Exposed: Blockchain Giants Overpromise by 20x – Taraxa’s Shocking Study Unveils the Truth

Key Points

• • Research suggests that many blockchain projects, including Sonic, Solana, and Aptos, overestimate their theoretical Transactions Per Second (TPS) compared to actual mainnet performance, with an average overestimation of 20 times.

• • It seems likely that Taraxa’s study, conducted by co-founder Steven Pu, introduces a new metric, TPS per Dollar, to measure cost-efficiency, showing Taraxa leading with 49.72 TPS per dollar.

• • The evidence leans toward significant discrepancies, with Sonic overstating TPS by over 100 times, impacting investor and developer trust.

• • An unexpected detail is that validator node costs vary widely, from $98.7 for Taraxa to around $1,014.40 for Solana, affecting cost-effectiveness.

Introduction to Blockchain Throughput

Blockchain throughput, measured in Transactions Per Second (TPS), is crucial for assessing a network’s scalability and efficiency. Theoretical TPS represents the maximum possible transactions under ideal conditions, while actual TPS reflects real-world mainnet performance. The Taraxa study, published on February 24, 2025, highlights a significant gap between these metrics, revealing overestimations that can mislead stakeholders.

Taraxa’s Study Findings

Steven Pu’s analysis of 22 blockchain networks, using data from Chainspect, found that theoretical TPS is often overstated by 20 times on average. Notably, Sonic (formerly Fantom) showed an overestimation factor of approximately 101x, with a theoretical TPS of 47,619 against an actual TPS of 471. The study introduces TPS per Dollar, calculated as actual TPS divided by the monthly validator node cost, emphasizing cost-efficiency. Taraxa leads with a TPS per Dollar of 49.72, thanks to its low validator cost of $98.7 per month, compared to higher costs like Solana’s $1,014.40.

Implications and Expert Insights

The discrepancy between theoretical and actual TPS can stem from network congestion, inefficient consensus mechanisms, and unrealistic assumptions. Steven Pu, in an interview, stressed the need for transparency: “Investors, developers, and users need accurate information to make informed decisions. Our study reveals that many projects are not meeting their claimed performance metrics, which can lead to misallocation of resources and trust issues within the community.” This call for realistic reporting is crucial for the blockchain industry’s credibility.

Survey Note: Comprehensive Analysis of Taraxa’s Blockchain Throughput Study

Background and Significance

In the rapidly evolving blockchain landscape, performance metrics such as Transactions Per Second (TPS) are pivotal for evaluating a network’s scalability and efficiency. TPS indicates how many transactions a blockchain can process per second, serving as a benchmark for its ability to handle high transaction volumes. Theoretical TPS is calculated under ideal conditions, considering factors like maximum block size and minimal block time, while actual TPS reflects the real-world performance observed on the mainnet, accounting for network congestion and operational constraints.

On February 24, 2025, Taraxa, a Layer-1 blockchain known for its blockDAG architecture and t-Graph consensus, released a study titled “Resource Efficiency of Realized Mainnet Throughputs of Layer-1’s” by co-founder Steven Pu. This study, leveraging data from Chainspect, analyzed 22 blockchain networks, excluding permissioned and state-sharded networks, to uncover a significant discrepancy between claimed theoretical TPS and actual mainnet performance. The findings, presented at ETHDenver on the same day, revealed an average overestimation of 20 times, with some projects like Sonic (formerly Fantom) showing overestimations exceeding 100 times. This revelation has sparked discussions on transparency and realistic reporting within the blockchain industry, impacting investor confidence and developer strategies.

Methodology and Metrics

The study’s methodology involved measuring TPS as the maximum historical TPS realized on the mainnet across a 100-block range, sourced from Chainspect, and excluding voting transactions to avoid inflation. Validator node costs were estimated using the Google Cloud Calculator, based on minimum hardware specifications from each blockchain’s official documentation, with data detailed at Taraxa Study Data. A novel metric, TPS per Dollar, was introduced, calculated by dividing the actual mainnet TPS by the monthly cost of running a single validator node. This metric aims to assess cost-efficiency, providing a balanced view of performance relative to operational expenses.

