Ceramic Network vs ION (Identity Overlay Network)

High-write throughput architecture: Uses a permissionless node network separate from consensus layers, enabling ~1,000+ TPS for data updates. This matters for applications with high-frequency user interactions, like gaming or social media, where Ethereum's mainnet would be cost-prohibitive.

No central operators or tokens: The protocol is fully defined by open standards (W3C DID, Sidetree) and run by independent nodes. This matters for projects requiring minimal trust assumptions and avoiding dependency on a specific utility token or foundation-controlled validators.

Relies on the Ceramic network and $CERAMIC token: Data availability and consensus depend on the health of its own node network and cryptoeconomics. This matters if you prefer the absolute minimalism of leveraging an existing base layer like Bitcoin without introducing new trust vectors.

Batch anchoring to Bitcoin: DID operations are batched and settled on Bitcoin ~every 10 minutes, with costs tied to Bitcoin transaction fees. This matters for applications needing sub-minute update finality or extremely high-volume, low-cost writes, where Ceramic's model is more suitable.

EVM & L2 Native: Anchors data to Ethereum, Polygon, Gnosis Chain, and others. This provides flexibility for teams building on high-throughput, low-cost L2s. It matters for projects that prioritize gas efficiency and need to integrate data with smart contracts across multiple ecosystems.

Single-purpose DID protocol: Optimized exclusively for Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) and Verifiable Credentials. This results in a simpler, more auditable codebase and a clear trust model rooted in Bitcoin. It matters for teams who need a focused, robust identity layer without the overhead of a general data network.

Added architectural layer: Requires running or relying on Ceramic nodes and understanding StreamID, CommitID, and TileDocument models. This introduces complexity versus a direct blockchain anchor. It's a drawback for projects that only need simple, static DID anchoring and want to minimize dependencies.

Limited to Bitcoin's throughput and cost: Batch operations help, but finality and transaction costs are tied to Bitcoin mainnet (∼10 min block time, variable fees). Data indexing also requires external infrastructure. It's a drawback for applications requiring high-frequency data updates or tight integration with EVM state.

Established developer stack: Includes ComposeDB (graph database), Glaze (SDK), and the Tile Document stream type. With over 1,000+ active projects building, it offers a lower barrier to entry for teams needing a full-featured data layer integrated with IPFS and Ethereum.

Focused on W3C DID Core: Provides a lean, interoperable implementation of did:ion method. This matters for projects that prioritize standard compliance, cross-chain verifiability, and a minimal identity primitive without needing a complex data protocol, often used for sign-in experiences and credential issuance.

Steeper learning curve: Managing streams, commits, and anchors across a p2p network adds operational overhead. This can be a drawback for teams that only need simple DID creation and resolution, as the full Ceramic stack may be overkill.

Primarily a DID method: ION does not natively handle rich, mutable user data. Applications must manage Verifiable Credentials and profile data in separate storage layers (e.g., IPFS, cloud). This adds complexity for social or data-intensive dApps compared to Ceramic's integrated solution.