The rapidly expanding landscape of Web3 and the metaverse profoundly accentuates the escalating challenge of rigorously assessing and strategically selecting foundational Layer-1 digital blockchain platforms. Decision-makers frequently contend with the imperative of rational choice amidst a complex confluence of often conflicting technological attributes. This study directly addresses this critical exigency by utilizing robust benchmarking and validation for the comparative ranking of 10 prominent blockchain platforms. By applying a suite of five established multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods, namely TOPSIS, ARAS, RAPS, RAMS, and RATMI, a comprehensive evaluation is undertaken, scrutinizing performance across three pivotal criteria categories: performance/scalability, security, and economic/activity. The weights for the entire criteria set were determined using the objective entropy method. Using the entropy approach to determine weights based on randomness, the criteria weights were determined as follows: Speed 12.9%, Market Cap 7.2%, Hash Rate 43.7%, Time to Finality 12.1%, Total Transactions 10.8%, and Number of Nodes 13.3%. The empirical analysis consistently identifies Bitcoin as the top-ranking platform, securing first position across all five MCDM methodologies. This finding validates its unparalleled robustness and security based on the defined criteria. Hyperliquid and Sui also emerged as exemplary performers, consistently exhibiting strong aggregate scores and securing second and third positions, respectively. Conversely, other blockchains, such as the BNB Chain and Tron, demonstrated significant ranking volatility across the different evaluation methods. This study provides a validated, data-driven benchmarking tool, offering stakeholders a transparent framework for strategic decision-making. This application contributes to the conceptual accuracy of evaluating sustainable digital infrastructure.
Bafail et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: