Best for: Full control, unique consensus, custom tokenomics, protocol-level innovation
Examples: Solana, Cosmos SDK, Substrate (Polkadot), Avalanche
✅ Pros:
• Full control over architecture, governance, fees, and token issuance
• Can design from the ground up (ideal for RWA, carbon credits, etc.)
• No dependency on other chains for consensus or security
• Best for national-scale or enterprise-level use cases
❌ Cons:
• Expensive & time-consuming to build and secure
• Need your own validator network and token economy
• Adoption is harder unless you offer something unique
✅ Ideal if:
• You want to build your own ecosystem
• You have a strong use case (like RWA, infra tokens, carbon credits)
• You have the team and funds to maintain an L1
⸻
Best for: Fast deployment, lower costs, access to existing users
Examples: Ethereum L2s (Arbitrum, Optimism), Polygon, zkSync
✅ Pros:
• Faster and cheaper to launch your token
• Lower gas fees and better scalability
• Access to Ethereum’s or another L1’s existing ecosystem
• Easier to integrate wallets, DeFi, and bridges
❌ Cons:
• Less control over infrastructure
• You rely on the underlying L1’s uptime/security
• You still need to handle bridging, L1 sync, and possible exit lags
✅ Ideal if:
• You want to launch an ERC-20 or similar token quickly
• You focus on dApps, DeFi, or NFTs
• Your project doesn’t need a custom chain
🚀 So, Which Is Best?
Goal Best Option
Custom chain + full control L1 (Cosmos SDK, Substrate)
Fast launch + low cost L2 (Ethereum L2, Polygon)
RWA, ESG tokens, on-chain infra L1 or AppChain on Cosmos
Web3 project on existing chain L2 or existing L1 like Solana
If you want to build a full ecosystem with deep integrations (e.g., for smart cities, EV+carbon credits, or RWA), L1 is the way to go.
For most startups and dApps, an L2 or token on Ethereum/Solana gets you faster to market.
