3.5 Other Notable Standards

Beyond the Big Three

ERC-20, SPL, and BEP-20 dominate the fungible token landscape. But they don't own it.

Dozens of blockchain platforms have developed their own token standards, each optimized for specific use cases and design philosophies. Some prioritize raw throughput. Others emphasize formal verification or protocol-level simplicity. A few have carved out billion-dollar niches by solving problems the dominant standards ignore.

Understanding these alternatives matters for two reasons. First, some handle more transaction volume in specific categories than the "major" standards. TRC-20 processes more stablecoin transfers than any other standard. Second, newer standards often pioneer features that eventually appear everywhere. Tezos's multi-asset approach in FA2 predates and closely resembles Ethereum's later ERC-1155 multi-token standard.

The token standard landscape isn't converging on a single winner. It's stratifying into specialized layers, each optimized for different trade-offs.

Why Standards Diverge

Token standards multiply because three forces pull ecosystems in different directions.

Technical architecture naturally enables certain features. Solana's parallel processing makes SPL's single-program design work. Separating token logic from token data enables the concurrent execution that makes Solana fast. Ethereum's sequential execution makes individual contracts per token the natural choice. Each architecture encourages certain patterns and discourages others.

Network effects create moats. Ethereum's massive developer base, tooling ecosystem, and institutional adoption make ERC-20 dominant despite known limitations. New tokens deploy on Ethereum because that's where users, liquidity, and infrastructure already exist. This self-reinforcing cycle means technically superior alternatives struggle to gain traction. FA2's elegant multi-asset design hasn't displaced ERC-20 because Tezos's ecosystem remains a fraction of Ethereum's size.

Strategic differentiation drives design choices. New chains must offer compelling reasons for users to switch. BSC chose "cheaper Ethereum" and won users fleeing high gas fees. Solana chose "faster everything" and captured latency-sensitive applications. Tron chose "free stablecoins" and dominated payment rails. Each positioning decision shaped the token standard to serve that specific audience.

These forces explain why we have dozens of standards rather than one. They also predict continued fragmentation as new chains launch with new priorities.

TRC-20 (Tron)

Tron doesn't get respect in crypto circles. The network's centralization draws criticism. Its founder's marketing style alienates developers. Technical discussions rarely mention it.

Yet TRC-20 USDT consistently ranks among the highest by daily transfer volume of any USDT deployment. Over $60 billion in TRC-20 USDT circulates globally, roughly half of Tether's total supply [1]. For pure value transfer at scale, Tron has emerged as one of the clear winners.

Technical Foundation

TRC-20 copies ERC-20's interface almost exactly. The same functions: transfer, approve, balanceOf, transferFrom. The same events. The Tron Virtual Machine runs Solidity contracts with minimal modification. Developers port Ethereum code in hours.

Tron's fee model creates the differentiation. Two resources govern transaction costs:

Bandwidth covers basic data transmission. Every Tron account receives a limited daily quota of free bandwidth points (currently around 600–1,500, depending on protocol parameters over time). A simple TRC-20 transfer typically consumes a few hundred bandwidth points (on the order of 300–350). Most users never pay for basic transfers.

Energy powers smart contract execution. Users obtain energy by "freezing" (staking) TRX. For example, freezing 1,000 TRX might yield on the order of a few thousand energy points, enough for dozens of typical TRC-20 transfers at current parameters. That covers roughly 50 TRC-20 transfers daily. Run out of energy, and you pay a small TRX fee instead.

Delegated Proof-of-Stake secures the network through 27 elected "Super Representatives." This tiny validator set enables three-second blocks and throughput exceeding 2,000 transactions per second. The trade-off mirrors BSC: speed through centralization [2].

Real-World Applications

Stablecoin dominance defines TRC-20's market position. A remittance worker sending $200 home can stake TRX once and then transfer USDT with effectively zero marginal cost. Exchanges offer TRC-20 withdrawals because it costs them almost nothing. Payment processors route through Tron to maximize the amount recipients actually receive.

JustLend operates as Tron's largest lending protocol, holding over $6 billion in total value locked [3]. The platform offers typical lending mechanics with rates that prioritize stability over maximum yield.

SunSwap provides automated market making for TRC-20 tokens, processing $100-300 million daily. Trading volumes concentrate heavily in stablecoin pairs and TRX trading.

FA2 (Tezos)

Tezos took a different path than Ethereum's sequential standard development. Instead of separate standards for fungible tokens (ERC-20) and NFTs (ERC-721), the FA2 standard handles all token types in one specification.

