Number of reachable validators per L1 Proof Of Stake blockchain with current usage in finalized tps (tx per sec) Notes: any tps under 10 tps in 2025 is considered an unused Proof of Stake network being used as a form of value storage with no other purpose and will be eroded by more secure value stores namely Bitcoin Alphabetical order. #Avalanche has around 1000 validators (13.27 tps) #BinanceChain has around 45 validators (116.2 tps) #Cardano has around 3000 validators (0.8 tps) #Ethereum has around 1 million validators (15.58 tps) #Hyperliquid has around 21 validators (est. 2500 tps but no metrics provided yet to settled vs unsettled transactions) #Solana has around 1200-1400 validators (1346 tps) #SUI has around 115-125 validators (48 tps) #Tron has around validators (78.35 tps) #XRP has around 35 validators (36.16 tps) Note: Minimum stake varies per blockchain, consensus varies per blockchain. The more validators the less the profits per validator. Notes: Because Hyperliquid is not open source It is unclear whether HyperEVM uses a L2 sequencer internally to execute transactions then settles them asynchronously to the L1 like any Ethereum L2 does. This technical detail is not published at this time. Notes: Ethereum L2s are the same, they are single sequencers which accumulate optimistic transactions into rollups and settle to Ethereum L1 asynchronously. This makes synchronous settlement hard to measure. For instance the @coinbase #Base L2 has one sequencer and is running at 134.7 tps Notes: The current public internet cannot handle more than 1500 tps concurrently - a private internet with efficient routing is required for larger adoption and scale without compromising security. Only #Solana has such a project in testnet stage. IMO: Many projects are touting decentralization and security whilst building centralized systems to "appear" transparent and violating all first principles of blockchain. This means even though the underlying L1 is sufficiently decentralized, the engine that processes user transactions is not. This will lead to security compromise and ultimate exploitation. Understanding security risks in blockchain. 51% of validators would need to be compromised to gain control of a network. The lower the validator count the easier it is to compromise with a 51% attack. Conversely, the higher the validator count the more secure the network is, but with more validators comes slower consensus and throughput, hence Ethereums high validator count but low tps. Hence Hyperliquids high tps but low validator count. This is the blockchain trilemma. Network Profits vs Network Security vs Network Performance.