On October 9, the State Council issued an opinion on developing new quality productive forces, which included “building a nationally integrated computing power network and a national blockchain network.” This sentence appeared in the same clause as “Eastern Data, Western Computing” and intelligent manufacturing, alongside several supporting systems for data rights and transactions. It had appeared once before in the outline.
Look at the four networks side by side, and the credentials required to write to their ledgers are not the same. Ethereum requires staking collateral; Solana requires hardware meeting certain thresholds plus staking; the BNB platform token has a capped number of validator seats, allocated through delegated voting; Polkadot relies on nomination pools. Their scale tells a different story: Ethereum, $288.6 billion; BNB, $94.3 billion; Solana, $61.2 billion; Polkadot, $2 billion. Credentials and scale do not line up—the largest network uses the least demanding credential.
The opinion places the national blockchain network alongside the computing power network in the infrastructure section. Its initial role is to provide credentials for registering and transferring data factors; asset transfers do not take place at this layer.
I followed the question of “who can write to the ledger” and checked further: each of the four public blockchains uses a different credential. The network built by the state uses a fifth: administrative approval, with the list determined by the competent authorities.
Different types of credentials call for different interpretations. The admission credentials of all four public blockchains can be measured in money—staking involves money, hardware costs money, and both validator seats and nominations require funds to be put up. Administrative approval cannot be converted into money: the qualification it grants is neither transferable nor pledgeable. This is the layer that separates this network from crypto assets.
The four networks differ in their credentials, regardless of scale; the network included in the document uses administrative approval as its credential and records proof of data ownership, while asset transfers belong to a different domain. If future supporting rules give this network a token arrangement, or if a public blockchain changes its credential to an administrative whitelist, this comparison will need to be redone. If neither changes, I’ll keep this version on file for now. The credentials for admission and the objects recorded on the ledger are both laid out separately for Binance and the BNB platform token; a quick check will make that clear. This article records an opinion and does not constitute investment advice. $CFX
$CFG
$ACH
#国务院提出建设国家区块链网络
Look at the four networks side by side, and the credentials required to write to their ledgers are not the same. Ethereum requires staking collateral; Solana requires hardware meeting certain thresholds plus staking; the BNB platform token has a capped number of validator seats, allocated through delegated voting; Polkadot relies on nomination pools. Their scale tells a different story: Ethereum, $288.6 billion; BNB, $94.3 billion; Solana, $61.2 billion; Polkadot, $2 billion. Credentials and scale do not line up—the largest network uses the least demanding credential.
The opinion places the national blockchain network alongside the computing power network in the infrastructure section. Its initial role is to provide credentials for registering and transferring data factors; asset transfers do not take place at this layer.
I followed the question of “who can write to the ledger” and checked further: each of the four public blockchains uses a different credential. The network built by the state uses a fifth: administrative approval, with the list determined by the competent authorities.
Different types of credentials call for different interpretations. The admission credentials of all four public blockchains can be measured in money—staking involves money, hardware costs money, and both validator seats and nominations require funds to be put up. Administrative approval cannot be converted into money: the qualification it grants is neither transferable nor pledgeable. This is the layer that separates this network from crypto assets.
The four networks differ in their credentials, regardless of scale; the network included in the document uses administrative approval as its credential and records proof of data ownership, while asset transfers belong to a different domain. If future supporting rules give this network a token arrangement, or if a public blockchain changes its credential to an administrative whitelist, this comparison will need to be redone. If neither changes, I’ll keep this version on file for now. The credentials for admission and the objects recorded on the ledger are both laid out separately for Binance and the BNB platform token; a quick check will make that clear. This article records an opinion and does not constitute investment advice. $CFX
$CFG
$ACH
#国务院提出建设国家区块链网络