History of Zilliqa

Zilliqa's Genesis and Architectural Evolution: The Untold History of ZIL

Zilliqa (ZIL) emerged from academic roots at the National University of Singapore, where Dr. Prateek Saxena and his team first published a landmark whitepaper in 2016 focused on sharding as a solution to blockchain scalability. Zilliqa became the industry’s first public blockchain built entirely around sharding — promising significantly higher throughput compared to legacy chains like Ethereum. Unlike project whitepapers that never left the conceptual phase, Zilliqa’s proposition came embedded in code: a full-stack blockchain protocol featuring Protocol-Level Sharding, Transaction Sharding, and Smart Contract Sharding.

The Zilliqa mainnet officially launched in early 2019, marking a long development cycle characterized by research-heavy execution and layered security audits. From the outset, ZIL took an unconventional approach. Its smart contracts were written in a purpose-built language called Scilla (Smart Contract Intermediate-Level Language), distinct from Solidity. Scilla was designed with formal verification in mind, but its learning curve and ecosystem compatibility posed challenges for mainstream adoption. The deployment of Scilla limited ZIL’s initial interoperability with EVM-compatible dApps, walling off potential liquidity and developer onboarding.

Zilliqa's tokenomics also diverged from common patterns. The ZIL token was first issued as an ERC-20 token during the ICO craze of 2017 before being swapped to the native chain post-mainnet. However, the token model initially emphasized rewards to miners in a PoW (Proof-of-Work) hybrid system. This unconventional design, while aiming for Sybil resistance in DS (Directory Service) nodes, led to increased complexity and operational costs — with eventual migration toward a more energy-conscious and delegated consensus model.

The platform’s throughput — claimed to scale linearly with network size — showcased testnet metrics of 2,828 TPS with 6 shards. However, real-world application often collided with the bottlenecks of external infrastructure. Key limitations were seen in ZRC-2 standard integrations and DeFi composability, areas where competitors like Polygon and Solana rapidly scaled. Additionally, Zilliqa's relatively siloed development slowed down integrations with Layer-0 cross-chain protocols, an area covered in the article on the-underestimated-value-of-layer-0-solutions-unlocking-the-future-of-interoperability-in-blockchain.

Despite early promise as a scalability-first chain, ZIL’s ecosystem spent years grappling with low dApp adoption and developer migration hurdles. While the architecture was foundationally robust, its isolation from broader DeFi composability and lack of alignment with prevailing EVM standards impacted ZIL's trajectory in the Layer-1 race.

How Zilliqa Works

How Zilliqa (ZIL) Works: Sharding-Enabled Consensus and Hybrid Architecture

Zilliqa’s primary innovation centers around the implementation of network sharding to increase throughput, segmenting the blockchain into multiple shards that execute transactions in parallel. Instead of processing every transaction across the entire network as seen in traditional blockchains like Ethereum (pre-merge), Zilliqa divides the network into groups—called shards—each capable of processing a subset of transactions. This process significantly reduces network congestion and boosts the number of transactions per second (TPS) without sacrificing decentralization.

Each shard processes its own micro-blocks concurrently and then sends them to a DS (Directory Service) committee. This DS committee is responsible for aggregating the micro-blocks into a final block that is appended to the main chain. All committee members are selected via PoW (Proof-of-Work) as an anti-Sybil mechanism, but PoW on Zilliqa is used only for miner eligibility and not for block validation—eliminating the environmental concerns seen in traditional PoW-based chains.

Zilliqa employs a Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance (pBFT) consensus protocol within each shard after the initial PoW stage. pBFT ensures transaction finality relatively quickly, but it does introduce reliance on sustained online presence and message passing between nodes. Communication overhead in pBFT becomes more complex as shards scale, creating architectural constraints. While Zilliqa handles thousands of TPS in theory, latency and synchronization issues can limit sustained performance in real-world usage.

Smart contracts on Zilliqa are written in Scilla (Smart Contract Intermediate-Level Language), a safety-first, intermediate-level language designed with formal verification in mind. While Scilla reduces attack surfaces such as reentrancy bugs and integration flaws, it also imposes logical rigidity that can increase complexity for developers accustomed to Solidity. Scilla’s architecture is non-Turing complete, meaning it avoids infinite loops, but limits flexibility for advanced dApp workflows.

