History of Nervos Network

The Origins and Development of Nervos Network (CKB)

The Nervos Network’s genesis can be traced to deep dissatisfaction with the scaling, sustainability, and composability issues plaguing layer-1 smart contract platforms. Launched by a group of Chinese blockchain veterans in 2018, Nervos was architected as a modular blockchain ecosystem with CKB (Common Knowledge Base) serving as its foundational layer-1 registry. From inception, the decision to decouple computation and storage was viewed as a bold deviation from monolithic chains like Ethereum.

The Common Knowledge Base wasn’t just another generalized smart contract platform; it was built to be a state verification layer designed to hold the “common knowledge” of the blockchain—data that must remain accessible and verifiable forever. This permanence narrative was tied directly to CKB's tokenomics, where native CKB tokens are used to rent state storage space on-chain. This was an early attempt to internalize state bloat costs and incentivize sustainable chain usage, long before state rent models gained traction among other networks.

CKB launched its mainnet, Lina, in November 2019, following a Testnet cycle marked by active developer feedback and aggressive pursuit of compatibility with the Bitcoin tooling ecosystem. Nervos’ initial roadmap—including critical features like RISC-V-based VM (CKB-VM), native support for multi-sig, and PoW consensus via NC-MAX (a derivative of Bitcoin’s Nakamoto Consensus)—signaled its intent to prioritize security and accessibility over novelty.

While Nervos emphasized Bitcoin-style decentralization, it diverged philosophically by introducing layered extensibility, adding a critical layer-2 component: Godwoken. Developed as an EVM-compatible optimistic rollup, Godwoken addressed the need for programmable execution without crowding the base layer. Yet, this dual-layer model has raised concerns among purists due to architectural complexity and potential fragmentation of ecosystem liquidity.

The Nervos team has also faced criticism for a more centralized launch phase, with substantial token allocation to insiders and early investors. While the long-term vesting periods were engineered to prevent sudden token dumps, some community members flagged this distribution model as at odds with the project’s decentralization ethos.

Community development around CKB has remained niche but passionate. Despite interoperability plays through bridges and EVM compatibility, adoption has been slower than anticipated. Complexity in programming on Nervos’ custom VM initially limited developer onboarding, although recent toolchain improvements have tried to address this hurdle.

For those exploring alternative layer-1 structures, Nervos’ philosophy aligns more closely with The Underestimated Value of Layer-0 Solutions: Unlocking the Future of Interoperability in Blockchain, offering a contrast to more app-centric platforms.

How Nervos Network Works

How Nervos CKB Works: Layer 1 and Beyond in the Modular Blockchain Stack

Nervos Network’s Common Knowledge Base (CKB) operates as a Layer 1 blockchain that introduces a unique take on modular architecture, state storage economics, and smart contract flexibility. CKB is designed not just for asset settlement, like Bitcoin, but to serve as a decentralized platform for scalable and interoperable Layer 2 solutions. At the core of its design is the Cell model, a novel take on Bitcoin’s UTXO model, enabling fine-grained control over state and programmability at the storage level.

Each "Cell" in Nervos acts both as a storage unit and as programmable logic. Unlike Ethereum’s account-based model, CKB’s Cells are immutable data structures that can hold custom scripts and states. Developers create stateful applications by defining lock scripts (for access control) and type scripts (to define application behavior). Every transaction on CKB consumes and creates a set of Cells, enabling transparent and auditable on-chain logic transitions.

CKB employs the RISC-V instruction set, allowing developers to write smart contract scripts in low-level, Turing-complete code with complete determinism. This deterministic behavior avoids the non-determinism challenges observed in certain EVM-based platforms and opens the door for formal verification of smart contract logic—a niche but critical feature for teams building high-assurance applications.

Economic design is a core differentiator. CKB introduces a native asset called CKBytes, which represents on-chain storage space. Holding CKBytes gives the user a right to use proportional on-chain storage. This storage rent mechanism incentivizes efficient usage and discourages indefinite bloat—an issue many layer-1 chains grapple with. Additionally, the Nervos DAO allows users to deposit tokens and receive interest, incentivizing long-term holding while maintaining access to storage rights.

Layer 2 scaling is not an auxiliary idea but central to Nervos’ architecture. CKB is designed to be a "common knowledge base" where all Layer 2 chains can anchor finalized state. Through its open protocols like Godwoken (an EVM-compatible rollup) and Force Bridge (an interoperability layer), it positions itself as a trust-minimized foundation for cross-chain interoperability—a concept explored further in articles like the-underestimated-value-of-layer-0-solutions-unlocking-the-future-of-interoperability-in-blockchain.

However, this modular purity introduces complexity. Developers must contend with Cell dependencies, state occupancy costs in CKBytes, and the intricacies of low-level RISC-V scripting. These hurdles can slow onboarding and increase audit costs. While Nervos’ layered and principles-focused approach sets it apart from monolithic chains, it also makes it a tool better suited for advanced teams with protocol engineering capabilities rather than generalist dApp developers.

Use Cases

Real-World Use Cases of Nervos Network’s CKB: Beyond Theoretical Utility

The Nervos Network’s Common Knowledge Base (CKB) is engineered to function as a foundational Layer 1 blockchain with a very specific ambition—enabling secure, permissionless smart contracts and decentralized apps, while maintaining state storage for Layer 2 integrations. This unique architecture informs its use cases, which differ from standard Layer 1 platforms.

Native Asset Storage and Value Preservation Layer

One of CKB’s most distinct utilities lies in its role as a store of state, rather than just a store of value. CKB’s “cell model,” loosely inspired by Bitcoin’s UTXO, allows developers to treat on-chain data as first-class citizens. This makes it highly functional for applications that require granular control over ownership and logic, such as decentralized finance protocols or NFT platforms that want to abstract logic from state storage.

However, this design hasn't yet translated into robust dApp adoption, and the ecosystem for tools and SDKs remains underdeveloped in comparison to platforms like Ethereum or Solana. While protocols like Ethereum Name Service leverage their underlying blockchain's composability extensively, Nervos still lacks equivalent plug-and-play DeFi primitives.

Layer 2 Interoperability and Cross-Chain Communication

CKB’s integration with Godwoken (an EVM-compatible Layer 2) and the Force Bridge showcases its push toward cross-chain interoperability. Developers can deploy Solidity contracts atop Godwoken and interact with assets bridged from Ethereum or Bitcoin. Yet, a limitation exists: Force Bridge is still relatively centralized in trust assumptions and lacks the mature liquidity base that competing L2s like Arbitrum enjoy.

The goal is for CKB to function as a "Layer 1 of Layer 2s," anchoring proofs and maintaining state in a data-compact, secure environment. For use cases in gaming or DeFi, where fast execution and low fee environments are critical, this architecture theoretically enables developers to build scalable apps—though in practice, usage remains niche.

Long-Term Data Availability Layer

CKB is also positioned as a sustainable long-term storage layer for blockchain states, useful for compliance-heavy sectors or historical data anchoring. Unlike Ethereum, where gas costs incentivize state pruning, Nervos allows for persistent on-chain data by charging users capacity tokens up front. This makes CKB useful in regulatory use cases, IP registration, or digital identity—domains explored in articles like Revolutionizing Intellectual Property.

However, the economic model—where users must acquire and lock CKB to store data—adds friction compared to rent models, leading to UX tradeoffs that must be heavily abstracted by middleware.

Nervos’s use cases hinge on its modular design and multi-layered architecture, but adoption remains gated by tool maturity, user experience, and limited developer network effects.

Nervos Network Tokenomics

Decoding CKB Tokenomics: The Nervos Network's Dual-Layer Economic Design

The Nervos Network’s tokenomics are structurally unique thanks to its dual-layer architecture—Layer 1 (Common Knowledge Base - CKB) acting as the foundational public blockchain layer, and Layer 2 for application scaling. The native token, CKByte (CKB), functions both as a value store and resource entitlement mechanism, aligning economic incentives with its long-term sustainability model.

State Storage and Capacity Model

CKB introduces the concept of "state rent" via its capacity model. Each CKB represents one byte of on-chain state storage. Storing data on-chain requires locking an equivalent amount of CKB, creating a direct cost for occupying state space. This is unlike most smart contract platforms, where state bloat is an externality. This system incentivizes developers to offload computation and ephemeral data to Layer 2 and only commit essential state to Layer 1.

