The blockchain industry likely has too many blockchains. There are thousands of networks, each with varying degrees of utility, adoption, and redundancy. Many are forks or minor variations of existing protocols, fragmenting liquidity, developer focus, and user adoption. This oversaturation can hinder interoperability, increase complexity, and dilute network effects, making it harder for truly valuable projects to stand out.
However, some argue the diversity fosters innovation, allowing experimentation with different consensus mechanisms, scalability solutions, and use cases. The counterpoint is that consolidation around a few robust, interoperable chains—like Ethereum, Solana, or Polkadot—would better drive mainstream adoption and efficiency.
The real issue isn’t just the number but the lack of clear differentiation or sustainable value in many projects. Market dynamics will likely prune weaker chains over time. With thousands of blockchains, liquidity is spread thin across tokens and ecosystems, reducing market depth and increasing volatility. This makes it harder for decentralized exchanges (DEXs) and DeFi protocols to operate efficiently.
Register for Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 17 (June 9 – Sept 6, 2025) today for early bird discounts. Do annual for access to Blucera.com.
Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass opens registrations.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and co-invest in great global startups.
Register to become a better CEO or Director with Tekedia CEO & Director Program.
Developers face a crowded field, splitting their focus across competing platforms. This slows innovation on any single chain as talent is diluted. End users struggle to navigate the multitude of wallets, protocols, and chains, hindering mainstream adoption. Many blockchains operate in silos, with limited cross-chain compatibility. Bridging solutions like Polkadot, Cosmos exist, but they add complexity and security risks, as seen in frequent bridge hacks.
Lack of standardization across protocols complicates integration and data sharing, slowing ecosystem growth. Blockchains thrive on network effects—more users, developers, and dApps strengthen a chain’s value. Too many chains weaken these effects, as no single platform can dominate or achieve critical mass. This contrasts with platforms like Ethereum, which benefit from a robust developer and user base despite high gas fees.
Economic Inefficiency
Many blockchains are redundant, offering marginal improvements over existing solutions. Maintaining these networks consumes energy, capital, and infrastructure without proportional value. Zombie chains—projects with minimal activity—persist due to speculative token markets, draining resources from viable ecosystems. Smaller blockchains often lack the node count or staking power to ensure robust security, making them vulnerable to 51% attacks or governance exploits.
Low adoption also means less scrutiny, increasing the risk of undetected bugs or malicious code. Over time, market forces will likely favor a few dominant chains with strong fundamentals, interoperability, and adoption. Weaker chains may fade, but the transition could be messy, with failed projects leading to investor losses and eroded trust.
The blockchain community is split on whether the proliferation of blockchains is a problem or a feature of the industry’s evolution. Different blockchains test unique approaches to scalability like the Solana’s Proof of History, privacy (e.g., Monero), or governance (e.g., Tezos). This diversity drives technological breakthroughs that benefit the broader ecosystem. Niche chains serve specific use cases—like gaming (Flow), supply chain (VeChain), or IoT (IOTA)—that general-purpose chains like Ethereum may not optimize for.
A multitude of chains aligns with the decentralized ethos, preventing monopolization by a single platform. It ensures no single entity like Ethereum Foundation controls the ecosystem. Competition incentivizes chains to improve performance, lower fees, and prioritize user needs. The market will naturally filter out weak projects, rewarding those with real utility. This Darwinian process is seen as healthy for long-term growth.
Early internet protocols had similar fragmentation (e.g., Gopher vs. HTTP), but winners emerged organically. Consolidation around a few dominant chains would concentrate liquidity, developer talent, and user adoption, creating stronger network effects. Ethereum’s dominance in DeFi (despite competitors) shows the power of a unified ecosystem. Fewer chains simplify interoperability, as cross-chain bridges and standards can focus on a smaller set of protocols.
A streamlined ecosystem reduces complexity for users, who currently juggle multiple wallets, tokens, and interfaces. A few interoperable chains could offer a seamless experience, critical for mainstream adoption. The internet consolidated around TCP/IP and HTTP, enabling a user-friendly web, not a fractured one.
Maintaining thousands of blockchains is resource-intensive, especially for energy-hungry consensus mechanisms. Consolidation reduces environmental and economic waste. Stronger chains with larger communities are better equipped to secure networks and fund ongoing development. The industry’s speculative phase, fueled by ICOs and token launches, has led to an oversupply of chains. A mature market would prioritize quality over quantity, with fewer but more robust platforms.
Examples like Solana and Binance Smart Chain show how focused ecosystems can scale rapidly with clear value propositions. The tension between diversity and consolidation reflects the industry’s growing pains. A middle ground may emerge through, projects like Polkadot, Cosmos, and Chainlink CCIP aim to connect chains, mitigating fragmentation while preserving diversity.
Scaling solutions like Arbitrum, Optimism, or zk-Rollups allow Ethereum and other major chains to handle niche use cases without spawning new blockchains. As speculative hype fades, weaker chains will likely die off, leaving a leaner ecosystem of interoperable, high-value networks.
The oversupply of blockchains creates inefficiencies and barriers to adoption, but it also fuels experimentation and resilience. The divide—diversity vs. consolidation—mirrors debates in other tech revolutions. Long-term, market forces and interoperability solutions will likely reduce the number of viable chains, favoring a few dominant, interconnected ecosystems. The challenge is navigating this transition without stifling innovation or alienating users.