Topic: Comparison between TOP PROJECT Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche (Read 332 times)
Thanks for sharing. The picture clearly shows the characteristics of these three cryptocurrencies. In the recent performance, the price of DOT has performed well recently, but unfortunately I don't have DOT in my hands. Currently, among these three, I only hold ATOM. I hope it will bring profits this year.
Among the 3 project Avax seem to have the highest point, but having them in theory can not be compared to actually putting them in practice, the real verdict will be when they are actually put to test or have been use by users and validate what is written on paper, and since I haven't use any among the 3, it will be had to pick but looking at the capabilities according to the differences, Avax it is.
If you have some ETH and are tired from high fees, I can recommend to try a transaction using each platform reviewed by SEQ. All projects are doing fast and cheap transactions. 
Maybe you can go to Telegram and ask for a small piece of coin to try transaction speed and cost. I can't guarantee if you will get coin but maybe devs will give you a small fraction of coin for try.
No doubt all of them are high quality projects but i have a feeling that dot is superior just because of their bigger and ready ecosystem and also the team is well known which adds more points to the worth of overall project.
I know what's good for me, Polkadot and Avalanche are more futuristic than any other new projects I know, this is the very type of crypto project that worth dying for, hold and hold and keep holding will work perfectly for this two projects, there is no exaggerating here, it's very clear that this projects are different
I think Dot has least potential out of the three. Avalanche will be the clear winner
a year from now
a year from now
And we need more of such technical reviews like from SEQ here. Because a project can't hide behind bad tech.
Projects are doing that all the time. Unfortunately, it's sufficient to hide loopholes with workarounds, fancy names and buzwords.
This review by SEQ desperately needs methodology. Right now it looks like another opinion from "blockchain experts".
SEQ reviews are always of fine quality, technically very accurate and SEQ knows what's important for blockchain projects to become a robust, decentralized and useful platform. It is always recommended to read SEQ reviews because so many YouTubers don't have much technical knowledge. SEQ reviews technical details diligently. Solid tech is what makes a blockchain project successful. P.S. Are these experts from SEQ affilated with projects which they review?
SEQ is not employed by any projects. SEQ reviews are written for education purposes and more projects could be potentially reviewed later. In addition to Cosmos, Avalanche and Polkadot, also Algorand, Near Protocol, Solana or similar could be reviewed. Reviews by SEQ are done frequently:
Cosmos — an early in-depth analysis at the ecosystem of connected blockchains — Part One
Avalanche, a Revolutionary Consensus Engine and Platform. A Game Changer for Blockchain
Polkadot — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part One — Overview and Benefits
A decent answer! Good luck in your research.
And we need more of such technical reviews like from SEQ here. Because a project can't hide behind bad tech.
Projects are doing that all the time. Unfortunately, it's sufficient to hide loopholes with workarounds, fancy names and buzwords.
This review by SEQ desperately needs methodology. Right now it looks like another opinion from "blockchain experts".
SEQ reviews are always of fine quality, technically very accurate and SEQ knows what's important for blockchain projects to become a robust, decentralized and useful platform. It is always recommended to read SEQ reviews because so many YouTubers don't have much technical knowledge. SEQ reviews technical details diligently. Solid tech is what makes a blockchain project successful. P.S. Are these experts from SEQ affilated with projects which they review?
SEQ is not employed by any projects. SEQ reviews are written for education purposes and more projects could be potentially reviewed later. In addition to Cosmos, Avalanche and Polkadot, also Algorand, Near Protocol, Solana or similar could be reviewed. Reviews by SEQ are done frequently:
Cosmos — an early in-depth analysis at the ecosystem of connected blockchains — Part One
Avalanche, a Revolutionary Consensus Engine and Platform. A Game Changer for Blockchain
Polkadot — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part One — Overview and Benefits
And we need more of such technical reviews like from SEQ here. Because a project can't hide behind bad tech.
Projects are doing that all the time. Unfortunately, it's sufficient to hide loopholes with workarounds, fancy names and buzwords.
This review by SEQ desperately needs methodology. Right now it looks like another opinion from "blockchain experts".