A single FA2 contract can manage fungible currencies, unique collectibles, semi-fungible items, and non-transferable badges simultaneously. A game studio deploying on Tezos creates one contract for gold coins (fungible), legendary weapons (non-fungible), and health potions (semi-fungible with fixed supplies). On Ethereum, this requires three separate contracts following three different standards [4].

Technical Foundation

Multi-asset contracts reduce deployment costs and simplify accounting. Transfers between token types within the same contract execute atomically. No separate approval transactions for each asset type. The design anticipated needs that Ethereum addressed later with ERC-1155.

Tezos smart contracts are written in Michelson or compiled to Michelson, a low-level language specifically designed to support formal verification, enabling mathematical proofs that contracts behave as specified. FA2 contracts can be verified to guarantee they won't exhibit certain bugs. For applications requiring high assurance, like enterprise tokenization or regulated securities, this verification capability provides guarantees that runtime testing cannot [5].

The trade-off: Michelson's functional programming style creates a steeper learning curve than Solidity. Fewer developers means smaller ecosystem growth despite technical advantages.

Real-World Applications

objkt.com operates as Tezos's largest NFT marketplace, processing all trades through FA2 contracts. The platform gained traction among digital artists attracted by lower fees and the network's environmental messaging around Proof-of-Stake.

Tezos-native USDT provides stablecoin functionality for the ecosystem, though circulation remains far smaller than TRC-20 or ERC-20 deployments.

Art tokenization projects chose Tezos for formal verification guarantees. When provenance and authenticity matter legally, mathematically verified contracts reduce liability concerns.

NEP-17 (Neo)

Neo positions itself as infrastructure for a "Smart Economy" where digital assets, digital identity, and smart contracts integrate seamlessly. The NEP-17 standard reflects this vision with features specifically designed for enterprise and regulated applications.

Technical Foundation

NEP-17’s distinguishing feature addresses a long-standing issue where ERC-20 tokens sent to contracts that do not handle them properly can become effectively inaccessible. When you send ERC-20 tokens to a contract that doesn't expect them, the tokens arrive but become permanently stuck. The receiving contract has no mechanism to reject or process them.

NEP-17 requires receiving contracts to implement onNEP17Payment. When tokens arrive, this function executes automatically. The receiving contract can accept the transfer, reject it (reverting the transaction), or process it according to custom logic. No more tokens lost to incompatible contracts [6].

Neo's broader ecosystem includes NeoID, a decentralized identity framework that NEP-17 tokens can reference. Token transfers can require identity verification. Access to certain tokens can depend on credential status. Compliance requirements can be encoded at the protocol level rather than bolted on afterward [7].

Real-World Applications

GAS and NEO tokens follow NEP-17, demonstrating the standard's production readiness for core network assets. NEO represents governance rights while GAS pays for network operations.

Flamingo Finance serves as Neo's primary DeFi hub, offering swaps, lending, and yield optimization through NEP-17 token interactions. The platform handles the majority of Neo's DeFi activity.

Identity-linked securities represent Neo's target market. A security token requiring accredited investor verification can check credentials on-chain before permitting transfers. The identity layer lives alongside the token layer rather than in separate, disconnected systems.

Algorand Standard Assets (ASA)

Algorand eliminated the smart contract layer for basic tokens entirely. Standard Assets exist at the protocol level, as native features of the blockchain rather than code deployed on top of it.

Creating an ASA requires no programming. Specify parameters (name, total supply, decimals, manager addresses), pay a small fee, and the network creates the asset. Transfers execute as native transactions, not contract calls [8].

Technical Foundation

Protocol-level implementation enables extreme efficiency. ASA transfers cost around $0.001 and finalize in under four seconds. No gas estimation complexity. No contract interaction overhead. The blockchain handles tokens the same way it handles its native currency.

This simplicity attracted central banks experimenting with digital currencies. Governments launching CBDCs care as much about "configure and launch" simplicity as they do about validator counts. ASA's model requires no smart contract expertise.

The trade-off: Protocol-level tokens can't do everything smart contract tokens can. Complex logic requires separate contracts that interact with ASAs. The simplicity that makes basic operations efficient limits flexibility for advanced applications.

Real-World Applications

USDC on Algorand demonstrates institutional confidence in the platform. Circle deployed native USDC citing the network's speed and enterprise focus. While volumes remain smaller than Ethereum or Solana deployments, the use case of fast institutional settlement aligns with Algorand's design priorities.