The capacity model doesn't burn tokens but effectively limits usable supply through locking. Furthermore, UTXO-style accounting enables fine-grained control over state consumption. Users can reclaim their tokens by deleting unused state, making economic behavior tightly coupled with network usage.

Token Supply and Inflation

The total issuance of CKB is theoretically boundless, but inflation is controlled and predictable. An initial genesis supply was distributed across early backers, developers, and ecosystem funds. Post-genesis, CKB enters its issuance phase, comprising two components:

• Base Issuance: A fixed yearly issuance (currently 1.344 billion CKB), rewarded to miners for securing the chain.
• Secondary Issuance: A dynamic issuance model that funds Nervos DAO participants and ecosystem development, adjusting based on locked token ratios.

This layered issuance mitigates long-term dilution for passive holders. Users who lock CKB in the Nervos DAO smart contract receive a share of secondary issuance, offsetting miner-generated inflation. However, this still raises concerns about opportunity cost and liquidity lock, which can be barriers for casual or short-term users.

Miner Incentives and DAO Tensions

There’s an explicit trade-off between rewarding miners and incentivizing DAO participation. A high DAO lock rate reduces inflationary rewards to miners, potentially threatening long-term hashrate stability. Conversely, low lock rates dilute token holders through unmanaged secondary issuance. This balancing act creates inherent tension in economic incentives, with no on-chain governance mechanism to dynamically tune parameters—raising concerns about adaptability over time.

For deeper insight into decentralized governance dynamics and economic tensions, our article on The Future of Decentralized Autonomous Organizations explores broader implications across similar ecosystems.

Nervos Network Governance

Decoding Governance on Nervos Network: How CKB Handles Decentralized Control

Governance on the Nervos Network is an ongoing experiment in permissionless coordination, subtly different from many Layer 1 ecosystems. While the CKB token powers the economic and consensus layers of the Nervos Common Knowledge Base, governance itself is intentionally minimal at the protocol layer. Unlike DAOs structured around token-weighted voting, CKB governance does not revolve around a continuous stream of improvement proposals executed on-chain. This leans into the Nervos philosophy of separation of concerns, prioritizing conservative base-layer upgrades and pushing agility to the application or Layer 2 space.

There’s no formal DAO overseeing CKB protocol changes akin to the structure seen in Decentralized Governance The Power of ApeCoin DAO or Decoding Filecoin Governance A Community-Driven Approach. Instead, changes to CKB require a rough social consensus among validators and stakeholders, coordinated off-chain through research discussions, GitHub proposals, and community calls. This keeps the protocol stable but raises legitimate concerns around inclusivity and decentralization of influence. Stakeholder influence tends to concentrate in the hands of core developers, mining operators, and entities such as the Nervos Foundation.

The lack of a binding on-chain vote system also means there's reduced risk of governance capture via token-based plutocracy, but it also impedes agility. Any non-emergency protocol change must go through a rigorous review and RFC (request-for-comments) cycle before being deployed. While this control preserves security — critical for a Layer 1 base — it raises friction when addressing emerging technical updates or community-supported upgrades.

Layer 2 solutions on Nervos such as Godwoken, a rollup framework, offer a contrasting dynamic: teams building on top of CKB are free to implement their own governance models, often diverging significantly from mainnet governance. This reinforces Nervos' modular approach, where decentralized governance is expected to flourish at the periphery, not the core.

Token-weighted voting, treasury control mechanisms, or community proposal systems may eventually play a larger role through toolkits or dApps built atop CKB. For now, CKB remains a developer-driven ecosystem, with governance resembling meritocratic coordination rather than democratic execution — a model not unlike what Governance Unplugged Navigating Dogecoins Unique Structure outlines.

CKB’s strategy deliberately avoids governance maximalism at Layer 1. Whether this enhances resilience or stagnates innovation remains hotly debated, especially as more crypto projects push toward protocol-level on-chain governance mechanisms by default.

Technical future of Nervos Network

Nervos CKB Technical Roadmap Breakdown: Layer 1 Execution and Interoperability Horizons

The Nervos Network’s CKB (Common Knowledge Base) has consistently pursued full-layer decentralization and composability through its unique Layer 1 design, separating state verification from computation and offloading dApps to Layer 2. At its core, CKB employs a UTXO model enriched by cell structures, leveraging RISC-V virtual machine (CKB-VM) for complete Turing-completeness. This architecture enables state portability and protocol-level flexibility. However, it places a high engineering burden on developers, particularly for tooling and smart contract abstraction.

