数说8条非EVM公链:Solana日均交易次数遥遥领先,EOS日活近期显著增长

PanewsPublished on 2022-08-16Last updated on 2022-08-16

Abstract

盘点Solana、NEAR、Acala、Tron、Cardano、Algorand、Neo、EOS这8条非EVM公链的链上数据。

盘点Solana、NEAR、Acala、Tron、Cardano、Algorand、Neo、EOS这8条非EVM公链的链上数据。

公链作为区块链行业的“地基”始终备受关注。在DeFi Summer以后,以太坊凭借生态优势牢牢占据了公链的头把交椅。这促使其他公链要么选择向以太坊靠拢,兼容以太坊的技术环境,成为EVM公链;要么选择独自为战,坚持自己的技术框架,成为非EVM公链;或者兼而有之,搭建两种技术环境,通过内部跨链的形式实现统一。

总的来说,在过去一段时间内,以太坊和EVM公链成为主流。但随着以太坊手续费高企和扩容预计花费较长时间等问题,也随着Cardano、Solana、Atpos等公链相继迎来发展,非EVM公链则开始多地占据了人们的视线。

在公链之争愈演愈烈的当下,PANews旗下数据新闻专栏PAData盘点了Solana、NEAR、Acala(波卡上的DeFi公链)、Tron、Cardano、Algorand、Neo、EOS这8条非EVM公链的链上数据,分析发现:

最近3个月,Solana的日均链上交易次数最多,达到了3012.66万次,超过其他非EVM链一个量级。并且Solana的日均链上交易次数还上涨了141.15%,向上发展态势十分显著。而Acala、Algorand、Cardano和NEAR的日均链上交易次数则总体下降。

最近3个月,Cardano的累计交易手续费最高,约为134.14万美元,超过其他公链许多,其次是Solana和NEAR。而Neo和Acala的累计交易手续费都不足1万美元。

最近3个月,Tron的日均活跃地址数最多,达到了290.08万个,其次是Solana,达到了94.52万个。但从涨幅看,仅EOS和Tron呈增长趋势,尤其是EOS,日活跃地址上涨了93.95%。

目前,DeFi锁仓量最高的是Tron,达到了59.01亿美元,其次是Solana,达到了25.43亿美元。剩余6条公链当前的锁仓量都不超过5亿美元,Cardano和Neo甚至不超过1亿美元。综合协议数量和锁仓量来看,Solana是其中生态发展最好的。

目前生态发展已经成“面”的只有Solana,本月头部协议锁仓量的日均占比只有32%。其他6条公链的头部协议锁仓量日均占比基本都在85%以上,最高的Acala达到了约97%。

01

Solana日均交易次数突破3000万次,

Cardano单笔交易手续费最高

链上交易次数是用来观察一条公链链上活跃度的基本指标,交易次数越多意味着使用公链的次数越多,这条公链受到用户和市场欢迎的概率就越高。根据统计,最近3个月,Solana的日均链上交易次数最多,达到了3012.66万次,超过其他非EVM链一个量级。排在第二梯队的是Algorand和Tron,同期日均交易次数分别达到了465.51万次和387.50万次,但都不到Solana的1/6。其他非EVM链的日均交易次数则更低,主网上线时间最短的Acala日均交易次数只有不到5000次,去年红极一时的Cardano日均交易次数也只有约8万次,Neo、NEAR和EOS的日均交易次数分别约为16万次、49万次和85万次。可见,不同链的链上活跃度差异巨大。

从活跃度趋势来看,最近3个月,8条公链活跃度涨跌对半开。其中Solana、Tron、EOS和Neo的日均链上交易次数总体增加,尤其值得关注的是,在过去3个月市场整体震荡下行的背景下,Solana的日均链上交易次数还能从5月的约1670万次上涨至8月份的约4027万次,涨幅高达141.15%,向上发展态势十分显著。而Tron、EOS和Neo的涨幅则要低很多,分别约为50.73%、25.05%和19.45%。另一方面,Acala、Algorand、Cardano和NEAR的日均链上交易次数则总体下降。降幅最大的是NEAR,日均链上交易次数从约74万次下降至约34万次,降幅约为54.24%。而Cardano、Acala、Algorand的降幅则略低,分别约为26.06%、19.46%和14.70%。

与链上交易情况密切相关的另一个数据指标是交易手续费,更低的交易手续费通常被认为是用户友好的,这更有利于生态发展。从数据来看,大多数非EVM链的交易手续费都很低。最近3个月,累计交易手续费最高的是Cardano,达到了134.14万美元,超过其他公链许多。其次是Solana和NEAR,同期累计交易手续费分别达到了60.35万美元和44.05万美元。另外,Algorand的累计交易手续费约为4.85万美元,而Neo和Acala的累计交易手续费都不足1万美元。与日均链上交易次数的分布情况相似,各链的交易手续费差异也很大。

从平均每笔交易的手续费来看,最贵的仍然是Cardano,平均每笔交易手续费达到了0.18美元。排名第二的NEAR平均每笔交易手续费约为0.008美元,相当于Cardano的1/22。再其次是Acala,平均每笔交易手续费约为0.0009美元,相当于Cardano的1/200和NEAR的1/9。另外,Solana、Neo和Algorand的平均每笔交易手续费比较接近,都在0.0001美元至0.0002美元之间。总的来说,这些非EVM链的交易手续费普遍远低于以太坊,这为这些公链的生态建设赢得了机会。

02

Tron日均活跃地址数超290万个,

EOS近期活跃地址数涨幅超90%

链上活跃地址的多少通常被用来衡量用户规模的大小,尽管地址数与用户可能并非一一对应,因为用户可能拥有多个地址,但至少是成正比的,链上活跃地址越多意味着该链的用户规模也可能越大。根据统计,过去3个月内,日均活跃地址数最多的公链是Tron,达到了290.08万个,其次是Solana,达到了94.52万个。而其他6条公链的日均活跃地址数则要远远小于这两者,Cardano和Algorand的日均活跃地址数分别约为7.55万个和3.49万个,而NEAR的日均活跃地址数刚刚超过1万个,EOS只有6000多个,Acala和Neo甚至还不到300个。可见,目前各非EVM链的用户规模相差巨大,仅Tron和Solana的用户已成一定规模。

从活跃地址的发展趋势来看,情况又有所不同。在过去3个月中,仅EOS和Tron的日活跃地址数总体呈增长趋势,尤其是EOS,日活跃地址从5月9日的4030个增长至8月9日的7816个,涨幅高达93.95%。同期Tron的日活跃地址则从259.99万个增长至279.62万个,小幅上涨了7.55%。

除此之外,其他6条公链的日活跃地址数都总体呈下降趋势。其中降幅最高的是Neo,同期从515个下跌至189个,降幅高达63.30%。另外,Algorand和Solana的降幅也较高,都超过了40%。大多数非EVM公链都受到此前市场低迷带来的影响,并且大多仍尚未恢复“元气”。

03

除Solana外其他公链生态依赖个别协议,

Acala生态发展迅速

生态建设早已成为各条公链谋篇布局的重中之重了。根据统计,截至8月9日,公链上布局DeFi协议数量最多的是Solana,共有75个,其次是EOS,共有22个。其他公链则都基本布局了10个左右,最少的Neo只有3个。

另一方面,锁仓量高的公链一般情况下也意味着生态体量更大,发展更好。尽管锁仓量不是一个衡量生态发展好坏的绝对指标,但不可否认,这对观察生态发展仍然有一定的参考意义。目前,DeFi锁仓量最高的是Tron,达到了59.01亿美元,其次是Solana,达到了25.43亿美元,这两者是8条非EVM链中锁仓量最高的,并且远超其他。剩余6条公链当前的锁仓量都不超过5亿美元,Cardano和Neo甚至不超过1亿美元。综合协议数量和锁仓量来看,Solana是其中生态发展最好的。

值得关注的是,Acala近期的锁仓量增幅十分抢眼,从上线后(6月22日)的1.21亿美元上涨至当前的4.00亿美元,涨幅高达229.89%,而且这种大幅上涨还发生在市场较为低迷的环境下。作为波卡系的先锋,Acala的生态建设起步算得上顺利。

除此之外,在5月9日至8月9日期间,锁仓量总体上涨的还有Algorand和Tron,涨幅分别达到了32.77%和22.56%。相反,同期锁仓量总体下降的有Solana、Cardano、EOS、NEAR和Neo,除了Neo外,跌幅都在30%以上。其中跌幅最大的是Solana,从56.67亿美元跌至了25.43亿美元,跌幅高达55.13%。

从各链锁仓量最高的3个协议的锁仓量占比(下文简称头部协议锁仓量占比)可以看出公链生态的聚集程度,聚集程度越高意味着公链生态越依赖极个别头部协议,比较容易受到头部协议的影响,生态发展的程度还停留在“点”上,没有扩散至“面”上。

根据统计,目前生态发展已经成“面”的只有Solana,本月头部协议锁仓量的日均占比只有32%,是本次观察范围内占比最低的一条公链。其次是Neo,头部协议锁仓量的日均占比约为69%(由于Neo生态数据较少,故头部协议锁仓量占比只统计锁仓量最高的1个协议的占比)。除此之外其他6条公链的头部协议锁仓量日均占比基本都在85%以上,最高的Acala达到了约97%,这意味着这些公链的生态发展还停留在“点”上。

并且,从过去3个月头部协议锁仓量日均占比的发展趋势来看,Acala、Algorand和Tron的占比呈明显的上升趋势,也即资金还在向头部协议聚集,“点”状发展态势得到进一步加强。相反,同期,Cardano和NEAR的占比则呈明显的下降趋势,也即资金出现向非头部协议流动的趋势,这可能意味着生态发展开始慢慢从“点”扩散到“面”,但这还需更长时间的观察。

Trending Cryptos

Related Reads

Trillion-Dollar Pension Fund Entry? Franklin Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment ETF Comes with a Built-in Selling Pressure Ceiling

Franklin Templeton has filed to launch two ETFs that embed a "default configuration" logic into Bitcoin investment, aiming to tap into massive pension fund flows. These "Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment Index ETFs" will initially hold 95% equities and 5% Bitcoin, automatically reinvesting stock dividends to buy Bitcoin. However, a quarterly rebalancing rule forces selling of Bitcoin if its allocation exceeds 5%, capping its maximum holding at 20%. While the product cleverly circumvents advisor reluctance and compliance hurdles by labeling itself as a U.S. equity product, its actual Bitcoin buying power is minimal. Given low dividend yields (e.g., ~1% for broad market indices), annual Bitcoin purchases from a fund the size of Franklin's existing Bitcoin ETF would be a mere $3.6 million—negligible against Bitcoin's daily trading volume. Crucially, during bull markets, the fund becomes a programmed, passive *seller* of Bitcoin, potentially creating sustained sell pressure if many similar funds emerge. The strategy leverages investor inertia and automatic enrollment, similar to the success of target-date funds in 401(k) plans. It also uses an offshore Cayman subsidiary for holding Bitcoin and raises a tax complication where investors must pay taxes on dividends they never receive as cash. Although recent U.S. regulatory changes allow crypto in retirement plans, widespread adoption as a default option faces legal hurdles. The core premise remains: the system doesn't need to convince anyone to buy Bitcoin actively; it simply relies on people doing nothing.

marsbit5m ago

Trillion-Dollar Pension Fund Entry? Franklin Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment ETF Comes with a Built-in Selling Pressure Ceiling

marsbit5m ago

Bitcoin Hits 20-Month Low as Largest Bull Suffers $15 Billion Paper Loss

Bitcoin Hits 20-Month Low as Major Bull Loses $15 Billion On June 25th, Bitcoin fell below $60,000, hitting a low of $58,030—its lowest level since October 2024. The sell-off triggered over $1 billion in leveraged liquidations in 24 hours, with longs accounting for $788 million. This marks a more than 53% decline from the October 2025 all-time high of $126,198. A critical factor in the downturn is the weakening position of MicroStrategy, the largest corporate Bitcoin holder. With 847,363 BTC at an average cost of $75,651, the company now faces over $14.6 billion in unrealized losses. Its core financing flywheel—raising capital to buy Bitcoin—is stalling. Its variable-rate preferred shares (STRC), a key fundraising tool, have fallen 25% below their $100 target. This raises doubts about its ability to continue providing steady institutional demand for Bitcoin. Simultaneously, U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs are experiencing significant outflows, with a single-day net outflow of $469 million on June 24th. This represents the most severe sustained capital flight since their launch. The macroeconomic backdrop remains restrictive, with persistent inflation delaying expected Fed rate cuts. Analysts note a shift in capital allocation, with institutional funds moving away from crypto towards AI infrastructure stocks. Immediate pressure comes from approximately $10 billion worth of Bitcoin options expiring on June 26th, which could increase market volatility. The combined effect of these factors—eroding core demand pillars, macro headwinds, and capital rotation—has decisively broken the $60,000 support level.

Foresight News11m ago

Bitcoin Hits 20-Month Low as Largest Bull Suffers $15 Billion Paper Loss

Foresight News11m ago

STRC Falls Below $80, Can Conservative Investors Still Buy the Dip?

The article analyzes whether the STRC (a perpetual preferred stock issued by MicroStrategy) presents a buying opportunity after its price fell below its $100 par value to around $80, offering a seemingly high yield of 13-15%. The core argument is that STRC's discount reflects market skepticism about the sustainability of MicroStrategy's capital structure model, not just temporary panic. This model relies on issuing securities (like STRC) to raise funds to buy more Bitcoin, a "flywheel" that works in a bull market. The recent small sale of BTC to fund dividends, while minor, broke the psychological "never sell" anchor and signaled potential strain. Key risks identified are not a traditional Ponzi collapse but a potential breakdown in the financing narrative: 1) If Bitcoin enters a deep bear market, crushing MicroStrategy's stock premium (mNAV), its ability to raise cheap capital weakens. 2) If STRC remains deeply discounted, it signifies permanently higher funding costs. 3) The high cash dividend yield represents a significant ongoing expense. 4) If selling BTC to pay dividends becomes routine, the bullish narrative reverses. The conclusion is that STRC is not a risk-free high-yield asset. It is a high-coupon bet on whether MicroStrategy's BTC treasury financing model can withstand a bear market. Buying it is a wager that the market will continue to believe in and fund this structure at acceptable costs. The current price asks if this cycle's "casualty" might be a BTC treasury company's融资 model itself.

marsbit27m ago

STRC Falls Below $80, Can Conservative Investors Still Buy the Dip?

marsbit27m ago

Why Do Crypto Projects Keep Changing Their Names?

**Why Do Crypto Projects Keep Changing Names?** In the crypto world, changing a project's name is common—over 16% of projects have done so, including major ones like Polygon (formerly Matic Network). This contrasts sharply with traditional businesses, which fiercely protect brand equity. The core reason is that in crypto, brand loyalty is often weak. Users are frequently investors, airdrop hunters, or yield seekers, not traditional consumers. A name associated with price crashes, hacks, or failed narratives becomes a liability, not an asset. Renaming can be a strategic reset to shed this baggage. Name changes serve as a potent marketing tool. They can signal a genuine pivot in strategy or scope (e.g., EthSign dropping "Eth" as it expanded). However, they are often used to "narrative surf," rebranding to align with hot trends like AI, RWA, or the metaverse (e.g., Elrond → MultiversX). Critically, renaming is also a PR tactic to distance a project from past failures like security breaches (e.g., Anyswap → Multichain). The most significant risk emerges when a name change is coupled with a token migration or swap. This process can allow projects to reset exchange price charts, erase visible historical downtrends, and create an illusion of a fresh start. It often facilitates liquidity resets, where low float can be exploited for pumps. More alarmingly, migrations sometimes mask overhauls to tokenomics, introducing substantial new token supply through "ecosystem funds" or "node rewards," effectively diluting existing holders. The fundamental issue isn't renaming itself, which can be valid for strategic evolution. The problem is when it functions as an escape from history—a way to avoid accountability for past mistakes, failed promises, and poor performance. When a project announces a rebrand, the critical questions are: What tangible new capability or strategy does it represent? Has the tokenomics changed? And what part of its past is it most trying to make users forget?

marsbit33m ago

Why Do Crypto Projects Keep Changing Their Names?

marsbit33m ago

A Trillion-Dollar Entry Point for Pension Funds? Franklin's Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment ETFs Come with a Built-In Selling Pressure Ceiling

Franklin Templeton filed for two ETFs on June 18 that embed a "default option" logic into Bitcoin investing. These funds—the Franklin US Equity Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment Index ETF and the Franklin US Innovative Equity Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment Index ETF—aim to automatically allocate a portion of investor dividends to Bitcoin, initially with a 95% stock and 5% Bitcoin allocation. The mechanism is designed for financial advisors, not retail investors. By packaging Bitcoin exposure within a standard equity fund label, advisors can bypass internal compliance restrictions against direct cryptocurrency allocation for their clients. Dividends from the stock holdings are automatically used to buy Bitcoin via spot ETFs, futures, or options. However, the structure imposes strict rebalancing rules: if Bitcoin's allocation exceeds 5%, it is trimmed back to 4.5% quarterly, with a hard cap of 20%. This means the fund becomes a systematic seller during Bitcoin price rallies. Realistically, the potential buying pressure is minimal. Based on dividend yields (approximately 1.05% for broad market, 0.52% for innovative equity), the annual inflow into Bitcoin would be a tiny fraction of the fund's assets. For comparison, Franklin's existing Bitcoin ETF ($359 million AUM) would generate only about $3.6 million in annual Bitcoin purchases—negligible against Bitcoin's daily trading volume. The innovative equity fund, heavily weighted in low-dividend stocks like Nvidia, would have even weaker buying power. The product utilizes an offshore Cayman subsidiary to hold Bitcoin, a common compliance tactic for commodity exposure in mutual funds. A key drawback for investors is the tax liability: they must pay taxes on dividends that are automatically converted into Bitcoin, requiring out-of-pocket cash for a gain they never directly receive. For the strategy to scale significantly, such funds would need to become a default or near-default option in retirement plans like 401(k)s. Recent regulatory moves, including a Trump executive order and a Department of Labor proposal offering fiduciary safe harbors for including crypto assets, could pave the way. However, widespread employer adoption likely awaits further legal clarity. Ultimately, the fund's model leverages investor inertia and automated systems, rather than convincing anyone to actively choose Bitcoin. While it creates a new, albeit small, structural buyer, its rebalancing rules also establish a built-in "selling ceiling" that could dampen price upside if similar products proliferate.

Foresight News35m ago

A Trillion-Dollar Entry Point for Pension Funds? Franklin's Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment ETFs Come with a Built-In Selling Pressure Ceiling

Foresight News35m ago

Trading

Spot
Futures

Hot Articles

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of SOL (SOL) are presented below.

活动图片