The comparison of on-chain data of DApp usage shows quite surprising results. Based on raw data EOS has 2x the amount of DApp users and 3x the amount of transactions processed by DApps. The fiat equivalent of the processed currency EOS also exceeds ETH by a factor of 14. At first glance, the obvious explanation of this is the scaling limitation of the Ethereum blockchain that can only process about 15 transactions per second and makes use of (direct) transaction costs. EOS is able to process thousands of transactions per second and does not have direct transaction costs. Yet, this comes with a limitation of decentralization, as EOS only has 21 validating nodes. Additionally, the state of “zero transaction costs” does not exist. Every system has transaction costs. In EOS, transaction costs are outsourced through inflation that block producers earn (and the level of centralization that theoretically allows for freezing of assets). EOS still provides an infrastructure for high throughput DApps that would not stand a chance on Ethereum. I cannot say how much of the traffic and users of the EOS DApps are fake (it’s easy to fake/spam volume if you don’t pay direct transaction costs, the statistic on the transactions per active addresses may suggest so) but the on-chain statistics are a clear sign that EOS can challenge Ethereum (keeping in mind their war chest of $4 billion). As mentioned above, EOS-based tokens are not yet commonly traded on liquid secondary markets. The upcoming release of Eosfinex will likely provide such a market for EOS tokens.

Conclusion

To this date, Ethereum remains the go-to blockchain for new projects, when using secondary market statistics as an evaluation tool. EOS looks like the only real alternative but still lacks some maturity to challenge Ethereum. Other solutions need to promote themselves through specific languages, tech, governance structures, geolocations, incubators or else.