From the protocol level, a significant technical advance is the ongoing integration of CKB-VM v2, which introduces extended RISC-V ISA support and SIMD optimizations. The update encompasses dynamic linking for native libraries, facilitating more complex cryptographic and zero-knowledge proof operations natively on-chain. This is critical for enhancing Layer 2 integrations that rely on recursive proof verification.

More strategically, Nervos is advancing its Layer 1 protocol with CKB L1 enhancements to prepare for off-chain data availability proofs and stateless clients. Stateless validation could mitigate full-node resource requirements and improve sync times, but presents challenges around trustless light client implementations. Engineering attention is focused on providing verifiable execution environments for such clients, but standardizing proof formats remains unresolved.

In terms of Layer 2 interoperability, Nervos continues development on Godwoken, an EVM-compatible optimistic rollup framework. While it has achieved mainnet deployment, developer uptake has been limited due to performance constraints and tooling immaturity compared to rollups on Ethereum. Future iterations aim to integrate succinct proofs (zkEVMs), but no standardized path exists between CKB and zk rollups yet.

Interoperability efforts expand further into cross-chain bridges via Force Bridge 2.0, targeting non-EVM chains and enhanced security models. Yet, following high-profile bridge exploits across the ecosystem, Nervos has transitioned towards trust-minimized bridges using CKB’s native on-chain value storage mechanisms. However, this architecture makes bridge logic more complex, limiting plug-and-play capabilities seen in other ecosystems.

Notably, while Nervos is a contender within the layer-zero narrative, as outlined in The Underestimated Value of Layer-0 Solutions: Unlocking the Future of Interoperability in Blockchain, challenges remain in terms of developer mindshare, Layer 1 throughput, and consensus evolution (currently NC-MAX). Discussions around moving toward hybrid consensus or introducing proposer-builder separation remain conceptual without clear implementation timelines.

As the network matures technically, its modular design provides flexibility—but also demands increasingly sophisticated tooling, requiring substantial protocol-level and ecosystem investment to foster adoption and maximize its unique L1-L2 architecture.

Comparing Nervos Network to it’s rivals

CKB vs. Cardano (ADA): Distinct Layer-1 Philosophies in Practice

The comparison between Nervos Network’s CKB and Cardano’s ADA reveals two Layer-1 architectures rooted in divergent design ideologies—store-of-value versus formal-method driven smart contract systems. While both aim to address scalability, security, and decentralization uniquely, CKB’s minimalist base-layer with a focus on cell model abstraction stands in direct contrast to Cardano's highly structured, peer-reviewed approach built upon the Extended UTXO (EUTXO) model.

State Management and Execution Model

CKB implements a generalized Cell model, heavily inspired by Bitcoin's UTXO schema but allows arbitrary logic through off-chain computation and on-chain state validation. This permits any VM—WASM, EVM, or custom-built—to operate without altering the consensus rules, fostering a modular architecture. Cardano’s EUTXO model, though inspired by Bitcoin as well, emphasizes determinism in contract execution but comes with early criticisms for limited composability in DeFi pipelines. This has led to development constraints where dApps must be built with workarounds, like batching and custom concurrency mechanisms.

Interoperability & Layered Design

CKB positions itself as a Layer-1 "Common Knowledge Base" that supports multi-chain interoperability through its Layer-2 solutions and UDTs (user-defined tokens). Its modular Layer-0 paradigm aligns closely with the ethos described in The Underestimated Value of Layer-0 Solutions: Unlocking the Future of Interoperability in Blockchain. Nervos emphasizes that true scalability lies in composable Layer-2s with bespoke trade-offs, while retaining a secure and minimal Layer-1.

In contrast, Cardano opts for formal upgrades at Layer-1 through hard forks, resulting in slower innovation cadence. Its Hydra solution seeks to scale via isomorphic state channels, but with limited real-world adoption complexities persist. Additionally, ADA remains relatively insular, with less active engagement in broader interoperability efforts like IBC or Polkadot-style parachains.

