Ethereum

NEAR Protocol

Future

Bitcoin

Polygon

NEAR vs MATIC: Similarities and Differences 
Compare NEAR and Polygon for similarities and differences. Analyze tech, ecosystem, and future prospects. 
Bitcoin brought blockchain technology to the financial ecosystem. Ethereum, on the other hand, extended the scope of what could be done with a blockchain. Smart contracts and decentralized applications gave way to possibilities beyond financial transactions. However, Ethereum’s initial infrastructure wasn’t ready to handle high throughput. As soon as it became too popular, network congestion slowed down the blockchain and increased fees. 
The community took two approaches to solve that. Some developers created tools to improve Ethereum’s network, like Polygon. Others created Ethereum alternatives, in direct competition with it, like NEAR Protocol. Although Ethereum already upgraded its blockchain to solve its issues, these protocols already exist within the crypto ecosystem. Which one is a better option in the <a href="https://godex.io/versus/near-vs-matic">NEAR vs MATIC</a> battle? Let’s review their features to find out. 
<h2 id="technology-and-architecture">Technology and Architecture</h2> 
Ethereum’s main obstacle is the question of achieving scalability, security, and decentralization. This is known as the blockchain trilemma. NEAR Protocol’s solution implements a concept known as sharding. This technology splits the blockchain into several fragments that validation nodes can process independently, instead of processing the whole chain. Validated transactions are then shared across the network. 
Polygon, on the other hand, doesn’t look to compete against Ethereum. It aims to help it overcome its limits. This protocol is a layer two solution that works on top of the Ethereum main chain. This sidechain takes Ethereum transactions and validates them over a faster and cheaper network, and then “reports” the final transactions to the main chain. Developers can build their DApps on Polygon, and they would be interoperable with Ethereum. 
Both protocols use a Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus mechanism, and even Ethereum switched to PoS in recent years. This means investors can stake their tokens to participate in the validation process, and get rewards from it. The tokens can be purchased or swapped by other coins, trading USDT to MATIC or <a href="https://godex.io/exchange/sol-to-beam">SOL to BEAM exchange</a> pairs. 
<h2 id="scalability-and-performance">Scalability and Performance</h2> 
The sharding process allows NEAR Protocol to handle over 100,000 transactions per second, with a block time of one second, and minimal fees. In comparison, Polygon can process up to 65,000 transactions per second, with a two-second block time. Neither of these chains has suffered from congestion issues, despite being widely adopted and used. They still have room for future growth. 
The Ethereum network will also implement sharding, and it’s expected to reach a throughput of up to 100,000 tps. However, it currently sits at a little over 1,400 tps. Both NEAR and Polygon are above that number. The highest possible throughput is on NEAR’s network. But the market has a different opinion because it has the lowest market value of the three. While MATIC is ranked #17, with $9.8 billion capitalization, NEAR’s capitalization is around $7.5 billion. 
<h2 id="interoperability-and-cross-chain-compatibility">Interoperability and Cross-Chain Compatibility</h2> 
Although there are many Ethereum alternatives, the crypto ecosystem is moving towards an interoperability landscape, rather than a competition one. Ethereum is still the most valued, and the EVM marks the path to follow. This means that other networks are often created to be compatible with EVM. This, in exchange, allows developers to migrate their DApps and tokens across a larger number of chains. 
In the case of Polygon, it is clearly compatible with Ethereum, because it’s built on top of that blockchain. MATIC is an ERC-20 token, and assets built on Polygon can be used on the Ethereum chain. NEAR Protocol also implemented EVM compatibility on its network. Through the Rainbow Bridge, users can perform cross-chain transactions between both protocols. 
NEAR vs MATIC: Future Outlook 
While MATIC has a larger market share than NEAR, the recent performance of the latter has been a lot better. In the last six months, NEAR has gained over 600% in value. MATIC has increased around 50% in the same period, but the price swings have been more pronounced. Moreover, it’s still 10% lower than it was a year ago. 
However, both assets have a lot of inherent value, and they offer great investment opportunities. It’s up to you to do research and decide which one is more appropriate for your strategy, or even diversify your protocol by investing in both of them. 
&nbsp;

Side-by-Side: NEAR Protocol vs Polygon

Table of Contents

WalletInvestor

Other articles published on May 14, 2024

Wisconsin Pension Fund Invested Nearly $100M In BlackRock’s Bitcoin ETF IBIT

Bitcoin Price Holds Above $60k, Crypto Analysts Warn Why This Level is Crucial for BTC

Q1 CoinShares most successful quarter in history with revenue up 216%

Tether Takes Action: $5.2M in USDT Frozen Due to Phishing Links

Bitcoin Sees Significant Market Shift

Bitcoin ETF Notes $66M Inflow With Fidelity’s FBTC Support

Join our free newsletter for daily crypto updates!