History of Ontology

The Evolution of Ontology Gas (ONG): A Blockchain Utility Asset's Complex Past

Ontology Gas (ONG) emerged from a distinct architectural vision with the launch of the Ontology blockchain—designed to support high-performance, enterprise-grade decentralized applications. The infrastructural model separated Ontology’s dual-token system into ONT (for governance and staking) and ONG (for operational utility), inspired by bifurcated models like NEO/GAS. However, unlike similar dual-token ecosystems, ONG's evolution has carried unique network-level and economic implications that merit scrutiny.

ONG's genesis can be traced to Ontology’s mainnet launch in June 2018. When the network went live, token holders began generating ONG as a form of transaction fee compensation—essentially acting as the economic fuel for executing smart contracts, paying transaction fees, and enabling on-chain services. This mechanism introduced passive utility for ONT holders, but it also sparked long-standing debates about inflationary bleeding and the real utility of ONG in low-transaction-volume periods.

While the initial distribution mirrored many early token economies (with large ecosystem and foundation allocations), the rate of ONG emission through ONT staking raised concerns about sustainability and alignment between supply dynamics and network demand. ONG had a pre-defined release model—a decaying emission curve set to span 22 years—but in practice, limited enterprise adoption and modest DeFi traction led to underutilization. As such, this mismatch cast shadows on the token’s long-term utility equilibrium.

ONT and ONG were originally NEP-5 assets on the NEO blockchain before Ontology migrated onto its independent mainnet. This migration phase introduced its own friction—requiring users to swap tokens via manual processes or rely on centralized exchanges. For technically inclined users, this wasn’t a barrier. Still, the process exposed a broader infrastructural challenge surrounding interoperability and user experience across native ecosystems—challenges echoed across other hybrid chains like Kadena.

Importantly, ONG’s functional scope has evolved. As the Ontology ecosystem pushed into identity verification (via ONT ID), cross-chain collaboration, and verifiable credentials, ONG transitioned from a narrowly defined gas token into a more generalized utility tool. Yet its identity remains blurred, torn between being a mandatory transaction fee token and an underbaked bridge to actual application-layer value.

Some critics have likened ONG’s role to an “unproductive yield” model—where passive generation of a utility token underwrites activities with no strong demand correlation. This dynamic echoes challenges faced by blockchains struggling with token utility dilution, something highlighted in systems like Radiant, where emission pacing lacks alignment with value realization.

Ultimately, ONG's historical arc reflects broader tensions in token mechanics—balancing incentive distribution with real-use necessity. The attempt to isolate governance from utility was innovative but fraught with deployment and ecosystem adoption gaps. For those exploring ONG’s liquidity, staking-generated returns, or transactional implications, leading exchanges like Binance serve as primary access points.

How Ontology Works

How ONG Ontology Works: Gas, Governance, and Execution in the Ontology Dual-Token Model

Ontology Gas (ONG) operates as part of Ontology’s dual-token economy, providing the utility function necessary for executing operations within the Ontology blockchain ecosystem. While ONT (Ontology Token) serves primarily for staking and governance, ONG performs a similar role to Ethereum's gas, enabling transaction fees and smart contract execution costs. This separation aims to stabilize usage fees by decoupling them from the market fluctuations of the ONT token—a mechanism that seeks to ensure scalability and predictability in developer and enterprise environments.

ONG is generated automatically over time through a staking-like mechanism tied to ONT token holdings. When ONT is held in a supported wallet, it passively accrues ONG based on a slowly diminishing emission model. This incentivizes staking behavior without enforcing delegation, similar in theory to pseudo-proof-of-stake systems seen in other platforms, though Ontology relies more on a VBFT consensus mechanism—Vital Byzantine Fault Tolerance, which blends PoS, BFT, and VRF for block verification.

Transactions on Ontology require ONG. This includes standard transfers, smart contract invocations, token swaps, and cross-chain operations. The deterministic cost models layered onto these operations are designed to facilitate enterprise-level planning by avoiding fee volatility. However, this model introduces its own challenges. Since ONG supply is emitted over time and tightly linked to ONT holdings, liquidity constraints can emerge under sudden demand spikes, making ONG markets susceptible to short-term frictions.

Ontology's chain supports smart contracts via the Ontology Virtual Machine (OVM), which is compatible with WebAssembly. Though functional, OVM lacks the robust tooling and community size of EVM or more battle-tested environments like the Cosmos SDK or Substrate. This may raise barriers for developers unfamiliar with its particular stack and limit composability with newer multi-chain protocols. While ONT itself governs the protocol layer—voting on validators and protocol changes—ONG’s function remains execution-focused and doesn’t convey any governance rights.

In terms of tokenomics, the ONG supply is capped at one billion, mirroring ONT. As ONG is distributed in a diminishing curve, the network anticipates a long-tail in emissions, gradually decreasing transaction costs over time. For those invested in ecosystem sustainability and fee mechanics, this mirrors considerations seen in platforms like Kadena, where gas fee predictability and performance scaling are similarly prioritized.

ONG is obtainable via standard market routes, but also passively earned through ONT staking in wallets or custodial platforms such as Binance, making it a structurally integral yet operationally isolated asset within the Ontology blockchain architecture.

Use Cases

Understanding ONG's Utility: Key Use Cases Powering the Ontology Ecosystem

Ontology Gas (ONG) serves as the utility token for executing transactions and smart contracts within Ontology’s dual-token framework, complementing ONT, which functions more as the governance and staking asset. ONG’s principal use case lies in enabling granular, modular blockchain applications focused on identity, data, and reputation management within enterprise and public ecosystems.

One dominant application layer of ONG is in the facilitation of Ontology's ONT ID—a decentralized identity protocol designed to offer self-sovereign identity solutions. Each interaction within this protocol, such as identity creation, verification, and ownership authentication, requires ONG to cover “gas” fees. This makes ONG indispensable in systems deploying ONT ID to build verifiable credentials and digital identity infrastructure, particularly in permissioned environments where trust minimization is critical.

In enterprise-grade scenarios, ONG's design allows seamless integration for B2B applications focused on KYC authentication, cross-border compliance, and supply chain traceability. It handles microtransactions in enterprise workflows where ONT itself might be non-ideal due to governance entanglements. This separation is echoed in emerging dual-token models, which aim to segregate utility and staking incentive dynamics.

Another significant use case includes ONG-fueled operations in smart contract deployment on the Ontology EVM and WASM environments. While there’s EVM compatibility, developers are still niche due to ecosystem fragmentation and heavier adoption elsewhere such as Ethereum’s Layer 2s or Kadena’s braided chains. For context, Kadena's unique multi-chain architecture may offer higher scalability for similar enterprise-grade needs (Kadena-revolutionizing-blockchain-use-cases).

Decentralized storage and data sharing also rely on ONG. Projects managing encrypted data assets or consent frameworks (e.g., in medical or research contexts) often leverage ONG to trigger smart contract conditions for usage rights or data exchange events.

Despite these tailored utilities, ONG’s adoption has been constrained by Ontology’s relative ecosystem isolation and limited grassroots developer engagement. Lack of composability with major DeFi protocols and bridges means ONG doesn’t circulate at scale outside its native chain. This siloed nature is a contrast to more interoperable networks like those explored in the-overlooked-influence-of-cross-chain-solutions-on-asset-liquidity.

For users intending to actively stake or transacts with ONG, onboarding typically occurs via exchanges like Binance, which provides sufficient liquidity for both ONT and ONG—but does not address the broader context of ecosystem stickiness or developer migration, a core bottleneck in sustained usage growth.

Ontology Tokenomics

Decoding ONG Tokenomics: Utility, Inflation Mechanics, and Ontology's Dual-Token Design

Ontology operates under a dual-token structure involving ONT as the governance and staking token, and ONG (Ontology Gas) serving as the utility counterpart. ONG powers computation and transaction execution within the Ontology network, much like gas functions on Ethereum. Crucially, ONG’s issuance and burning mechanisms are deeply tied to ONT’s staking activity and overall network utilization— establishing a unique model that blends deferred inflation with economic throughput.

ONG is not pre-mined. Instead, it’s released incrementally following ONT’s genesis distribution, with a maximum supply of one billion ONG gradually emitted over a ~20-year period. This emission rate follows a half-life curve, with decreasing daily releases over time. In practice, ONG generation occurs as ONT holders claim their proportional share of daily-minted ONG, incentivizing ONT staking while embedding a time-value element into the asset.

However, this delayed emission model leads to inconsistent circulating supply metrics depending on staking participation and claim frequency. For DeFi users or dApp developers building on Ontology, this irregular token availability may induce liquidity friction. This is especially notable when compared to gas tokens with deterministic or supply-capped issuance mechanics, as seen in other layered structures like Kadena (KDA) (Understanding-Kadenas-Tokenomics-Key-Insights).

Additionally, since ONG is meant to reflect actual network activity, periods of low chain utilization—such as a lull in smart contract deployment or reduced dApp interactions—can create a dissonance between token issuance and real demand. This indirectly results in ONG price inefficiencies and may lead to overconsumption or under-incentivized node operation depending on prevailing market conditions.

Transaction fee burning is not universally active, which has sparked critique from participants seeking deflationary pressure on the utility token. Without robust fee sinks or capped emissions, ONG’s inflationary tail risk remains a concern as the network scales. In contrast to ecosystems evolving toward deflationary logistics via buyback-burn strategies (e.g. Badger DAO or LUNA), Ontology’s relatively static burn model struggles to address long-term supply expansion.

Lastly, the reliance on manual ONG claiming—from ONT wallets—introduces further complications in modeling circulating supply. Unlike protocols with real-time gas settlement, the act of claiming forms a behavioral bottleneck. Users uninterested or unaware of this feature inadvertently slow down supply distribution, thereby distorting tokenomics over time.

For developers and ecosystem participants evaluating cross-chain compatibility or utility token integration, such granular control dynamics present both opportunities and friction—an analytical angle increasingly critical across newer blockchain platforms.

Ontology Governance

Ontology Gas (ONG) Governance: Structural Constraints and Control Dynamics

Ontology Gas (ONG), the utility and incentive token of the Ontology ecosystem, plays a nuanced but restricted role in governance when compared to full governance tokens seen in protocols like Yearn Finance or DAO-specific models. ONG is chiefly used for transaction fees, staking rewards, and node incentives within the Ontology dual-token framework. However, it's crucial to distinguish ONG from ONT, which is the actual governance token of the network. While ONG fuels operational capabilities, ONT enables on-chain governance participation.

The governance of Ontology functions via a delegated Byzantine Fault Tolerant (dBFT) consensus model, where voters delegate their ONT to various consensus nodes (often large organizations or tech-focused entities). These consensus nodes, who are essentially block producers akin to validators in other networks, have the authority to make protocol-level decisions, such as approving upgrades or changes to infrastructure.

This model introduces centralization pressure: power remains in the hands of relatively few delegates, and the participation barrier remains high. Retail holders of ONG, by itself, enjoy no direct governance power—which diverges from protocols that empower utility token holders with votes. The bifurcation of utility (ONG) and governance (ONT) arguably disincentivizes broader community engagement, resulting in a less participatory ecosystem. This issue isn’t unique to Ontology and echoes persistent structural limitations discussed in platforms like Decentralized-Governance-The-Loom-Network-Revolution and Decoding-Terra-Governance-A-Guide-to-DPoS.

Furthermore, governance proposals within the Ontology ecosystem have historically been top-down in nature, originating from the core development team rather than grassroots community initiatives. The absence of a dedicated DAO structure exacerbates this issue. Unlike platforms that have undergone DAO transitions to decentralize decision-making—such as those explored in Decentralized-Governance-RDNTs-Innovative-Approach—Ontology’s governance progression has remained tightly orchestrated and incrementally evolved.

There is also minimal visibility regarding the long-term strategic use of ONG in governance. While staking ONG provides yield, it does not grant voting rights, nor does it embed users in the protocol’s decision-making structure. This lack of connective utility has long been cited as a barrier to aligning token incentives with protocol direction.

To obtain ONG or participate in staking-based yield mechanisms, users often look toward centralized exchanges such as Binance, where liquidity is significantly deeper compared to decentralized alternatives.

This bifurcated structure renders ONG primarily a tool of transaction and incentive distribution, not a mechanism for democratic participation—an important nuance for those navigating decision-making influence within the Ontology ecosystem.

Technical future of Ontology

Ontology Gas (ONG): Technical Roadmap and Development Trajectory

Ontology Gas (ONG) functions as the utility token powering Ontology’s intricate dual-token structure, complementing ONT for computational resources and on-chain operations. While the ONT layer focuses on governance and staking, ONG acts as the fuel for transaction execution, smart contract deployment, and data access. As Ontology transitions toward a modular and application-specific blockchain infrastructure, ONG’s utility is set to evolve under several interrelated technical developments.

A notable advancement on the roadmap is Ontology’s work toward stronger Layer-2 interoperability. The Ontology team is engineering cross-chain bridges and EVM compatibility layers built on WASM and JSVM execution environments. These enhancements aim to offer frictionless connection to networks like Ethereum and BNB Chain for broader decentralized identity (DID) integration and DeFi reach. In this context, the ONG token is expected to play a larger role in cross-chain gas abstraction and fee delegation across heterogeneous networks. A similar trend is seen in Unlocking Metis DAO: The Future of dApps, where computational layer augmentations redefine token application.

Another critical upgrade centers on the ONTO Wallet infrastructure and Ontology’s DeID protocol. As more applications adopt privacy-enhancing credentials and zero-knowledge proofs (ZKPs) for data sovereignty use cases, ONG’s utility is expanding toward secure credential issuance and permission management. However, despite the protocol’s ambition, adoption remains limited. Many developers still prefer using established protocols like zkSync or Polygon ID, raising questions about Ontology’s differentiated value proposition in the crowded ZK and DID vertical.

From an infrastructure perspective, Ontology’s consensus mechanism—VBFT (Verifiable Byzantine Fault Tolerance)—is also under examination. A hybrid of PoS and BFT, VBFT was an early scalability-oriented design, but it now faces critique for lacking composability with modern proof-of-stake ecosystems. Potential refinements include modular upgrades to validator sets and probabilistic finality layers. These proposed changes, however, have seen little transparency, and the project’s current GitHub activity footprint has led some in the developer community to voice concerns about roadmap opacity.

Ontology also plans additional integrations with Oracle and data attestation services, aimed at enabling ONG-powered smart contracts to leverage decentralized data streams. Yet this capability is inherently limited without robust interoperability. Whether Ontology can address this bottleneck remains questionable, especially given how other protocols like Covalent (CQT): A Leader in Blockchain Analytics are capturing developer mindshare in the data services domain.

For users looking to explore ONG's use in multi-chain DeFi or governance participation, exchange integration remains strong. It’s accessible on major platforms, including Binance, though liquidity concentration remains an issue outside centralized venues. Technical upgrades will need to be paired with developer incentive programs and composability-first APIs to shift ONG’s role from a loosely used gas token to a critical layer in decentralized reputation and identity systems.

Comparing Ontology to it’s rivals

ONG vs ETH: Architectural Divergence and Functional Trade-offs

Ethereum (ETH) and Ontology Gas (ONG) diverge at the foundational level in both architectural design and functional scope. ETH operates on a global, general-purpose smart contract layer (Ethereum Virtual Machine), while ONG is a utility token specific to Ontology’s dual-token framework—used to pay execution and network fees, akin in role to NEO's GAS. However, the differences extend far beyond token mechanics.

Ontology's consensus mechanism, VBFT (Verifiable Byzantine Fault Tolerance), blends PoS, VRF, and BFT, achieving faster block finality with predictable throughput. Ethereum, following its transition to Proof of Stake under Ethereum 2.0, leverages Casper and GHOST for fork choice, offering probabilistic finality. While Ethereum’s model supports maximal decentralization through thousands of validators, it introduces latency in finality and complicates light client verification due to chain heuristics. ONG benefits from delegation to pre-chosen nodes, optimizing performance at the cost of validator diversity.

Smart contract execution introduces another chasm. ETH's Turing-complete Solidity environment is flexible and developer-centric, but vulnerable to costly bugs and exploits (e.g., gas reentrancy, unchecked call failures). Ontology, in contrast, employs a WASM-compatible engine supporting multiple languages (including Python and Go), with a relatively smaller contract ecosystem. This restricts developer tooling and ecosystem support, placing ONG at a disadvantage for DeFi and NFT deployment compared to Ethereum’s battle-hardened infrastructure.

Governance agility represents a critical fracture point. Ethereum’s on-chain governance remains heavily social layer-driven, with proposals debated through EIPs and community rough consensus. Ontology features a more hierarchical governance model, with ONG holders voting through a delegated structure. While this enables faster protocol upgrades and tuning, it raises concerns about decentralized legitimacy and attack resistance, particularly in scenarios where staking thresholds are not broadly distributed.

Interoperability is increasingly a competitive edge, and here ETH thrives. With Layer-2 rollups and cross-chain bridges proliferating, Ethereum is anchoring multi-chain liquidity. ONG’s interoperability is tilting in a different direction—focused on real-world identity and enterprise integration. It supports DID (Decentralized Identity) and verifiable credentials, areas still niche in Ethereum’s dominant DeFi narrative but potentially relevant in emerging sectors like supply chain or compliance-heavy applications. For a comparison of identity-oriented protocols, see The Untapped Role of Blockchain in Digital Identity Verification.

From a composability perspective, Ethereum’s status as DeFi’s nucleus enables recursive protocol interactions that ONG’s ecosystem cannot match. Protocols like Yearn, Aave, and MakerDAO thrive on Ethereum’s layered liquidity. Ontology’s modular stack, by comparison, lacks deep protocol composability, limiting ONG’s utility beyond its primary function.

For users considering exposure to Ethereum-based dApps or staking services, platforms like Binance offer delegated ETH staking—abstracting validator complexity.

In essence, the ETH vs ONG narrative is not merely about throughput or gas; it’s a systemic trade-off between scale, tooling, and decentralization assumptions.

Comparing ONG vs ADA: Diverging Paths in Governance and Infrastructure

While both ONG and ADA stake claims in the rapidly evolving blockchain infrastructure space, the two projects diverge significantly in their architectural decisions, governance mechanisms, and philosophical underpinnings. For a crypto-native audience, this comparison boils down to trade-offs between pragmatic deployment readiness (ONG) and theoretically ambitious decentralization (ADA).

At the core, ADA operates on a layered architecture, separating accounting and computation into the Cardano Settlement Layer (CSL) and Cardano Computation Layer (CCL). This design theoretically promotes flexibility but has led to an extended development cycle due to formal verification and peer-reviewed methodology. ONG, as part of the Ontology Network, integrates governance, identity, and data management directly into its protocol layer. This vertical integration facilitates faster enterprise adoption but arguably comes at the expense of composability with broader ecosystems.

Ontology uses a dual-token model — ONG for gas and ONT for staking and governance. This bifurcated separation follows a precedent set by platforms like NEO but lacks the adaptive tokenomics seen in ADA’s single-token (ADA) system, which incorporates staking, transaction fees, and treasury mechanisms. The uniformity of ADA’s economics eliminates the frictions inherent in splitting token roles, although it introduces centralization risk in how treasury resources are allocated and distributed.

Cardano’s governance leverages Project Catalyst and a constitution-based Voltaire era roadmap — it’s participatory, but yet to fully function as an autonomous on-chain system. Ontology, by contrast, delivers immediate DAO tooling and identity-linked governance via ONT ID, offering pragmatic enterprise-level control, though arguably at the cost of grassroots decentralization.

Technical consensus mechanisms are also pivotal differentiators. ADA’s Ouroboros is a provably secure PoS mechanism underpinned by academic rigor, whereas Ontology transitioned from VBFT — a hybrid of PoS and BFT — to a VBFT variant, positioning itself more for high-throughput enterprise use cases. While this allows faster block finality, it's less battle-tested than Cardano’s academic consensus proof system.

For developers, Cardano’s reliance on Plutus and Haskell limits onboarding due to niche tooling, despite strong formal guarantees. ONG’s WASM and EVM compatibility provide a smoother developer experience, especially for projects migrating from Ethereum environments.

While both networks aim to anchor a decentralized future, they are optimized for different stakeholders. Whether technical purity and methodical design à la Cardano outweigh the pragmatic, integrated ontology stack is a strategic decision left to developers and users alike.

For deeper analysis of how game theory and incentive design shapes such ecosystems, readers may find value in The Overlooked Intersection of Game Theory and Token Economics.

To explore or stake in ONG or ADA via a preferred platform, consider registering on Binance.

ONG vs. NEO: Divergence in Design, Token Utility, and Governance Models

Ontology’s ONG and NEO may share philosophical and geographic roots—both emerging from China with overlapping development history—but under the hood, the divergence in architecture and utility makes their ecosystems operate on distinctly different trajectories.

At a structural level, NEO employs a dual-token model similar to Ontology. NEO functions as the governance token, while GAS powers on-chain operations, echoing ONG’s role in the Ontology network. However, NEO’s GAS emission model rewards token holders through a consistent passive income mechanism, while ONG distribution is more dynamic, pegged to usage of the network and tied to its unique staking and node operation reward structure.

The governance split highlights another notable difference. While NEO adopted a more centralized model via its Neo Council, Ontology pivots toward a “decentralized in phases” approach—allowing ONG holders to stake and gain influence across a gradually democratized consensus process. This difference has implications for protocol evolution and community engagement, with NEO more aligned with a top-down governance philosophy, whereas Ontology leans toward ecosystem-level participation enabled by ONG.

When evaluating interoperability, NEO has placed noticeable emphasis on cross-chain operations in recent iterations—targeting interaction with Ethereum and Cosmos zones via initiatives like Poly Network. Ontology, on the other hand, has embedded identity and data sovereignty directly into its core layer, powering decentralized identity protocols (Ontology DID) and trust mechanisms aimed at B2B use cases. While NEO leans into dApp ecosystems and DeFi extensions, ONG serves as the enabler for data-centric integrations that stretch far into enterprise and regulatory-facing scenarios.

Smart contract language support also demonstrates ecosystem priorities. NEO supports a broad spectrum including C#, Java, Python, and Go—making it appealing for traditional enterprise developers. Ontology, however, employs the Wasm-based Ontology Virtual Machine (OVM), prioritizing modularity and optimization for identity, privacy, and compliance tools.

For builders interested in DeFi-native ecosystems and Ethereum compatibility, NEO might look more appealing. But for projects centered on verifiable credentials, permissioned blockchain integrations, or trust meshes in regulated industries, ONG’s functional alignment with those needs is sharper.

The divergence in ONG’s focus from speculative finance to data integrity frameworks contrasts sharply with NEO’s more generalized smart contract and dApp expansion strategy.

For broader insights into where decentralized networks are exploring mechanism design and application layers, A Deepdive into Kadena offers a complementary read.

Primary criticisms of Ontology

Unmasking ONG Token Criticisms: Core Challenges of Ontology’s Utility Asset

While Ontology (ONT) serves as the protocol’s governance token, Ontology Gas (ONG) operates as its utility token—intended to cover operational costs, such as smart contract execution and network usage. However, several issues surrounding ONG have raised persistent concerns among crypto-native participants evaluating the token's broader viability and ecosystem integration.

A primary criticism lies in the opaque and under-explained gas generation model. While ONG is minted as ONT is staked or held, the distribution rate has historically lacked consistent transparency, especially regarding how it adjusts under changing protocol parameters. This has led to uncertainty among stakers and long-term holders who often find it difficult to model expected yields or even forecast token supply trajectories. Such ambiguity undermines ONG’s potential as a predictable incentive mechanism—particularly in comparison to gas models on platforms like Ethereum or Kadena. That contrast becomes even more stark when benchmarked against more transparent analyses such as this deepdive into Kadena.

Another area of criticism is liquidity fragmentation. ONG remains less accessible across a diversified set of exchanges, both centralized and decentralized. With trading limited on top-tier platforms and relatively low DeFi integration, acquiring or offloading ONG can incur higher slippage and costs, particularly for institutional or whale-level players. This fragmentation directly impacts the token’s utility, as interaction with smart contracts often necessitates preloading wallets with ONG—an often non-trivial barrier in a cross-application landscape. Comparably, assets like SwftCoin have made greater strides in cross-chain liquidity despite fewer core functionalities.

