The future of cryptocurrency is multi-chain and that means interoperability will become ever more important as the crypto ecosystem continues to expand polka dot and cosmos are two crypto projects that are competing for the interchain crown and the intensity of this competition has accelerated over the last few months today I’m going to compare two of the most powerful crypto projects out there and tell you which one has the most potential in both the short term and the long term.
The interaction between different blockchains is complex as the transfer cost between blockchains depends on the cost of the token, a token must move to a crypto exchange through the exchange process before a new token is initiated for the other blockchain. The process can be slow, expensive, complex as well as risky due to the participation of intermediates.
Cosmos is ultra-fast, easy to use, and already has a lot of successful projects running.
Today, it’s time to analyze polka dot and cosmos and find out which one will win. Let’s start with the founders of both projects.
- Polkadot was founded by Gavin Wood in 2016. Gavin holds a PhD in human-computer interfacing from the University of York one of the top universities here in the UK. Gavin co-founded Ethereum in 2013 & invented the solidity programming language. Used by a theorem authored the Ethereum yellow paper and even coded the first functional version of Ethereum.
- Gavin also played an instrumental role in the creation of substrate a software developer kit that makes it possible to create a cryptocurrency blockchain from scratch in a short amount of time.
- Polkadot, as well as various para chains, were created using the substrate.
- Now cosmos was founded by Jae Kwon in 2014 Jay holds a bachelor’s degree in computer science from Cornell University which has one of the highest-ranked computer science programs in the world.
- Jae Kwon invented a novel consensus mechanism for cryptocurrencies called tender mint which is very fast very secure but somewhat centralized.
- Jae also played an instrumental role in the creation of the cosmos SDK a software developer kit that likewise makes it possible to create a cryptocurrency blockchain from scratch in a short amount of time over. 50 cryptocurrencies have been created using the cosmos SDK including the binance smart chain.
All of these factors exist as blockchains do not have any particular connection. So, to overcome the problems different blockchains have solutions in the form of Polkadot and the Cosmos.
At present, it is quite difficult to find the compatibility between different blockchains. For the transfer of cost between blockchains, tokens must be moved to a crypto exchange followed by the exchange procedure before a new token is transferred to another blockchain. The process indicates how slow, expensive and risky it is, especially on the grounds of the involvement of intermediaries.
Both of these platforms, Polkadot vs Cosmos, have recently gained attention. They are unique protocols offering an interface to guide different state machines in communicating with each other. However, both of these platforms have their significant differences in various factors. The guide will explore the Cosmos vs Polkadot topic and try to look at which one is the better alternative for the implementation. But first, let’s know about the concept of blockchain interoperability or cross-chain technology, on which the result of the comparison effect.
Before moving to the topic of Cosmos vs Polkadot, let’s know about blockchain interoperability. Cross-chain technology or blockchain interoperability is a new technology allowing the transfer of value and details across the different blockchain networks.
Increased use of established networks such as Ripple, Bitcoin, and Ethereum, while beneficial, has resulted in several issues. The most significant are the economic and technical scalability limitations. Most blockchain systems work on isolated ecosystems to address a specific set of needs and to maintain the security
And due to the isolation factors, most users can’t reap the full benefits of blockchain technology. As different blockchains do not communicate with one another, the users face issues. So, scalable solutions are needed.
Also referred to as the internet of blockchains, Cosmos uses the ATOM token as its currency. It creates an expanding ecosystem of different interconnected decentralized apps as well as services.
The Cosmos network is a distributed system composed of independent, interoperable parallel blockchains linked by the IBC protocol and bridges to outside blockchains such as Ethereum and Bitcoin.
The first blockchain, The Cosmos Hub to launch on the network, aimed to provide services like security and decentralized transfer to the blockchains that access the network.
It has three distinct layers: application, agreement, and networking. These layers intend to allow for seamless communication among the blockchains in the network. Cosmos uses the Tendermint BFT( Byzantine Fault Tolerance) consensus algorithm. The Tendermint IBC protocol can now connect Layer 1 blockchains established on the network.
This infrastructure allows multiple blockchains to run Proof of Stake (PoS) agreements in sync while also providing basic functionality.
