Block-based blockchains like Ethereum and Solana excel at providing strong, globally-ordered finality through sequential block production. This deterministic ordering simplifies state management and smart contract execution, enabling robust DeFi protocols like Uniswap and Aave to operate with predictable security. However, this linearity creates a fundamental bottleneck: transactions compete for space in a single block, leading to congestion and high fees during peak demand, as seen with Ethereum's average gas price often exceeding 100 Gwei.
LABS
Comparisons
Blocks vs DAGs: Transaction Parallelism
A technical comparison of linear blockchains and Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) architectures for achieving transaction parallelism. We analyze performance, security trade-offs, and optimal use cases for CTOs and protocol architects.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Scalability Bottleneck and Two Paths Forward
A foundational comparison of block-based and DAG-based architectures, focusing on their core approaches to transaction parallelism and scalability.
Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) architectures, exemplified by Hedera Hashgraph and IOTA, take a different approach by allowing transactions to be processed in parallel across multiple chains or threads. This strategy, such as Hedera's gossip-about-gossip protocol, can achieve theoretical throughputs in the 10,000+ TPS range by validating transactions asynchronously. The trade-off is increased complexity in achieving consensus on a globally ordered history, which can impact the immediate finality required for some high-frequency trading applications.
The key trade-off: If your priority is deterministic finality and maximal composability for complex, interdependent DeFi operations, choose a blockchain. If you prioritize raw throughput and low-latency settlement for high-volume, independent transactions like micropayments or IoT data streams, a DAG-based ledger may be the superior foundation.
tldr-summary
Blocks vs DAGs: Transaction Parallelism
TL;DR: Core Differentiators at a Glance
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for architects choosing a consensus model.
01
Blockchain: Deterministic Finality
Guaranteed Order: Transactions are serialized into a single, canonical chain (e.g., Bitcoin, Ethereum). This provides strong consistency and atomic composability, where smart contract interactions are predictable. This matters for DeFi protocols (Uniswap, Aave) where transaction order is critical for state integrity.
02
Blockchain: Mature Tooling
Proven Ecosystem: Access to battle-tested clients (Geth, Erigon), indexers (The Graph), and standards (ERC-20, ERC-721). This matters for enterprise adoption and teams needing to launch quickly with established infrastructure like MetaMask, Hardhat, and Etherscan.
4,000+
Monthly Active Devs (Ethereum)
03
DAG: High Throughput & Low Latency
Parallel Processing: Transactions are validated concurrently across a directed acyclic graph structure (e.g., Hedera, Fantom). This enables high TPS and sub-second finality by avoiding global block propagation bottlenecks. This matters for high-frequency applications like micropayments, gaming, or IoT data streams.
10,000+
Peak TPS (Hedera)
04
DAG: Scalability & Low Fees
Inherently Scalable: Network capacity increases with usage as more participants add transactions to the DAG. This often results in ultra-low, predictable fees (e.g., $0.0001 fixed fees). This matters for mass-market dApps requiring cost-effective, high-volume transactions without fee volatility.
05
Choose Blockchains For...
Atomic Composability & Security: Building complex, interdependent DeFi money legos or NFT ecosystems where the exact, globally agreed order of state changes is non-negotiable. Examples: Cross-protocol liquidations, NFT marketplaces with bundled trades.
06
Choose DAGs For...
High-Volume, Independent Operations: Applications where transactions are largely independent and require high throughput with minimal latency and cost. Examples: Supply chain tracking, high-frequency data oracles, pay-per-use API calls, and gaming asset transfers.
TRANSACTION PROCESSING PARADIGMS
Architectural Feature Comparison: Blocks vs DAGs
Direct comparison of core architectural features and performance implications for transaction processing.
| Architectural Feature | Blockchain (e.g., Ethereum, Solana) | DAG (e.g., Hedera, IOTA) |
|---|---|---|
Transaction Ordering & Structure | Linear chain of ordered blocks | Directed Acyclic Graph of interlinked transactions |
Inherent Transaction Parallelism | ||
Typical TPS (Theoretical Max) | 1,000 - 65,000 | 10,000 - 100,000+ |
Consensus Mechanism | Leader-based (PoW/PoS/BFT) | Leaderless (Gossip, Virtual Voting) |
Block Time / Confirmation Latency | ~2 sec - ~15 min | ~1 sec - ~5 sec |
Fee Model for Consensus | Per transaction (gas) | Per transaction or periodic (staking) |
Smart Contract Execution Model | Synchronous, sequential | Asynchronous, parallelizable |
PERFORMANCE & SCALABILITY BENCHMARKS
Blocks vs DAGs: Transaction Parallelism
Direct comparison of architectural approaches to transaction processing and scalability.
| Metric / Feature | Blockchain (e.g., Solana, Sui) | DAG (e.g., Hedera, Kaspa) |
|---|---|---|
Theoretical Max TPS | 65,000+ (Solana) | 10,000+ (Hedera) |
Consensus Mechanism | PoH/PoS (Solana), Delegated PoS | Hashgraph (Hedera), GHOSTDAG (Kaspa) |
Transaction Parallelism | True (Concurrent execution) | True (Asynchronous validation) |
Avg. Transaction Finality | < 1 sec (Solana) | < 5 sec (Hedera) |
Avg. Transaction Cost | $0.00025 (Solana) | $0.0001 (Hedera) |
Leader/Coordinator Required | ||
Supports Smart Contracts |
pros-cons-a
Blocks vs DAGs: Transaction Parallelism
Blockchain (Linear) Architecture: Strengths and Weaknesses
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for linear blockchains (e.g., Ethereum, Solana) versus Directed Acyclic Graphs (e.g., Hedera, IOTA).
01
Linear Blockchain: Deterministic Finality
Sequential consensus: Transactions are ordered in a single, canonical chain. This provides strong, unambiguous finality (e.g., Ethereum's 12-second block time). This matters for DeFi protocols like Uniswap and Aave, where transaction order is critical to prevent front-running and ensure state consistency.
02
Linear Blockchain: Mature Tooling
Established developer ecosystem: Linear chains benefit from battle-tested tools like EVM, Solidity, and clients like Geth/Erigon. This matters for protocol architects who need reliable infrastructure, extensive libraries (OpenZeppelin), and a large pool of developers to build complex dApps.
4,000+
Monthly Active Devs (Ethereum)
03
DAG Architecture: High Throughput
Parallel processing: DAGs allow transactions to be added concurrently by referencing multiple previous transactions, enabling high theoretical TPS. This matters for high-frequency microtransactions and IoT data streams, as seen in Hedera's 10,000+ TPS benchmarks for consensus service.
10,000+
TPS (Hedera Consensus Service)
04
DAG Architecture: Low Latency & Fees
No miners/block producers: Many DAGs use leaderless or asynchronous consensus (e.g., IOTA's Tangle), eliminating block times and reducing fees. This matters for feeless machine-to-machine economies and use cases where sub-second confirmation and cost predictability are paramount.
05
Linear Blockchain: Weakness - Bottlenecked Scalability
Sequential bottleneck: Single-chain architecture creates a fundamental throughput limit, leading to network congestion and high fees during peak demand (e.g., Ethereum's $50+ gas fees in 2021). This is a critical weakness for mass-market consumer applications requiring low-cost, high-volume transactions.
06
DAG Architecture: Weakness - Complex State Management
Concurrency control challenge: Parallel transaction processing requires sophisticated conflict resolution (e.g., Hedera's virtual voting, IOTA's conflict white-flagging). This adds complexity for smart contract developers and can limit composability compared to the linear, globally ordered state of Ethereum or Solana.
pros-cons-b
Blocks vs DAGs: Transaction Parallelism
DAG Architecture: Strengths and Weaknesses
Key architectural trade-offs for throughput, finality, and developer experience at a glance.
01
Blockchain (Linear) Strength: Deterministic Finality
Sequential consensus ensures a single, canonical history. This matters for high-value DeFi where transaction ordering and non-repudiation are critical (e.g., Uniswap, Aave). Tools like The Graph rely on this linearity for reliable indexing.
02
Blockchain (Linear) Weakness: Bottlenecked Throughput
Single-block production creates a serialization bottleneck. This matters for mass-market dApps where low fees and high TPS are required. Layer-2s (Optimism, Arbitrum) exist primarily to mitigate this core limitation.
03
DAG (Directed Acyclic Graph) Strength: Parallel Throughput
Asynchronous transaction processing allows for horizontal scaling. This matters for high-frequency microtransactions and IoT data streams. Protocols like Hedera Hashgraph and IOTA leverage this for 10,000+ TPS.
04
DAG (Directed Acyclic Graph) Weakness: Complex Finality & Tooling
Probabilistic finality and lack of a universal block time complicate smart contract execution and developer tooling. This matters for teams requiring EVM/SVM compatibility and mature SDKs. Integration with oracles (Chainlink) and wallets (MetaMask) can be less seamless.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: Choose Blocks or DAGs Based on Your Use Case
Blockchains (e.g., Ethereum, Solana) for DeFi
Verdict: The default choice for composability and security. Strengths:
- Atomic Composability: Critical for flash loans, arbitrage, and complex multi-step transactions. Protocols like Aave and Uniswap rely on this.
- Massive TVL & Tooling: Ethereum's $50B+ TVL and mature frameworks (Foundry, Hardhat) reduce development risk.
- Proven Security: Nakamoto/GHOST consensus provides battle-tested finality for high-value settlements. Trade-offs: Sequential block processing can cause congestion and high fees during peak demand, impacting user experience.
DAGs (e.g., Avalanche, Fantom) for DeFi
Verdict: A strong alternative for high-throughput, fee-sensitive applications. Strengths:
- Parallel Execution: Higher theoretical TPS (Avalanche ~4,500) and lower fees ideal for frequent swaps and yield harvesting.
- Sub-Second Finality: Faster than most blockchains, improving capital efficiency for lending protocols like Trader Joe. Trade-offs: Asynchronous execution can complicate tightly coupled DeFi legos; smaller ecosystem than Ethereum mainnet.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
A data-driven conclusion on selecting between block-based and DAG-based architectures for transaction parallelism.
Block-based architectures (e.g., Solana, Sui, Aptos) excel at providing deterministic finality and a globally ordered state, which is critical for high-frequency DeFi and synchronized applications like AMMs. Their parallel execution engines (e.g., Solana's Sealevel, Sui's BlockSTM) achieve high throughput—Solana consistently demonstrates 2,000-5,000 TPS with sub-second finality—by processing non-conflicting transactions concurrently within a single, authoritative block. This model is battle-tested, with over $4B in Total Value Locked (TVL) across leading blockchains, offering a mature ecosystem of tools like the Solana Program Library (SPL) and Move-based frameworks.
DAG-based architectures (e.g., Hedera, IOTA, Fantom) take a fundamentally different approach by decoupling transaction dissemination from consensus, allowing nodes to asynchronously append transactions to a directed acyclic graph. This results in near-infinite theoretical scalability for certain workloads, as seen in Hedera's sustained 10,000+ TPS in stress tests. However, the trade-off is often more complex finality models (e.g., virtual voting) and potential challenges for applications requiring strict, instantaneous global state consensus, as the lack of a single canonical block can complicate cross-shard communication and smart contract execution.
The key trade-off: If your priority is deterministic performance, strong composability for DeFi/NFTs, and a mature developer ecosystem, choose a high-performance block-based chain like Solana or Sui. If you prioritize maximum theoretical throughput for high-volume, lower-conflict data streams (IoT, micropayments, supply chain) and can tolerate slightly more complex state management, choose a DAG-based protocol like Hedera. For CTOs, the decision hinges on whether application logic demands a single source of truth at every instant (blocks) or benefits from eventual consistency with massive parallelism (DAGs).
ENQUIRY
Build the
future.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall