Provider at a glance
- Category
- Layer-1 Blockchains
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- ton.org
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 76 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
TON (The Open Network)
Sharded proof-of-stake chain
Layer-1 Blockchains
#2 Overall
Ranked #2 of 8 layer-1 blockchains in the published ranking
76
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is TON (The Open Network) right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Measured deterministic finality7/10, the category best
- Validator Count and Nakamoto Coefficient9/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Documented Downtime3/10 here; Ethereum scores 9
- Independent Client Implementations2/10 here; Ethereum scores 8
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: Global.
to test where you can use it.
The rank above is the published one, the same for every reader. Find my best layer-1 blockchain shows where it lands for you.
What will TON (The Open Network) cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Usage per month
- 10
How safe is TON (The Open Network)?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to TON (The Open Network)
Compare all 4- 1Ethereum3 points above · stronger on liveness record (9 against 3)79
- 3Avalanche1 point below · stronger on liveness record (4 against 3)75
- 4Cardano3 points below · stronger on liveness record (7 against 3)73
For your setup
Find out if TON (The Open Network) fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where TON (The Open Network) lands for you, which criteria your answers weight up, and which stated needs the record does or does not meet. The published rank stays beside it.
- A few questions
- No account required
- Ranking-blind: no commercial input
- Personalised in under 60 seconds
Find my best layer-1 blockchainNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why TON (The Open Network) ranks #2
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (17.0 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest. Best in this ranking on 2 of 4.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
303+2.884.09#6/8Loading evidence…
257+5.606.57#1/8Loading evidence…
259+7.205.59#1/8Loading evidence…
202+1.282.08#4/8Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−3behind Ethereum, #1
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 74–78 and ranks #2–#3
Evidence4 of 4 scored4 quoted, 4 with a source link
What would move the rank
Each line is the ranking run again with one of TON (The Open Network)’s criterion scores changed and every other value held: the smallest whole-point change on that criterion that moves its rank, and where the re-run puts it. Up to 4 climbs and 3 falls are listed, smallest change first. Nothing here is a forecast.
Documented Downtime 3 → 5 on its ladder · passes Ethereum+279#2 → #1
Measured deterministic finality 7 → 10 on its ladder · passes Ethereum+379#2 → #1
Independent Client Implementations 2 → 5 on its ladder · passes Ethereum+379#2 → #1
Documented Downtime 3 → 2 on its ladder · Avalanche passes it−174#2 → #3
Measured deterministic finality 7 → 6 on its ladder · Avalanche passes it−174#2 → #3
Validator Count and Nakamoto Coefficient 9 → 8 on its ladder · Avalanche passes it−174#2 → #3
Smallest climb: documented Downtime 3 → 5 passes Ethereum, #1.
Strengths
2 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Measured deterministic finality — 7/10, the category best
- Validator Count and Nakamoto Coefficient — 9/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
2 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Documented Downtime — 3/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Independent Client Implementations — 2/10 against a category best of 8/10
Record watch-outs
- The headline decentralisation claim — 400 validators across six continents — is promoted by Pavel Durov personally, and TON's fortunes are structurally tied to Telegram. A Nakamoto coefficient of 88 measures stake distribution, not independence from a single corporate patron. Two of its three documented outages were triggered by Telegram-native memecoin events, meaning its main demand source is also its main failure trigger.
- Chainspect displays TON daily revenue as $3,399 — plain dollars, not thousands. The research appended a 'K' that is not on the page, overstating TON's revenue by 1000x. Chainspect renders genuine thousands with explicit K notation elsewhere on the same set of pages (Avalanche $5.723K, Aptos $3.262K, Cardano $1.038K, Solana $565.6K), so the absence of K here is dispositive. Arithmetic confirms it: 29.4 tx/s x 86,400s x $0.001083 avg fee = ~$2,751/day, the same order of magnitude as $3,399 and three orders below $3.4M. Read again 15 September 2026: Chainspect now shows TON's on-chain revenue for the day with explicit K notation, $1.845K, and the pricing note carries that value.