P.S. Are these experts from SEQ affilated with projects which they review?
It's clear that there is a strong need in such reviews and comparisons. It's clear that these solutions have different pros, cons and bottlenecks. The question is how to compare and evaluate them. What methodology was used in this grading? Is it fair to compare projects based on claims and promises instead of proven facts?
Yes, you are right, many projects try to cheat stats to make it look better. Evaluation projects from real facts is always better. But all projects mentioned are already live and can be reviewed to prove if claims are right and it looks like all projects made correct claims. And we need more of such technical reviews like from SEQ here. Because a project can't hide behind bad tech. It will always matter longterm.
All projects, Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche provide very good tech.
And after we have picked good tech projects we need to evaluate which project is best. Because right now, Ethereum fees are way too high.
I really appreciate Polkadot, the success it has achieved, i think 2021 will be another great year for DOT. It has seen amazing growth, with the last 7 days it has gone up by more than 50%. Also Avalanche is also one of the great options for investment.
What is your favorite project and what is your prediction for it?
Of the three projects that you described, I only like him, namely Polkadot [DOT] and Cosmos [ATOM].- Polkadot [DOT]
- Avalanche [AVAX]
- Cosmos [ATOM]
because both of them look very potentially profitable when the market starts to improve and also the community that likes them has also started a lot so the ranking of the two tokens is also very good.
This table contains a very useful assessment. There may be intense interest in all three projects during this period.
Each project has success in itself. In 2021, these projects should definitely be followed, primarily Poldakot.
Each project has success in itself. In 2021, these projects should definitely be followed, primarily Poldakot.
This is a very good comparisons between these promising new projects and cosmos, honestly I've decide to buy some Avalanche and Polkadot weeks ago and hold them for years to come, do I went in with what I can afford to lose, this projects will worth the investment in future
This is a very helpful review for those who are interested in these projects, I am interested in all 3 projects above and bought it. In fact, these projects are very strong and really have great potential in the future, the year 2021 I think will be a successful year for these projects.
It's clear that there is a strong need in such reviews and comparisons. It's clear that these solutions have different pros, cons and bottlenecks. The question is how to compare and evaluate them. What methodology was used in this grading? Is it fair to compare projects based on claims and promises instead of proven facts?
What is your favorite project and what is your prediction for it?
- Polkadot [DOT]
- Avalanche [AVAX]
- Cosmos [ATOM]
Important new crypto projects released last year were reviewed in an important, technical analysis on Medium: Comparison between Avalanche, Cosmos and Polkadot
All projects are often mentioned as Ethereum killers making progress before ETH 2.0 is finalized. For high fees when using DeFi, for limited decentralization and for scaling of transactions per second all projects offers first class solutions.
But all projects are still very different and have some strong and also weak points in comparison.
Who won?
Avalanche won (20 points) ahead of Cosmos and Polkadot coming second (15 points):
Review was done by SEQ who studied technical backgrounds of all projects and did his research about Polkadot [DOT], Avalanche [AVAX] and Cosmos [ATOM] diligently: Comparison between Avalanche, Cosmos and Polkadot
- Polkadot [DOT]
- Avalanche [AVAX]
- Cosmos [ATOM]
All projects are often mentioned as Ethereum killers making progress before ETH 2.0 is finalized. For high fees when using DeFi, for limited decentralization and for scaling of transactions per second all projects offers first class solutions.
But all projects are still very different and have some strong and also weak points in comparison.
Who won?
Avalanche won (20 points) ahead of Cosmos and Polkadot coming second (15 points):
- Avalanche (20 Points) scored high points in scalability, decentralisation and has low inflation but was weak in marketing and adoption.
- Cosmos (15 Points) scored high points in adoption but has very high inflation and needs to improve security.
- Polkadot (15 Points) scored high points in security, marketing and adoption but has very high inflation, slow transactions and is not very decentralized and scalable.
Review was done by SEQ who studied technical backgrounds of all projects and did his research about Polkadot [DOT], Avalanche [AVAX] and Cosmos [ATOM] diligently: Comparison between Avalanche, Cosmos and Polkadot
Jump to: