Summary

Polygon, formerly known as the Matic Network, is a scaling solution that aims to provide multiple tools to improve the speed and reduce the cost and complexities of transactions on blockchain networks. At the center of Polygon’s vision is Ethereum, a platform that is home to a range of decentralized applications, ones where you can join virtual worlds, play games, buy art, and participate in a range of financial services. However, this much activity on its blockchain has rendered Ethereum almost unusable, as the cost of transmission is rising and traffic is becoming clogged. In conclusion, Polygon bills itself as a layer-2 network, meaning it acts as an add-on layer to Ethereum that does not seek to change the original blockchain layer. Like its geometric namesake, Polygon has many sides, shapes, and uses and promises a simpler framework for building interconnected networks. Polygon wants to help Ethereum expand in size, security, efficiency, and usefulness and seeks to spur developers to bring enticing products to market all the quicker. 

Also, in this analysis, we will look into the polygon block performance by assessing its average time between blocks, its maximum and minimum recorded time between two blocks and its overall performance compared to other L1 and L2 blockchain such as Solana, Flow, Arbitrum and Optimism.

\n

1. What is the average time between blocks on Polygon?

The average time between blocks on polygon is 2.277 second.

2. What was the maximum and minimum recorded time between two blocks?

The maximum recorded time between two blocks is 25 second while the minimum recorded time between two blocks is 2 second.

3. How many transactions are done in a block on average?

There is a total of 75 transactions been done in a block on average.

Methodology

*Data is being obtained during the past 30 days

1) Average time between blocks - Use LAG(BLOCK_TIMESTAMP, 1) over (order by BLOCK_NUMBER ASC) as difference to create another column in the table as previous timestamp. Then, use current block timestamp to minus previous block timestamp to get the lag time. After that, we can find out the average value of time between blocks on Polygon by dividing the total sum amount of each lag time between blocks by the total number of blocks.

2) Maximum and Minimum recorded time between two blocks - Use max(difference) and min(difference) to find out the maximum and minimum value of lag time between two blocks.

3) Average transaction in a block - Use avg(tx_count) to find out the average transaction in a block.

4. How do these numbers compare to L1 such as Flow or Solana, or other L2 such as Arbitrum or Optimism?

From below table with regards to L1: Flow and Solana, it could be seen that Solana has an average time of 0.72 second between blocks while Flow has an average time of 1.49 second between blocks. While the maximum lag time between two blocks is 84 second for Solana and 52774 second for Flow. Also, the minimum lag time for both Solana and Flow is 0 second. Lastly**,** the average transactions done in a block for Solana and Flow is 2127 Tx and 14 Tx respectively. In comparison to Polygon, it is observed that the average time between blocks for Solana and Flow is lesser than Polygon. Thus, proving that the block is being created (completion of the proof of transaction) at a lesser time in Flow and Solana compared to Polygon. However, the maximum lag time between block is relative higher in Solana and Flow compared to Polygon, hence, showing Polygon has a higher consistency in maintaining a constant lag time between blocks. Whereas the 0 second of minimum lag time for Solana and Flow shows that Solana and Flow is capable of completing the proof of transaction at a higher speed than Polygon. On top of that, Solana has a higher average of transactions done in a block whereas Flow has a lower average if transactions done in a block compared to Polygon, proving that Solana is much more efficient in validating transactions than Polygon.

From below table with regards to L2: Arbitrum and Optimism, it is observed that Arbitrum and Optimism has an average time of 0.97 second and 0.93 second individually. Whereas the maximum lag time between two blocks for Arbitrum and Optimism is 219 second and 46 second correspondingly. As well, the minimum lag time for both Arbitrum and Optimism is 0 second. Furthermore**,** there is only 1 transaction with regards to the average transactions done in a block for Arbitrum and Optimism. In contrast with Polygon**, Arbitrum** and Optimism has a slightly lower average time between blocks, illustrating that Arbitrum and Optimism is much more quicker in validating transactions. However, the average transaction done in a block for both Arbitrum and Optimism is only 1 Tx, proving that the transaction validating process is ineffective compared to Polygon. While the maximum lag time for both Arbitrum and Optimism is higher than Polygon, hence, showing inconsistency in the creation of block. Also, the minimum lag time for Arbitrum and Optimism is 0 second, which is lower than Polygon. But, the outcome is a lesser amount of transaction being validated compared to Polygon.

Conclusion

In a nutshell, Polygon has an average time of 2.277 second between blocks , maximum recorded time of 25 second, minimum recorded time of 2 second and a total amount of 75Tx done in a block. Compared to L1: Solana and Flow, Polygon has a higher consistency in term of block creation time whereas Solana has a higher efficiency in the transaction validation process. Also, Flow is inferior to Polygon in term of consistency in the lag time as well average transaction done in a block. While for L2: Arbitrum and Optimism, Polygon is more superior to Arbitrum and Optimism in term of average transaction done in a block as well the consistency in the lag time between two blocks.