- The date is off by one day and the sequence is reversed. The additional DOGS-related outages did not follow 'within two days'; they occurred on 26 August, when the DOGS airdrop launched and Toncoin suffered two network outages in a single day — i.e. BEFORE the six-hour halt, not after it. Read again 15 September 2026: TON's own status channel, in a post dated 28 August 2024, reads 'We experienced two network outages on August 27 and 28.' The re-read counts TON's full halts as 27 August 2024, 28 August 2024 and 1 June 2025 (a 67-minute masterchain suspension).
Competitive position
Where TON (The Open Network) leads and where it trails
Rank on every objective dimension among the rows scored on it. A criterion in the top third of its pool is listed as a lead, the bottom third as a trail; the middle is neither. Popularity, size and commercial terms are not dimensions.
Availability#1 / 814.0 of 20 · constant here
Published criteria#2 / 812.7 of 30 · best 13.9
Friction#1 / 82.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 83.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 88.3 of 18 · constant here
Where TON (The Open Network) leads
- Measured deterministic finality#1 / 8
- Validator Count and Nakamoto Coefficient#1 / 8
Where it trails
- Documented Downtime#6 / 8
Closest alternatives
The 3 nearest rows by score
Nearest by published score in either direction. Each card states the criteria on which the two rows differ and the cost difference under the same scenario inputs; the compare arithmetic below shows why the higher one ranks higher.
Avalanche#3 of 8 · score 75 · 1.0 point behind
TON (The Open Network) leads on
- Measured deterministic finality7 vs 6
- Validator Count and Nakamoto Coefficient9 vs 8
Avalanche leads on
- Documented Downtime4 vs 3
Largest single reason TON (The Open Network) is ahead: published criteria (+1.3 display points).Scenario cost: Avalanche has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Ethereum#1 of 8 · score 79 · 3.0 points ahead
TON (The Open Network) leads on
- Measured deterministic finality7 vs 4
- Validator Count and Nakamoto Coefficient9 vs 2
Ethereum leads on
- Documented Downtime9 vs 3
- Independent Client Implementations8 vs 2
Largest single reason Ethereum is ahead: published criteria (+3.1 display points).Scenario cost: Ethereum has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Cardano#4 of 8 · score 73 · 3.0 points behind
TON (The Open Network) leads on
- Measured deterministic finality7 vs 2
- Validator Count and Nakamoto Coefficient9 vs 7
Cardano leads on
- Documented Downtime7 vs 3
Largest single reason TON (The Open Network) is ahead: published criteria (+3.4 display points).Scenario cost: Cardano has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
79 vs 76 · gap 3.0Why Ethereum ranks above TON (The Open Network)
The compare workspace's arithmetic applied to these two rows. Each dimension's share of the gap is its weight × the difference, on the displayed scale — it reproduces the displayed gap of 3.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisEthereumGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight12.713.9−3.1, worse
Friction · 12% weight · constant here2.72.7same
Trust record · 9% weight · constant here3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here8.38.3same
Published criterionThisEthereumPoints
Documented Downtime · w3039−5.76, worse
Measured deterministic finality · w2574+2.40, better
Validator Count and Nakamoto Coefficient · w2592+5.60, better
Independent Client Implementations · w2028−3.84, worse
Net7679−3.0
Your scenario
TON (The Open Network) is not priced for this scenario
Metered usage beyond whatever the plan includes, for a year. Excludes egress, support tiers and enterprise minimums. Change an input and every figure recomputes from the published rate; the published rank does not move.
your cost/yr · default scenario — set your own
Usage per month · your input10
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 15 September 2026.
your cost/yrCost is stated as your cost/yr in USD; it is never a yield, never annualised, and it does not enter the score.
Not priced on this basis
Under the default inputs · USDCategory medianNot priced0 of 8 rows priced
Cheapest pricedNone pricedDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filter
8 of 8 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 15 September 2026
One row per published criterion: the page each strength was read from, its source type by domain, the reading date and whether the file and the published table agree. Open a row for the quote and the receipt.
4 of 4 cells scored
Score evidenceVerified4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from receipts
4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from a quoted, sourced receipt equal to the published strength.Public receiptsReading…4 quoted with a source URL
The receipt file has not been read yet.Evidence confidenceHighcoverage and corroboration, never freshness
4/4 criteria scored, with 4 dated sources quoted.RobustnessOne point from changingrank #2 to #3 across one-point re-runs
Whether the position holds when one criterion score is changed by one point and the ranking is run again. It is always a re-run of the ranking, never an estimate.The newest evidence read on the platform is 3 November 2026; this category's reading is older. The scores stand as read on 15 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Documented Downtimestrength 3 · weight 30Report an error—15 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Measured deterministic finalitystrength 7 · weight 25Report an error—15 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Validator Count and Nakamoto Coefficientstrength 9 · weight 25Report an error—15 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Independent Client Implementationsstrength 2 · weight 20Report an error—15 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
- Verification failure: an invalid state or transfer is accepted.Scored by Measured deterministic finality · 25% (TON (The Open Network) 7/10)Scored by Validator Count and Nakamoto Coefficient · 25% (TON (The Open Network) 9/10)Scored by Independent Client Implementations · 20% (TON (The Open Network) 2/10)
- Liveness failure (TON (The Open Network) 3/10): the operator stops, censors you or loses data.Scored by Documented Downtime · 30%
Not assessed by this ranking: Control failure, Execution failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means.
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Average Transaction Fee: $0.0006212 · On-Chain Revenue (1 day): $1.845K · Block Time (1H): 414ms · Finality Time: 800msChainspect — independent chain metrics tracker ↗ · 15 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDChainspect — independent chain metrics tracker ↗ · 15 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Multi-chain
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- Not published
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with TON (The Open Network): where to complain, and where to report a scam
Loading the routes for your country.
How this page is reviewed
Reviewed means this product in this category was read against its sources on or after that date; every ranked category is re-read at least every 45 days. Models research, extract and parse. A deterministic engine ranks. Every quote passes an adversarial refute pass.
Accountable for this review: Mathias Siemonsmeier, Founder.
How we review · Review calendar · Corrections log · How we make money
History
What the record carries
Changes to published ranks are recorded in a ledger; every step and its cause is listed on the rank-history page. The entries below begin with the current verified snapshot, then the methodology versions whose changes applied to this category, newest first.
9 methodology entries
- 15 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 76, #2 of 8. 4 of 4 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.8When nothing serves your country, the list shown for reference is the published ranking · platform-wide- fixed The reference list shown when nothing serves your country is the published order with the published scores, and a build check now fails any such list out of that order or with a score the ranking does not publish.
- fixed The explorer prints an overall rank only for a row the published ranking holds; a country entrant such as Coinbase Commerce for US merchants shows no overall rank.
- changed Published orders do not move. Country results change only where nothing serves the country: in India bill pay keeps Bitcoin Well first and now shows Strike second, as published; 35 such runs across all categories and countries now match the published list exactly.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.6A criterion you require re-scores the rows that meet it · platform-wide- changed The explorer sends each criterion you require, at any band, as fit_required with your other answers; region, licence, chain and fact filters stay filters. On /best, a required criterion joins For you as a marked preference does, which needs your country; Overall stays the published ranking, filtered.
- added Every published criterion has a golden case as the explorer sends it (require:<criterion>), so the order a requirement gives is replayed and gated as the published order is, and a change to it needs an entry here.
- 16 September 2026
2026.09.15Dimension scores carry tenths, and eleven more categories are re-read from primary sources · platform-wide- changed Dimension scores resolve to tenths of a point (O-04b), and weightedTotal is rounded to six decimal places before the order is read. 518 published scores move across 107 categories that were not re-read; none of them moves by more than 4 points, and most move by 1.
- fixed 66 published scores change in the eleven re-read categories, against a verbatim source each. The largest moves are Reflexer RAI (−16), Beefy and Unrekt (−11), Aztec (−10) and Golem (+9) — all of them rows whose sources had moved since their last read.
- changed Published order moves in 38 of 119 categories and three #1s change: smart_contract_audits (Zellic → Certora) and travel_rule_compliance (Sumsub Travel Rule → CodeVASP) on the finer resolution, kyc_compliance (Veriff → Sumsub) on the re-read.
- added availabilitySource (O-04g): for a reader who states a country, a row whose availability in that country rests on a region tag its record gives no source for sorts below every sourced row. It is inert in every order published here, which states no country.
Methodology 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt layer1_chains:ton_l1:2026.10.18:b2e24c65958f
Are you TON (The Open Network)? Reply to this verdict, or send evidence, ask for a correction or claim the listing. Every message gets a public ticket number; none of it changes a rank unless a public page or a signed statement supports it.