of voting, allowing the block to be added to the blockchain without the need for additional rounds of voting. This efficient process enables the network to continue processing transactions and adding new blocks to the chain promptly.

While the specific time to finality for Polygon Supernets is not explicitly mentioned, it's worth noting that the finality time for Polygon's Proof of Stake (PoS) system is approximately 2 seconds. Additionally, their Zero-Knowledge Ethereum Virtual Machine (zkEVM) has a finality of 2-3 seconds.

Speed in Cosmos Zones:

The Cosmos Network, including the Cosmos Hub and various Zones, are built on the Tendermint consensus algorithm. This algorithm is known for its fast finality, typically ranging from 1 to 6 seconds. This means that once a transaction is included in a block and that block is committed, the transaction is considered final and cannot be reversed. This is a significant improvement over many other blockchain networks, where finality can take minutes or even hours.

It's important to note that the finality time in Cosmos can vary depending on the specific configuration of each Zone or Hub. Factors that can influence finality time include the block time (i.e., the time it takes to create a new block) and the number of validators (i.e., the nodes that participate in the consensus process). A larger number of validators might increase the time it takes to reach consensus, while a shorter block time might decrease the finality time. In addition, while the Tendermint consensus algorithm offers fast finality in theory, practical considerations can introduce slight delays. Network latency, which is the delay caused by the time it takes for a data packet to travel from one point to another in the network, can affect the finality time. Other factors, such as hardware performance and network congestion, can also introduce delays. Therefore, while Cosmos offers fast finality times compared to many other blockchain networks, the actual finality time can vary depending on a variety of factors. It's always important to consider these factors when evaluating the performance of a blockchain network.

Speed in Avalanche Subnets:

Avalanche Subnets run an instance of the Avalanche consensus mechanism which is a novel approach to achieving consensus in a distributed network. It's designed to offer high scalability and speed, with a particular emphasis on achieving sub-second finality. The Avalanche consensus protocol operates on a principle of repeated sub-sampling and voting. In this process, a small, random subset of validators is sampled, and each validator in the sample votes on the state (or color) of a transaction. This process is repeated multiple times, with each validator updating its preference based on the votes it observes. Over time, the system converges towards a single color, achieving consensus. This repeated sub-sampling and voting process is what allows the Avalanche consensus protocol to achieve sub-second finality.

Because each round of voting brings the system closer to consensus, and because these rounds can be conducted very quickly, the system can confirm and finalize transactions in less than a second. This is a significant improvement over many other blockchain networks, which can take much longer to finalize transactions. The Avalanche consensus protocol also provides strong safety guarantees. It ensures that two correct nodes may make conflicting decisions, but with an infinitely small probability. This probabilistic safety guarantee allows Avalanche to provide a high degree of security while also maintaining fast transaction speeds and high scalability.

It's worth noting that while the Avalanche consensus protocol is effective, Avalanche recommends using the upgraded version of Avalanche consensus. Snowman++ is an optimized version of the Avalanche consensus protocol, designed to offer improved performance and efficiency. It maintains the same safety and liveness properties as the original Avalanche consensus but is more efficient in terms of computational and communication overhead.

Security

Security is a cornerstone of blockchain technology and plays a pivotal role in the performance and reliability of blockchain networks. It is the safeguard that ensures transactions are processed accurately, assets are stored securely, and the network remains resilient against potential threats. Without robust security measures, a blockchain network becomes vulnerable to a variety of attacks, such as double-spending, Sybil attacks, and 51% attacks, which can lead to significant losses and undermine the network's credibility. In the context of our discussion on scalability, customizability, and speed, security takes on an even more critical role.

As blockchain networks scale to handle larger volumes of transactions, they must also enhance their security measures to protect against increased threats. Similarly, as networks offer greater customizability and technical flexibility, they must ensure that these features do not compromise the network's security. Lastly, as networks strive to achieve faster transaction speeds and lower times to finality, they must also maintain robust security to prevent attacks that could exploit these efficiencies. Security in a blockchain network is achieved through a combination of cryptographic techniques, consensus mechanisms, and network architecture.

Cryptographic techniques, such as hashing and digital signatures, ensure the integrity and non-repudiation of transactions. Consensus mechanisms, like the PolyBFT in Polygon Supernets, the Tendermint-based consensus in Cosmos, or the Snow consensus protocol in Avalanche, ensure that all nodes in the network agree on the state of the blockchain. Network architecture, including the use of peer-to-peer networks and decentralization, helps to prevent single points of failure and increases the resilience of the network.

Achieving a high level of security is not a static task. It requires ongoing vigilance, regular updates, and continuous improvements to stay ahead of potential threats. As the blockchain ecosystem continues to evolve and grow, so too do the potential security risks. Therefore, when evaluating a blockchain platform, it's important to consider not only its current security measures but also how it plans to maintain and enhance its security in the future. This is particularly relevant when considering the trade-offs between scalability, customizability, speed, and security in different blockchain platforms.

Security in Polygon Supernets:

Polygon Supernets employ Polygon Byzantine Fault Tolerance (PolyBFT) which is composed of two key components: a consensus engine and a consensus protocol. PolyBFT leverages the Istanbul Byzantine Fault Tolerance (IBFT 2.0) consensus engine and a Proof-of-Stake architecture to seal blocks, provide network capabilities, and govern the network. The core smart contracts work in conjunction with the consensus engine to define all the network's Proof-of-Stake rules.

The IBFT 2.0 protocol, which forms the basis of the PolyBFT consensus engine, is responsible for sealing blocks on the blockchain. This protocol ensures the integrity of the network even in the presence of malicious or dishonest nodes. To achieve fault tolerance, IBFT allows for f faulty nodes in a 3f + 1 network, as long as two-thirds of the nodes are honest. This algorithm is also known as a "super-majority rules'' algorithm. The PolyBFT consensus protocol is implemented through a set of core smart contracts. These contracts serve multiple purposes, including enabling staking functionality, defining an incentivization scheme for validators on the network, managing the validator set, and facilitating cross-chain communication through a native bridge.

The bridge is a critical component of the network's interoperability, transferring assets and data between a Supernet and an external EVM-compatible blockchain (root chain). Two predicate contracts, one on the Supernet and one on the rootchain, implement the core bridge functionality and use the associated core contracts to deposit, withdraw, and verify cross-chain bridge transactions. In terms of security, the PolyBFT consensus mechanism, coupled with the Proof-of-Stake architecture and the use of core smart contracts, provides a robust framework for maintaining the integrity and security of the Polygon Supernets. The use of a super-majority rules algorithm in the consensus protocol, further enhances the network's resilience against malicious activities.

The security of Polygon Supernets is dependent on the behavior of its validators. The capped number of validators (around 100) in the PolyBFT mechanism is a measure to maintain the system's security and prevent it from becoming economically vulnerable. Butthis also means that the security of the network is concentrated in these validators, making the network potentially more susceptible to collusion or malicious activities by a small number of validators. While Polygon Supernets have robust security measures in place, like any other blockchain network, they are not immune to potential security risks. Therefore, users and developers must understand these risks and consider them when choosing to build on or use Polygon Supernets.

Security in Cosmos Zones and Hubs:

Cosmos, with its unique architecture of Hubs and Zones, has implemented a variety of security measures to ensure the safety and integrity of its network. The Cosmos Hub, which is the first hub in the Cosmos Network, is secured by a set of validators that are responsible for committing new blocks in the blockchain. These validators participate in the consensus protocol by broadcasting votes that contain cryptographic signatures signed by each validator’s private key.

Validator candidates can bond their ATOM and have ATOM delegated to them by token holders. The Cosmos Hub has a set number of validators (currently 175), but over time the number of validators can be increased with governance proposals. Validators are determined by the total number of ATOM tokens delegated to them. The top 175 validator candidates with the most voting power are the current Cosmos validators.

Validators and their delegators earn ATOM as block provisions and tokens as transaction fees through the execution of the Tendermint consensus protocol. Validators can set a commission percentage on the fees their delegators receive as an additional incentive. If validators double sign or are offline for an extended period, their staked ATOM (including ATOM of users that delegated to them) can be slashed. The penalty depends on the severity of the violation.

In terms of technical security, Cosmos uses the CometBFT consensus engine, a state replication engine designed for the interchain ecosystem. This consensus engine provides a high degree of security and reliability, ensuring that all transactions are accurately replicated across the network.

Shared Security, also known as Interchain Security, is a feature in development within the Cosmos network that aims to bolster the security of individual chains or "zones". The concept revolves around the idea that multiple chains within the Cosmos network can pool their security resources. Newer or smaller chains can benefit from the security provided by the validators of more established chains like the Cosmos Hub.

This is achieved through a shared security model where individual zones can connect to the Cosmos Hub and utilize its validators and staking tokens to secure their own chains. A shared security model can significantly enhance the overall security of individual zones by leveraging the established security resources of the Cosmos Hub. However, it also introduces potential risks.

If a large number of zones are connected to the Cosmos Hub and rely heavily on its validators and staking tokens, it could create a central point of failure. This centralization could potentially be exploited by malicious actors, thereby posing a risk to the entire network. Moreover, the security of individual zones can vary based on their implementation and validator set. Zones with a small or centralized set of validators may be more susceptible to attacks, even with Shared Security in place.

It's important to note that Shared Security is still a feature in development within the Cosmos network, and its implementation may evolve over time. For the most accurate and up-to-date information, please refer to the official Cosmos documentation.

Security in Avalanche Subnets:

This protocol is designed to provide robust security while maintaining high performance and scalability. Avalanche Consensus employs a probabilistic safety model, which means that while it's theoretically possible for a conflicting decision to be made, the probability of such an event is infinitesimally small. This model allows Avalanche to provide a high degree of security while maintaining fast transaction speeds and high scalability.

The security model is further enhanced by the ability to customize the validator set. Developers can specify any criteria they wish for validators to meet in order to participate in their network. This could include KYC/AML checks, geographic restrictions, or other requirements. This flexibility allows developers to tailor the security model of their Subnet to their specific needs. Each Subnet in Avalanche operates its own blockchain, or blockchains, and can have its own unique properties and validation rules. This design enables a high degree of customization and scalability, while also providing isolation between Subnets.

If one Subnet were to be compromised, the impact would be contained within that Subnet and would not affect the rest of the Avalanche network. It's important to note that while Avalanche provides these robust security features, the security of individual Subnets ultimately depends on their specific implementation and validator set. Developers need to carefully consider their security requirements and design their Subnet accordingly.

Conclusion

The advent of scalability solutions like Polygon Supernets, Cosmos, and Avalanche Subnets is reshaping the way we perceive scalability, customizability, and security in the blockchain sphere. These platforms bring unique strengths to the table, offering a diverse array of solutions for developers and enterprises alike. Polygon Supernets, with their PolyBFT consensus mechanism, provide a robust platform for developers, particularly those already familiar with the Ethereum ecosystem. The integration of the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) offers a familiar environment for developers to build upon. However, the platform’s scalability and customizability are somewhat constrained by the fixed validator set and the lack of support for custom virtual machines beyond the EVM.

Cosmos introduces a novel approach to blockchain architecture with its Hub and Zone model. This design offers a high degree of scalability and customizability, allowing developers to create application-specific blockchains that can interoperate seamlessly. The planned implementation of Shared Security or Interchain Security promises to enhance the security of individual zones, although the security of each zone can still vary based on its specific implementation and validator set. Cosmos stands as a beacon of innovation in the blockchain space, pushing the boundaries of what’s possible with blockchain technology.

Avalanche distinguishes itself with its Subnets, which offer strong customizability and scalability. Developers can specify custom validator sets and deploy virtually any application or virtual machine, opening up a world of possibilities for blockchain development. Coupled with Avalanche’s consensus protocol, which provides sub-second finality times and robust security, Avalanche Subnets represent a significant leap forward in blockchain technology.

The security of individual Subnets depends on their specific implementation, underscoring the importance of careful planning and design. The choice between these platforms will hinge on the specific needs and objectives of the developers and the use case at hand. Each platform offers unique advantages and potential challenges, underscoring the importance of careful evaluation and consideration.

As we continue to witness the evolution and maturation of these platforms, we can anticipate a future filled with even more innovative solutions and applications in the blockchain space. The journey of blockchain technology is just beginning, and platforms like Polygon Supernets, Cosmos, and Avalanche are paving the way towards a future where blockchain technology is an integral part of our digital lives.

Written by Usman Asim