RedStone excels at permissionless, scalable signer onboarding because its modular design separates data provisioning from on-chain delivery. This allows a dynamic, open set of data providers to sign price feeds off-chain, which are then relayed via a decentralized network of relayers. For example, its ecosystem includes over 50 independent data providers, enabling rapid integration of niche assets and high-frequency data streams without congesting the destination chain.
LABS
Comparisons
RedStone vs Pyth: Signer Diversity & Oracle Models
A technical analysis comparing the signer diversity and data delivery models of RedStone and Pyth Network. We examine the trade-offs between RedStone's pull-based, modular approach and Pyth's push-based, on-chain aggregation for protocol architects and engineering leaders.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Core Architectural Divide
RedStone and Pyth represent fundamentally different philosophies for securing oracle data, centered on signer diversity and governance.
Pyth takes a different approach by curating a high-stakes, permissioned network of premium publishers. Its strategy relies on ~90 first-party data providers—including major exchanges and trading firms like Jane Street and CME—who stake PYTH tokens and publish data directly on-chain via the Pythnet appchain. This results in a trade-off: exceptional data quality and low latency for mainstream assets, but a more guarded, governance-heavy process for expanding the publisher set.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximum data freshness, censorship resistance for long-tail assets, and EVM-centric deployment, choose RedStone. Its model is ideal for DeFi protocols on L2s like Arbitrum or Avalanche needing diverse, real-world data. If you prioritize institutional-grade data quality for blue-chip assets, cross-chain consistency (Solana, Sui, Aptos), and are willing to work within a curated ecosystem, choose Pyth. Its staking-based slashing mechanism and premium publisher base are tailored for high-value, low-latency applications.
tldr-summary
RedStone vs Pyth: Signer Diversity
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A direct comparison of how each oracle's signer network is structured and the resulting trade-offs for protocol security and data coverage.
01
RedStone: Permissionless Signer Onboarding
Open, modular network: Anyone can become a data signer by staking $REDSTONE tokens and running a node. This creates a long-tail of niche data (e.g., LSD yields, real-world assets) and aligns with decentralized ethos. It matters for protocols needing custom data feeds not covered by mainstream providers.
100+
Independent Signers
02
RedStone: Risk of Lower Stakes
Lower individual stake concentration: While open, the total value secured per signer is often lower than Pyth's institutional members. This can present a higher aggregate security threshold for major price feeds but increases the attack surface for smaller, niche feeds. Matters for protocols where extreme data diversity is prioritized over maximum per-feed security.
03
Pyth: Institutional Signer Curation
Vetted, high-stake participants: Data is signed by major CEXs (Binance, OKX), market makers (Jump Trading, Virtu), and institutional traders. This creates extremely high cost-to-attack for core financial feeds (e.g., BTC/USD, SOL/USD). It matters for DeFi protocols where maximum assurance on high-liquidity assets is non-negotiable.
$2B+
Total Value Secured
04
Pyth: Potential for Centralization
Permissioned, curated network: The barrier to becoming a first-party publisher is high, limiting the diversity of data sources to established financial entities. This can lead to data gaps for long-tail crypto assets and real-world data. Matters for protocols building in emerging sectors (DePIN, RWA) where traditional finance lacks coverage.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Head-to-Head Feature Comparison: Signer Diversity & Model
Direct comparison of oracle signer networks and data sourcing models.
| Metric | RedStone | Pyth |
|---|---|---|
Primary Data Source Model | Pull-based (On-Demand) | Push-based (Continuous) |
Signer Node Count | 50+ | 90+ |
Signer Type Diversity | Exchanges, Stakers, DAOs, Institutions | Exchanges, Market Makers, Trading Firms |
Data Signed On-Chain | ||
Data Signed Off-Chain | ||
Price Feeds Available | 1,200+ | 500+ |
On-Chain Update Frequency | On-demand by dApp | ~400ms (Solana), ~3 sec (EVM) |
pros-cons-a
ARCHITECTURAL DIFFERENCES
RedStone vs Pyth: Signer Diversity
A side-by-side comparison of how each oracle network structures its data provider ecosystem, a key factor for security and decentralization.
01
RedStone's Strength: Permissionless Signer Onboarding
Open ecosystem model: Any reputable data provider can join as a signer by staking $REDSTONE tokens. This enables rapid scaling of the signer set, currently supporting hundreds of unique data sources. This matters for protocols seeking censorship resistance and a high degree of decentralization in their price feed sourcing.
02
RedStone's Trade-off: Staking-Based Security
Security via cryptoeconomics: Data integrity is enforced through a staking and slashing mechanism. While this opens participation, it introduces a different risk model compared to legal agreements. This matters for institutional-grade applications where counterparty due diligence on each signer may be required, adding operational overhead.
03
Pyth's Strength: Curated, Institutional Providers
Whitelisted, high-quality sources: Pyth's signer set is a curated network of over 90 first-party publishers including major exchanges (Binance, OKX), trading firms (Virtu Financial, Jump Trading), and market makers. This matters for protocols that prioritize data provenance from regulated, institutional entities with established reputations.
04
Pyth's Trade-off: Permissioned & Centralized Curation
Gatekeeper control: The Pyth Data Association governs signer admission, creating a more centralized curation process. While this ensures quality, it limits the network's permissionless innovation and long-tail asset coverage compared to open models. This matters for developers building on niche assets or emerging L2s where Pyth's publisher list may not yet have coverage.
pros-cons-b
Signer Diversity Analysis
Pyth Network: Pros and Cons
A data-driven comparison of how RedStone and Pyth approach the critical security metric of signer diversity.
01
Pyth: Institutional Grade Diversity
Specific advantage: 90+ first-party data providers, including CME Group, Jane Street, and Binance. This matters for protocols requiring maximum trust minimization and regulatory resilience, as it aggregates directly from major trading firms and exchanges.
90+
First-Party Publishers
02
Pyth: On-Chain Pull Oracle
Specific advantage: Data is pushed on-chain by permissioned publishers and aggregated via a Solana-based consensus. This matters for high-frequency, low-latency DeFi on Solana, where sub-second updates are critical for perpetuals and spot markets.
03
RedStone: Modular & Permissionless
Specific advantage: 50+ independent data providers can join without permission, using a cryptoeconomic staking model. This matters for multi-chain protocols (e.g., GMX on Arbitrum, Lido on Ethereum) seeking cost efficiency and flexibility across 40+ EVM and non-EVM chains.
50+
Permissionless Signers
40+
Supported Chains
04
RedStone: Data Availability Layer
Specific advantage: Employs Arweave for permanent data storage and streams data via a push model with on-demand verification. This matters for gas-sensitive applications on L2s and appchains, as it decouples data delivery from expensive on-chain aggregation.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which Oracle
RedStone for DeFi
Verdict: The modular, cost-effective choice for novel assets and cross-chain applications. Strengths:
- Signer Diversity: Over 50 independent data providers (e.g., Kaiko, CoinGecko, market makers) create a robust, permissionless network.
- Gas Efficiency: Data is signed off-chain and delivered on-demand via Arweave or streams, minimizing on-chain gas costs for protocols like Lido, Pendle, and GMX.
- Asset Breadth: Unparalleled coverage of long-tail assets, indices, and real-world data (RWA), crucial for innovative lending and derivatives markets.
Pyth for DeFi
Verdict: The high-performance standard for latency-sensitive, high-value perpetuals and spot markets. Strengths:
- Publisher Quality: ~90 first-party publishers (e.g., Jane Street, CBOE, Binance) provide direct institutional-grade price feeds.
- Speed & Finality: Sub-second update frequency with on-chain attestations, essential for perpetual DEXs like Drift and Synthetix on Solana and EVM chains.
- Proven Security: Over $2B in total value secured (TVS) with a battle-tested record on high-throughput chains.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between RedStone and Pyth hinges on your protocol's tolerance for decentralization trade-offs versus its need for maximum institutional credibility.
RedStone excels at maximizing signer diversity and decentralization through its unique pull-based model. By allowing data consumers to fetch price updates on-demand from a broad, permissionless network of over 50 data providers, it achieves a more censorship-resistant and geographically distributed architecture. This design is ideal for DeFi protocols like Morpho or Pendle that prioritize sovereignty and wish to avoid reliance on a single, centralized data feed, even if it introduces minor latency for data retrieval.
Pyth takes a different approach by operating a tightly curated, high-stakes network of over 90 premier data publishers, including major exchanges (e.g., Binance, CBOE) and trading firms (e.g., Jane Street, Virtu). This results in a trade-off: exceptional data quality and speed—with sub-second on-chain updates—at the cost of a more permissioned, institutionally-heavy validator set. Its dominance, with over $2 Billion in Total Value Secured (TVS), is a testament to its credibility for high-value applications like perpetual swaps on Synthetix or margin lending on Solend.
The key trade-off: If your priority is decentralization, censorship resistance, and protocol sovereignty, choose RedStone. Its pull-based model and permissionless provider set are superior for building credibly neutral infrastructure. If you prioritize institutional-grade data quality, ultra-low latency, and maximum market confidence for high-stakes financial products, choose Pyth. Its curated publisher network and massive secured value offer unparalleled assurance for applications where data lag is a critical risk.
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