Whether or not to invest in ASTR ultimately depends on your investment strategy and belief in the potential of the entire Polkadot ecosystem. It's important to keep in mind the fate of previous giants like EOS, which many people believed in but ultimately faltered. As a long-term investor, it may be worth considering ASTR and comparing it to other options like GLMR. It's challenging to predict which one will perform better between Moonbeam and Astar Network, as they share many similarities. However, diversification is a crucial rule for investors to remember, as it spreads out risk and increases the chances of success.
For me, we are considering two of the most interesting projects in the DOT ecosystem. P.S. Although I would have previously recommended Acala, I have concerns about their decentralization due to the way they handled the aftermath of their hacking incident and the manner in which they paused their network.
Bellow, I will highlight the similarities and differences between Moonbeam and Astar Network. If you choose to invest in either of these parachains, it may be wise to consider diversifying your investment between them.
Moonbeam and Astar Network are both parachains built on the Polkadot network, designed to enable interoperability between different blockchain platforms. They both support the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) and WebAssembly (WASM) smart contracts, and provide cross-chain communication through the Cross-Consensus Messaging (XCMP) protocol.
When it comes to technology (Pic #2), Astar Network appears to be better than Moonbeam in terms of transaction fees, although this may not be a significant factor as both networks are on par with transaction processing. Astar also boasts better decentralization due to the presence of more collators in its network. However, Astar's focus on interoperability with various chains may be seen as a double-edged sword. While it covers interoperability more broadly than Moonbeam, it also makes the network more complex and potentially more difficult for developers and users to navigate. On the other hand, Moonbeam is more geared towards interoperability with Ethereum and EVM chains.
When it comes to tokenomics (Pic #3), Astar and Moonbeam have their own advantages and disadvantages. While Moonbeam may have better long-term price performance due to less inflation, Astar has better tokenomics with 14% of its circulating supply being locked by running collators compared to Moonbeam's 1.6%. However, Moonbeam has raised $100 million from VCs to expand its ecosystem, providing it with better opportunities compared to Astar that relies on DApp income and the $35 million it raised. Moreover, the circulating supply of Astar is at 54% of the total supply, while Moonbeam is at 43%. This might lead to the price of Moonbeam crashing more when the rest of the tokens are unlocked.
In terms of adoption (Pic #4), Moonbeam seems to have a greater level of public adoption as evidenced by the higher TVL in DeFi (86M vs 51M). However, Astar has had more transactions submitted on their platform than Moonbeam. It's important to note that Moonbeam has more decentralized applications in its ecosystem, likely due to the 100 million dollars raised from VCs. Additionally, Moonbeam has more cross-chain bridges, DEXs, and NFT marketplaces. The current TPS is also higher on Moonbeam at about 0.62 compared to Astar's 0.6.
In my opinion, Astar and Moonbeam are highly comparable and the top assets in the Polkadot ecosystem. I am hesitant to predict which one will grow more and instead prefer to prioritize diversifying my portfolio to minimize risk. I value the preservation of my investment over earning a potentially higher return.
DYOR, NFA
Source: docs.moonbeam.network; docs.astar.network; moonbeam.network/blog/; medium.com/astar-network; cryptoatlas.net. Show Less