CBDC pilots chose Algorand specifically because token operations match native currency operations. The Marshall Islands explored a national digital currency on Algorand. Palau launched similar experiments. The network's Pure Proof-of-Stake consensus and immediate finality suit sovereign currency requirements.

FIFA+ Collect brought mainstream attention through officially licensed World Cup digital collectibles, initially launched on Algorand. The campaign onboarded users who had never interacted with blockchain technology, before later migrating to a new EVM-compatible “FIFA Blockchain,” demonstrating both ASA’s accessibility and the pull of broader EVM tooling.

Cardano Native Tokens

Cardano took protocol-level tokens further than anyone. Native tokens aren't just efficient to transfer. They're mathematically equivalent to ADA, the native currency, from the ledger's perspective.

Technical Foundation

Minting Cardano native tokens requires defining a "minting policy," a set of rules specifying who can create or destroy tokens and under what conditions. Simple policies (single signature, multi-signature, time-locked) require no code. Complex policies use Plutus smart contracts, but the tokens themselves remain native ledger entries [9].

This design removes the need for ERC-20-style token contracts and, in doing so, eliminates many of the vulnerabilities associated with them. There's no ERC-20 contract to exploit. No approval mechanism to manipulate. No reentrancy vectors. The token exists at the same security level as ADA itself.

Cardano transactions can carry multiple native tokens alongside ADA. A single transaction might send 100 ADA, 50 DJED, and 3 NFTs. All outputs verify simultaneously. Fees depend on transaction size, not on which assets are included.

Real-World Applications

DJED operates as Cardano's primary stablecoin, using an overcollateralized algorithmic design. The token maintains dollar parity through SHEN reserve tokens that absorb volatility. The mechanism learned from Terra's collapse by requiring substantial overcollateralization.

Minswap leads Cardano DEX activity, facilitating native token swaps with liquidity pools holding hundreds of millions in value. The platform demonstrates that native tokens integrate smoothly with DeFi mechanics despite the different underlying architecture.

jpg.store handles Cardano NFT trading, with native tokens representing collectibles ranging from generative art to gaming items. The marketplace processes millions in monthly volume, establishing Cardano as a viable NFT platform despite Ethereum and Solana's dominance.

IBC Tokens (Cosmos)

Cosmos approaches tokens differently than single-chain platforms. Rather than optimizing one chain, the ecosystem enables networks of interconnected chains with native cross-chain token movement.

The Inter-Blockchain Communication (IBC) protocol transfers tokens between independent chains without traditional bridges. Each Cosmos SDK chain can mint native tokens, while CosmWasm-enabled chains support CW-20 smart contract tokens [10].

Technical Foundation

IBC works through light client verification. When Chain A sends tokens to Chain B, both chains maintain cryptographic proofs of each other's state. No trusted intermediary holds assets in escrow. No multi-signature committee controls bridge contracts. The protocol relies on mathematical verification rather than economic security assumptions.

The architecture prioritizes sovereignty. Each chain controls its own validation, consensus mechanism, and governance. Chains communicate through standardized protocols but don't depend on each other for security. A bug on one Cosmos chain doesn't threaten tokens on another.

CW-20 provides ERC-20-equivalent functionality for chains running CosmWasm smart contracts. The standard enables DeFi applications while maintaining IBC compatibility for cross-chain movement.

Real-World Applications

ATOM anchors the Cosmos ecosystem as the staking and governance token for the Cosmos Hub. Validators stake ATOM to secure the hub and earn rewards from transaction fees and inflation.

OSMO powers Osmosis, the ecosystem's dominant DEX. The platform processes hundreds of millions in daily volume across trading pairs spanning dozens of IBC-connected chains. Liquidity providers earn fees denominated in multiple tokens simultaneously.

Cosmos-native and IBC-enabled stablecoins can move between Cosmos chains without relying on external custodial bridges, avoiding many of the bridge risks that have cost other ecosystems billions. USDC, USDT, and various algorithmic stablecoins move between Cosmos chains through protocol-level transfers rather than wrapped token mechanisms.

PSP-22 (Polkadot)

Polkadot connects specialized parachains through a central relay chain [11]. PSP-22 provides ERC-20-equivalent functionality for WebAssembly smart contracts running on Substrate-based chains, while XCM (Cross-Consensus Messaging) enables cross-chain transfers without traditional bridges.

Technical Foundation

Substrate, Polkadot's blockchain development framework, allows teams to build application-specific chains with custom logic. PSP-22 standardizes token interfaces across these diverse implementations. A token created on one parachain can move to another through XCM messages verified by the relay chain.