Governance and Development Philosophy

One of the starkest differences lies in governance. Nervos Network maintains a developer-first, open innovation environment, opting for minimal consensus-layer interference. Cardano, spearheaded by IOHK, leans into academic formalism including Plutus and Haskell. Critics argue that this introduces gatekeeping and barriers to onboarding. Both chains are slow to adopt DAO infrastructure, though Nervos’ architecture more easily supports custom DAO models due to its native script flexibility—not unlike how governance was explored in The Future of Decentralized Autonomous Organizations Governance Challenges and Solutions in Blockchain Ecosystems.

Developer Tooling and Ecosystem Maturity

While CKB offers native development through the Capsule framework (Rust-based), as well as integrations via Godwoken L2 using EVM compatibility, its ecosystem lags in infrastructure maturity. Cardano boasts native support for staking with strong community tooling, but the Plutus development environment has a steep learning curve—turning away developers unfamiliar with functional languages.

Each network, therefore, approaches decentralization and extensibility from opposite spectrums—CKB with a permissionless, minimalistic base for layered innovation, and Cardano with a full-stack academic rigor that can hinder iterative agility.

Nervos CKB vs Polkadot (DOT): A Technical Comparison of Layer 1 Interoperability Architectures

While both Nervos CKB and Polkadot (DOT) position themselves as foundational layers in the blockchain ecosystem, their approach to interoperability, protocol layering, and economic incentives differ at fundamental levels.

Polkadot operates as a heterogeneous multi-chain framework aimed at enabling various blockchains to interoperate through its shared security design. It segments execution environments into “parachains,” each optimized for specific workloads. Central to its architecture is the Relay Chain, responsible for consensus and cross-chain communication. This introduces greater composability — but also complexity. Projects building on Polkadot must win parachain slots through periodic auctions involving DOT lockups. This model creates capital inefficiency, where substantial DOT must be staked without generating returns beyond access rights.

In contrast, Nervos CKB takes a single-chain approach and instead opts for Layer 2 extensibility. All assets and smart contract states are stored on Layer 1 in a generalized form called "cells," with specific logic executing on off-chain Layer 2 protocols. This “store of assets, execute elsewhere” model incentivizes decentralization with a different trust model — Layer 2 execution independence. CKB’s design avoids slot leasing, and as such, removes the need for projects to compete for scarce execution bandwidth. It also avoids imposing economic constraints on the developer’s ability to deploy long-term tooling on-chain.

However, Nervos’ approach introduces latency trade-offs. Its overall interoperability strategy relies on external bridges and Layer 2 solutions, which means finality and message passing become conditional on the security guarantees of other networks. In contrast, Polkadot’s XCMP (Cross-Chain Message Passing) is natively embedded and deterministic, although its real-world maturity remains an evolving issue.

Governance also diverges strongly. DOT holders can vote on parachain additions, treasury dynamics, and protocol upgrades via the Polkadot referendum system. CKB takes a more strategically cautious approach with off-chain governance and longer upgrade cycles. This results in slower institutional responsiveness, but potentially minimizes the risks of contentious hard forks. Readers interested in decentralized governance structures should consider exploring related insights in Decentralized Governance The Power of ApeCoin DAO and The Future of Decentralized Autonomous Organizations Governance Challenges and Solutions in Blockchain Ecosystems.

From a developer experience perspective, Polkadot leverages Substrate, which allows deep customization but has a steeper learning curve. Nervos, on the other hand, uses a UTXO-based model (Cell model) and supports higher interoperability with existing toolchains like Ethereum via Godwoken Layer 2 or Force Bridge — lowering the entry barrier for Solidity developers.

In security models, Nervos emphasizes PoW with state rent enforcement for on-chain storage, contrasting with Polkadot’s NPoS system, which introduces potential centralization risks through validator set curation. As Polkadot moves toward deeper sharding, performance remains a key engineering challenge due to its asynchronous design.

CKB vs ATOM: Bridging Models, Governance Divergence, and Interoperability Philosophies

When comparing Nervos Network (CKB) to Cosmos (ATOM), the most glaring distinction is their fundamentally divergent interoperability frameworks. ATOM’s Cosmos SDK and the Inter-Blockchain Communication (IBC) protocol reflect Cosmos’ vision of a modular “Internet of Blockchains” — where sovereign chains communicate seamlessly via IBC. In contrast, Nervos employs a heterogeneous layering model, explicitly separating Layer 1 (CKB) for storage and Layer 2 for computation. This architecture pushes general-purpose smart contracts and dApp execution to Layer 2 protocols such as Godwoken and Axon, while maintaining Layer 1 as a secure, state-preserving resource through its cell model and the concept of "Common Knowledge."