Detailed Findings and Comparisons

The study’s key findings include specific data for several prominent blockchains, as summarized in the following table:

• • Sonic (formerly Fantom): Sonic, rebranded from Fantom, claimed a theoretical TPS of 47,619, but Chainspect data showed an actual max TPS of 471, resulting in an overestimation factor of approximately 101x. The validator node cost, estimated at $507.20 per month based on 8 vCPUs, 32 GB memory, and 1 TB storage on Google Cloud, led to a TPS per Dollar of 0.93, indicating lower cost-efficiency compared to peers.

• • Solana: Known for high performance, Solana claimed a theoretical TPS of 65,000, with an actual TPS of 2,909, yielding an overestimation factor of 22.3x. The validator node cost, estimated at $1,014.40 per month for 16 vCPUs, 64 GB memory, and 2 TB storage, resulted in a TPS per Dollar of 2.87, reflecting moderate cost-efficiency given its high operational costs.

• • Aptos: Aptos boasted a theoretical TPS of 160,000, but actual TPS was 11,936, with an overestimation factor of 13.4x. The validator node cost, estimated at $547.20 per month for 8 vCPUs, 32 GB memory, and 2 TB storage, led to a TPS per Dollar of 21.81, showcasing strong cost-efficiency relative to its performance.

• • Taraxa: Taraxa claimed a theoretical TPS of 50,000, with an actual TPS of 4,906, resulting in an overestimation factor of 10.2x. With a validator cost of $98.7 per month, as per the study, Taraxa achieved the highest TPS per Dollar at 49.72, highlighting its efficiency and low hardware requirements, aligning with its blockDAG and t-Graph consensus design.

Analysis of Discrepancies

The discrepancy between theoretical and actual TPS can be attributed to several factors. Network congestion, especially during high transaction volumes, can significantly reduce actual TPS. Inefficient consensus mechanisms, such as those requiring extensive computation for each block, may not scale as expected in real-world conditions. Additionally, many projects calculate theoretical TPS under ideal scenarios, such as minimal latency and maximum block sizes, which are rarely achievable on mainnets. This overestimation can mislead stakeholders, leading to misallocated investments and unrealistic expectations for developers building decentralized applications.

Expert Insights and Industry Implications

Steven Pu, in an exclusive press release shared with media, emphasized the need for transparency: “Investors, developers, and users deserve transparency. The blockchain industry has long been obsessed with theoretical performance figures, but numbers generated in a lab mean little if they can’t be replicated in real-world conditions.” This sentiment underscores the study’s call for realistic reporting, which could foster greater trust and adoption in the blockchain ecosystem. The introduction of TPS per Dollar as a metric encourages projects to focus on cost-effective performance, potentially driving innovation in hardware optimization and consensus algorithms.

Conclusion and Future Directions

The Taraxa study serves as a critical benchmark for the blockchain industry, urging projects to align their performance claims with actual capabilities. By highlighting the overestimation of TPS and introducing TPS per Dollar, it provides a framework for evaluating cost-efficiency, with Taraxa setting a high standard at 49.72 TPS per Dollar. This shift toward transparency and realistic metrics could lead to more informed decision-making by investors and developers, ultimately enhancing the scalability and reliability of blockchain networks. Future research might explore additional metrics, such as energy efficiency per TPS, to further refine performance evaluations.

To illustrate the comparison, a details provided below, showing the overestimation factor and TPS per Dollar for each blockchain:

This visualization highlights Taraxa’s leadership in cost-efficiency and the significant overestimation by Sonic, reinforcing the study’s findings.

Key Citations

• • Chainspect Track Blockchain TPS

• • Taraxa Study Data