The shared security model differentiates Polkadot from Cosmos. Parachains don't maintain their own validator sets. They inherit security from the relay chain's validators, who stake DOT tokens. This design reduces the cost of launching new chains but creates dependency on relay chain availability.

Parachains compete for limited slots through auctions or pay ongoing "coretime" fees. This economic gatekeeping ensures only serious projects occupy network resources but raises barriers compared to permissionless deployment on Ethereum or Solana.

Real-World Applications

Moonbeam brings Ethereum compatibility to Polkadot, running a full EVM that accepts Solidity contracts. Projects deploy existing Ethereum code while gaining access to Polkadot's cross-chain messaging. PSP-22 tokens on Moonbeam can interact with ERC-20-style contracts seamlessly.

Astar Network takes multi-VM further, supporting both EVM and WebAssembly smart contracts. Developers choose their preferred environment while tokens move between execution contexts through XCM.

Acala operates as Polkadot's DeFi hub, offering stablecoins, liquid staking, and decentralized exchange functionality. The platform's aUSD stablecoin and LDOT liquid staking token demonstrate PSP-22's DeFi capabilities within the parachain model.

Comparative Analysis

Token standards diverge because each optimizes for different priorities. No single standard excels at everything.

TVL, validator counts, and fee levels are approximate and fluctuate over time; the figures here are intended to convey relative orders of magnitude rather than exact values.

Feature

TRC-20

FA2

NEP-17

ASA

Native (Cardano)

IBC (Cosmos)

PSP-22 (Polkadot)

Architecture

Contract per token

Multi-asset contract

Contract per token

Protocol-level

Chain-native + CW-20

Substrate runtime / Wasm contracts

Language

Solidity

Michelson

C#/Python

Config only

Plutus/Native

Rust (CosmWasm)

Rust (ink!)

Block Time

~3 seconds

~15 seconds

~3 seconds

~20 seconds

~6 seconds

Typical Fee

Near-zero with frozen TRX

$0.01-0.10

$0.01-0.05

~$0.001

$0.10-0.30

$0.01-0.10

Validators

Hundreds

Single-digit consensus nodes

Hundreds

Thousands

Varies by chain

Hundreds (relay chain)

DeFi TVL (approx.)

$8B+

<$100M

<$50M

<$200M

<$500M

$1B+

<$500M

Primary Strength

Free stablecoins

Formal verification

Identity integration

Protocol simplicity

Native security

Sovereign interop

Shared security

The numbers tell the strategic story. Tron's unique fee model dominates stablecoin payments despite centralization concerns. Cosmos attracted meaningful DeFi activity through genuine cross-chain functionality. Smaller ecosystems like Tezos, Neo, and Algorand offer technical advantages that haven't translated into market dominance.

Newer ecosystems such as Sui and Aptos (Move-based object models) and emerging Bitcoin-native token schemes introduce additional design patterns, but this section focuses on standards with established DeFi traction across major smart contract platforms.

Strategic Positioning

Choosing a token standard isn't purely technical. It's strategic.

For stablecoin-heavy operations: TRC-20's zero-fee model (with staked TRX) makes it optimal for payment processing, remittances, and merchant services. The centralization trade-off matters less when you're trusting fiat-backed stablecoins anyway.

For high-assurance applications: FA2 on Tezos and Cardano native tokens provide formal verification or protocol-level security that general-purpose standards lack. Regulated securities and enterprise tokenization benefit from these guarantees.

For identity-linked tokens: NEP-17's integration with Neo's identity framework enables compliance requirements at the protocol level. Know-your-customer checks can happen on-chain rather than through external systems.

For simplicity without smart contracts: ASA on Algorand lets teams launch tokens through configuration rather than code. CBDC pilots and mainstream consumer applications benefit from reduced technical complexity.

For cross-chain native movement: IBC tokens on Cosmos and PSP-22 on Polkadot enable multi-chain strategies without bridge risk. Projects spanning multiple ecosystems should evaluate these architectures seriously.

For maximum liquidity and institutional credibility: ERC-20 remains the default. Most trading pairs, most DeFi integrations, most exchange support. The premium you pay in fees buys access to the deepest markets.

The market isn't converging. It's specializing. Each standard finds its users by solving specific problems better than alternatives. Understanding which standard fits which use case separates informed decisions from expensive mistakes.

With fungible tokens covered across major platforms, the next category introduces assets that work completely differently: tokens where every unit is unique, where identity matters more than quantity, and where the question changes from "how many?" to "which one?"