A more systemic issue is the underutilization of ONG within the Ontology ecosystem itself. Many dApps and services running on the chain opt for alternate fee abstractions or have limited usage requiring ONG altogether. This creates a paradox: a utility token that sees limited utility in organic user environments. Without strong narrative alignment or substantive dApp demand, ONG risks becoming a vestigial component relegated to protocol-level transactions only.

Lastly, there’s an argument to be made about incentive misalignment. With staking ONT producing ONG, the only consistent use case for ONG is to pay gas—thus making the reward partially circular unless the ecosystem can drive more transactional volume. This gets exacerbated by low-cost operational fees, reducing token burn relative to supply issuance. Without mechanisms like aggressive deflation, time-locked sinks, or real utility-backed incentive layers, ONG risks inflationary drift and declining relevance.

Those exploring dual-token wrapped networks will notice that models with clearer token economics tend to outperform. For a detailed look into how tokenomics strategies can strongly shape long-term viability, refer to the insights in Kadena's tokenomics.

For users still trading or accumulating ONG despite these concerns, it’s advisable to use regulated platforms—here's a recommended crypto exchange sign-up link offering access to leading token pairs.

Founders

Inside Ontology's Founding Team: Technocratic Precision Meets Enterprise Ambitions

Ontology’s formation was anything but organic. Unlike many community-driven projects, the team behind Ontology (and its gas token, ONG) emerged from a calculated strategy designed to bridge the gap between high-level enterprise infrastructure and blockchain-native solutions. At the core of that strategy is Li Jun, a Chinese technologist who founded Ontology in 2017 after leading blockchain initiatives at Onchain—a tech company well-known for its ties to Neo, but distinct in both governance and vision.

Li Jun’s background is steeped in engineering precision. Trained in computer science and data exchange protocols, his leadership reflects a penchant for formalism—a characteristic reinforced by Ontology’s initial focus on compliance, digital identity, and interoperability. Unlike the more decentralized ethos popular among Layer 1s, the early vision of Ontology was unmistakably top-down, aligning more with legacy enterprise tech architecture than Web3-native decentralization.

The surrounding team mirrored this philosophy. During Ontology’s inception, key developers and architects primarily hailed from Onchain and other private enterprises, creating a team structurally optimized for delivery and implementation, not distributed governance. This centralization of expertise allowed for rapid development of infrastructure primitives such as OntID and the ONT/ONG dual-token model. However, this same structure drew criticism for its lack of transparency and failed expectations around open community contribution.

To this day, much of Ontology’s development continues to be tightly controlled by its founding entities. In contrast to ecosystems where community DAOs push protocol updates or governance decisions, Ontology’s approach has primarily followed a core-team-led roadmap—not unlike what one might find in projects like Kadena, which we've also explored in our article A Deepdive into Kadena.

While this centralized agility enabled enterprise partnerships in Asia and allowed Ontology to launch with considerable technical polish, it also created skepticism among crypto purists. There’s still a lingering question about the autonomy of ONG and ONT: who truly defines their evolution? Critics have pointed to sluggish decentralization efforts compared to even enterprise-oriented chains like Cosmos or Polkadot.

For those looking to explore or trade ONG, it’s advisable to do so through a reputable exchange with carefully constructed UX paths. Binance offers ONG trading pairs and often deep liquidity—register here if you're not already onboarded.

Authors comments

This document was made by www.BestDapps.com

Sources

• https://ont.io/
• https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/ontology-gas/
• https://docs.ont.io/
• https://ont.io/whitepaper/Ontology-White-Paper-EN.pdf
• https://medium.com/ontologynetwork
• https://github.com/ontio/ontology
• https://github.com/ontio/ontology-go-sdk
• https://www.ont.io/token-economy
• https://crypto.com/price/ontology-gas
• https://www.okx.com/price/ontology-gas-ong
• https://www.binance.com/en/price/ontology-gas
• https://ont.io/developer
• https://dappradar.com/binance-smart-chain/ontology
• https://explorer.ont.io/
• https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/ontology-gas
• https://messari.io/asset/ong
• https://www.stakingrewards.com/earn/ontology-gas/
• https://rekt.news/ontology-incident-report/
• https://defillama.com/chain/Ontology
• https://dappland.com/protocol/ontology