Where Cosmos encourages chain sovereignty and horizontal ecosystem expansion, Nervos leans into composability and universal verifiability. While this makes Cosmos appealing to developers who want custom chain logic and economic zones, it burdens interoperability with fragmentation risks absent in Nervos, which externalizes complexity to upper layers without compromising Layer 1 uniformity.

Governance also reveals stark philosophical divergence. Cosmos’ on-chain governance through ATOM holders enables real-time upgrades, validator set modifications, and Treasury spending. However, this model has sparked concerns over plutocratic tendencies, with whales dominating many key votes — echoing criticisms explored in Decoding Lido Finance Governance in Action. Nervos, on the other hand, avoids protocol-level churn by adopting a slower, research-oriented governance path. The downside is palpable stagnation in on-chain decision mechanisms. CKB lacks a robust incentive for developers or communities to participate in governance, further diminishing its community-led innovation velocity.

From an economic model standpoint, ATOM’s inflation-based staking mechanism has faced challenges around yield sustainability and validator incentives. Critics argue that its model incentivizes speculation over utility, a theme mirrored in inflationary debate outcomes within other Layer 1s. CKB addresses tokenomics differently, introducing a unique dual-token system with CKBytes and secondary issuance tethered to state occupancy. This structure attempts to align long-term usage with storage cost, though it complicates economic transparency and has led to misconceptions about utility demand.

Lastly, communication bridges pose existential risks to both platforms' visions. Cosmos' IBC remains a leader in permissionless interoperability, yet the protocol’s complexity introduces attack vectors and cross-chain dependency errors. Nervos’ solution — Force Bridge — lacks the decentralized guarantees of IBC and depends on a more trust-based validator schema to connect with Ethereum and others.

For deeper analysis into how different blockchains structure governance and interoperability, check out The Future of Decentralized Autonomous Organizations Governance Challenges and Solutions in Blockchain Ecosystems.

Primary criticisms of Nervos Network

Primary Criticisms of Nervos Network (CKB): Architectural Complexity, Incentive Models, and Ecosystem Friction

Despite its innovative ambitions, the Nervos Network (CKB) faces several pointed criticisms from the crypto-native community—particularly regarding its layered architecture, developer onboarding friction, and economic sustainability.

One of the most frequent critiques targets Nervos’ architectural complexity. The Nervos Common Knowledge Base (CKB) acts as a Layer 1 built to store "common knowledge," with dApps encouraged to run on Layer 2 solutions. This design separates consensus from computation, aiming to bypass Ethereum’s scalability issues. However, this approach creates a steep learning curve for developers unfamiliar with its cell model and UTXO-style data structure. Unlike Ethereum’s account-based system, Nervos relies on a UTXO + smart contract hybrid that—even for experienced blockchain engineers—introduces significant onboarding friction. The need to grasp CKB-specific tooling, data serialization formats, and transaction composition can limit adoption, even among technically proficient teams.

The challenge is further amplified by the lack of robust tooling compared to more mature ecosystems. Unlike Ethereum, which benefits from comprehensive frameworks like Hardhat and Foundry, Nervos builders often find themselves piecing together low-level SDKs. This undermines rapid prototyping and deters experimentation—key factors for developer acquisition. For a project emphasizing long-term scalability and composability, poor developer experience becomes a systemic bottleneck.

In terms of economic incentives, the CKB token model has prompted skepticism. The Nervos economic model leans heavily on state rent: users must lock CKB to store data on-chain, ostensibly curbing blockchain bloat. While theoretically sound, this model is underutilized in practice, leading to concerns about utility demand. Moreover, CKB’s inflationary nature until full circulation complicates long-term value accrual assumptions. Critics argue that unclear demand dynamics grant more weight to speculative trading over real-world usage.

Additionally, Nervos’ interoperable ambitions—which include multi-chain bridges via projects like Force Bridge—are yet to prove meaningful traction. As seen in similar critiques of interoperability solutions in platforms like Polkadot and Cosmos, execution risk remains high. For Nervos, this is exacerbated by its low visibility in the broader DeFi and NFT landscape, sectors where mainstream traction is measurable. Although Nervos fits within larger interoperability narratives similar to those in The Underestimated Value of Layer-0 Solutions: Unlocking the Future of Interoperability in Blockchain, critics question whether Nervos has differentiated itself enough to compete.

Ultimately, while Nervos introduces novel design ideology, its adoption challenges—driven by complexity, economic ambiguity, and ecosystem underdevelopment—pose substantial hurdles for long-term relevance.

Founders

Inside the Mind Behind CKB: Nervos Network's Founding Team

Nervos Network was co-founded by a trio of blockchain veterans: Jan Xie, Daniel Lv, and Kevin Wang. Each brought distinct strengths to the development of CKB (Common Knowledge Base), creating a Layer 1 blockchain that emphasizes modularity, interoperability, and long-term sustainability—a sharp contrast to monolithic Layer 1 approaches.

Jan Xie is widely regarded as the technical architect of Nervos. Before Nervos, Xie worked as a core developer on Ethereum and was involved in early Ethereum clients such as ethash and cpp-ethereum. Unlike some Layer 1 leaders with a business-first approach, Xie’s background is pure engineering. His technical purism shows in CKB's complex cell model design—an extended UTXO (eUTXO) approach that allows for native off-chain scalability. However, this complexity has been a barrier to entry for developers unfamiliar with eUTXO-based scripting, which has slowed down broader dApp adoption in some cases.

Daniel Lv, a former CTO at imToken, brings ecosystem and product expertise to the team. He was instrumental in ensuring CKB's infrastructure was compatible with hardware wallets, explorer tools, and developer kits from the project's launch. His work focused on building out services around CKB to foster a development community. Ironically, while imToken remains a major wallet in Asia, the lack of integrations with Western wallets and SDKs has raised concerns about regional accessibility and penetration.

Kevin Wang's background is rooted in enterprise consulting, including time at IBM. His role bridges the tech stack with academic legitimacy, endorsing Nervos’s layered architecture and its sustainability proposals, such as NC-MAX and crypto-economic models for secondary issuance. Wang's influence is evident in Nervos’s lean into formal verification, which places the CKB VM closer to Bitcoin’s philosophy than Ethereum's flexibility. While such robustness can be ideal for long-term security, it has at times placed Nervos out of sync with trends favoring rapid deployment and capital lock-in models like those seen in ecosystems analyzed in Layer-0 solutions.

The trio's decision to separate state generation (Layer 2) from value preservation (Layer 1) was visionary, but its early introduction created education challenges. Critics argue that Nervos’s founding team, while technically brilliant, prioritized innovating blockchain fundamentals over crafting intuitive developer UX, which led to a slower ecosystem ramp-up when compared to projects like Solana or Polygon with stronger developer onboarding strategies.

Despite these challenges, the Nervos founding team remains deeply engaged with protocol development and core discussions, avoiding a common pitfall of founders disengaging post-launch.

Authors comments

This document was made by www.BestDapps.com

Sources

• https://github.com/nervosnetwork/rfcs
• https://github.com/nervosnetwork/ckb
• https://github.com/nervosnetwork/ckb/blob/develop/docs/README.md
• https://docs.nervos.org/docs/
• https://talk.nervos.org/
• https://explorer.nervos.org/
• https://wallet.nervos.org/
• https://miner.nervos.org/
• https://github.com/nervosnetwork/ckb-system-scripts
• https://github.com/nervosnetwork/ckb-vm
• https://medium.com/nervosnetwork/the-nervos-common-knowledge-base-ckb-explained-56f469f0bdf2
• https://medium.com/nervosnetwork/understanding-dao-on-nervos-ckb-eb1c9e3b6dfa
• https://medium.com/nervosnetwork/what-makes-nervos-innovative-tokenomics-of-ckb-3aeb6d6adeaf
• https://www.nervos.org/ckb
• https://xuejie.space/
• https://www.nervos.org/faq
• https://github.com/nervosnetwork/ckb/blob/develop/docs/dao.md
• https://github.com/nervosnetwork/ckb/blob/develop/docs/consensus.md
• https://github.com/nervosnetwork/ckb/blob/develop/docs/economic-model.md
• https://github.com/nervosnetwork/ckb/blob/develop/docs/nervos-dao.md