Single Point of Failure Analysis
What could technically end each protocol — for protocols without a controlling entity.
Disclaimer: This analysis is based on publicly available data and documentation. It is provided for educational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. All assessments represent our methodology's output based on observable data, not accusations. Project structures may change. Submit corrections with evidence.
5
No SPOF
3
Limited
○ No SPOF Identified (5)
| Project | Score | SPOF Type | Primary Dependency | Dependency Scenario |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bitcoin(BTC) | 7.8 | None | - | Unkillable |
| Monero(XMR) | 6.6 | None | - | Unkillable |
| Bitcoin Cash(BCH) | 6.4 | None | - | Unkillable |
| Dogecoin(DOGE) | 6.3 | None | - | Unkillable |
| Litecoin(LTC) | 6.3 | None | - | Unkillable |
△ Limited Dependency (3)
| Project | Score | SPOF Type | Primary Dependency | Dependency Scenario |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kaspa(KAS) | 6.0 | None | Small dev team | Survivable via open source |
| Ethereum Classic(ETC) | 5.8 | None | Small community | Survives as zombie chain |
| Ethereum(ETH) | 5.6 | Person | Founder (social influence) | Survives, loses direction |
Classification Criteria
5 of 8 projects show no identifiable single point of failure based on available data. Common characteristics observed:
- 1.Proof of Work consensus - Permissionless participation
- 2.No premine or insider allocation - Open distribution
- 3.No centralized halt capability - No admin controls
- 4.Multiple independent implementations - Client diversity
Disagree with an assessment? Submit a Pull Request