The Cosmos Software Development Kit (SDK) provides developers with a set of pre-built blockchain attributes, such as token minting, to enable them to build modular blockchains.
Cosmos provides scaling for Layer 2 protocols with this modular design. So that an app that performs on one blockchain on the Cosmos network can also communicate with all of the other chains connected to the system.
ATOM tokens process network transactions. Stakers are compensated for securing Cosmos Hub services. The guide will further discuss ATOM vs Polkadot to elaborate on the differences.
Polkadot was established in May 2020 by Ethereum co-founder Gavin Wood to help coordinate the decentralized web.
Polkadot design connects private and public blockchain networks, as well as oracles. The Polkadot transmission chain allows different blockchains to exchange data and information. Polkadot’s sharding model works on parallel chains defined as Parachains. These are the native blockchains that use the network’s consensus protocol and benefit from aggregated security. Bridges can also benefit various external blockchains for example Bitcoin and Ethereum.
Polkadot operates a hybrid consensus method– Ghost-based Recursive Ancestor Deriving Prefix Agreement (GRANDPA) as well as Blind Assignment for Blockchain Extension (BABE). This allows for blocks to be generated faster while the mechanism to finalize blocks runs in a separate process to reduce the risk of slowing or stalling transaction processing.
Polkadot Vs Cosmos Which Is Better
There are four factors to determine which protocol provides better communication across the platforms. And here are those-
This becomes critical when determining whether Polkadot or Cosmos is superior, as in this case. Polkadot utilizes multiple proposals to the governance in the case of low-turnout referendums. Whereas, the Cosmos, like many other blockchains, uses coin-vote signaling for governance decisions and referendums.
Cosmos vs Polkadot comparison also refers to the type of model used in them. Polkadot uses a sharded model where each protocol features an abstract STF. However, the STF only remains abstract until a validator executes them on a wasm environment, a meta protocol.
Cosmos has a bridge-hub model that connects Tendermint chains featuring several hubs, the most important of which is known as the ‘Cosmos Hub.’
Each hub links to several external chains defined as ‘zones.’ With an appropriately staked and decentralized validator set, each zone ensures the chain’s security. The bridge hub provides a better security pool as it has a decentralized validator set.
Polkadot uses a Relay Chain to serve as the main chain for the system. All the validators in Polkadot are present on the Relay Chain. The Parachains include collators to construct and propose Parachain blocks to validators, however, they do not offer any security.
On the other hand, Cosmos architecture includes a hub, the main chain, responsible for connecting other zones ( blockchain). Cosmos features multiple hubs which have their own validator set. The Zone has to communicate with another zone through the IBC protocol.
Polkadot relies on a hybrid consensus protocol as well as two sub-protocols including BABE and GRANDPA, referred to collectively as ‘Fast Forward.’ BABE assigns slots to validators using a verifiable random function, or VRF. GRANDPA uses a consensus approach that involves votes on chains rather than individual blocks. Both of them ensure that the candidate blocks authorization.
Cosmos makes use of the Tendermint consensus protocol, a round-robin protocol with the added benefit of instant finality. It entails producing and finalizing one block at a time. It relies on a PBFT-based algorithm for consensus, similar to GRANDPA. As a result, it finalizes one block at a time and demonstrates quadratic transport complexity.
Cosmos ATOM vs Polkadot Dot- The Token Comparison
In the token economy of Cosmos ATOM vs Polkadot, ATOM offers a more dynamic environment than a dot when it comes out of a transaction. However, the DOT is a recognizable token that currently trades at $10.10 and is up 3.7% in 24 hours, whereas the ATOM trades at $11.12 in 24 hours. Also, the ATOM is on the 27 positions of the ATL level, where DOT has secured 11th place winning the factor.
Now, based on the above information, blockchain users can decide which one is better. Cosmos offers better security while the Polkadot has a better transaction capacity. The business can decide the preference after considering their needs and the factors of Cosmos vs Polkadot
Polkadot is superior in terms of security. Relay chains and parachains have shared security for the bridge. Polkadot will remain a leader for quite some time.