One notable drawback is cross-shard communication. Since different shards handle transactions independently, coordinating smart contracts or dApps requiring interaction across shards adds development friction and latency. This hinders composability, an attribute critical in DeFi or NFT ecosystems. Unlike solutions like https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/the-unexplored-terrain-of-cross-chain-defi-building-bridges-to-a-unified-financial-ecosystem that tackle interoperability at different architectural levels, Zilliqa’s cross-shard capabilities remain relatively underutilized and underdeveloped.

Zilliqa’s native token, ZIL, is integral for transaction fees, staking, and governance participation within the ecosystem. However, its utility is predominantly limited to the Zilliqa blockchain, decreasing its exposure and usability across broader Web3 systems. Additional interoperability layers or bridges would be required to elevate ZIL’s composability across ecosystems, presenting both technical and custodial risk trade-offs that need further scrutiny.

Use Cases

Zilliqa Use Cases: From Scalable Smart Contracts to Real-World Integration

Zilliqa’s primary value proposition lies in its sharded architecture, designed to handle throughput-intensive use cases without sacrificing decentralization. Unlike traditional L1s bottlenecked by single-chain execution, Zilliqa utilizes network sharding to scale linearly as the number of nodes increases, opening doors to a set of specialized use cases otherwise constrained elsewhere in the smart contract space.

Scalable dApp Infrastructure

Zilliqa is purpose-built for high-throughput decentralized applications (dApps), especially in sectors requiring consistent low-cost transaction fees and high processing speed. These include domains like decentralized finance (DeFi), gaming, and creator-based economies. However, despite its scaling edge, developer adoption has lagged, often due to the proprietary Scilla programming language. While Scilla offers formal verification semantics ideal for preventing common smart contract exploits, its learning curve deters Solidity-native developers from migrating or dual-deploying.

Tokenization of Assets and NFTs

Zilliqa runs a multi-token standard environment, which supports asset tokenization and NFT ecosystems. Numerous NFT marketplaces have launched, leveraging its low gas fees for digital collectibles. But fragmentation and low user activity in these marketplaces hinder network effect compared to more liquid, Ethereum-based counterparts. Without robust cross-chain integrations, Zilliqa-native NFTs face issues like limited composability and low secondary market exposure.

Creator Economy and Web3 Ownership

Zilliqa has made attempts to position itself within the creator economy space, with initiatives such as native NFT launches tied to social tokens. These creator-centric use cases mirror some of the trends discussed in https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/the-rise-of-social-tokens-navigating-community-ownership-and-value-creation-in-the-digital-age. While promising in concept, execution has been fragmented, with few platforms achieving meaningful traction or recurring on-chain activity.

Metaverse and Gaming Experiments

Zilliqa has experimented with metaverse and GameFi integrations, including sponsoring eSports teams and building in-house metaverse environments. These integrations aim to leverage real-time interactivity made possible by Zilliqa’s high throughput. However, user retention across these platforms has remained minimal. Many of these initiatives appear promotional rather than grounded in sustained economic incentives or novel gameplay enabled by on-chain logic.

Enterprise and Payments

Zilliqa has explored enterprise-grade use cases such as KYC-compliant payment systems and logistics tracking. These applications align well with its deterministic smart contract environment, where performance and formal verification are paramount. Yet, most implementations remain in pilot or sandbox phases. Widespread adoption has been elusive, in part due to the lack of turnkey enterprise deployment tools and unclear regulatory positioning.

In sum, Zilliqa’s architecture offers theoretical advantages for scale-friendly applications across DeFi, NFTs, creator economies, and enterprise. But developer friction, weak composability, and niche ecosystem dynamics have restricted broader network effects and sustained developer momentum.

Zilliqa Tokenomics

Zilliqa Tokenomics: Incentive Design, Monetary Policy, and Challenges

Zilliqa’s tokenomics structure is built around its native token, ZIL, which operates not just as gas for transaction fees, but as a medium of exchange and governance utility within the ecosystem. The architecture is typical of a layer-1 protocol aiming to balance scalability incentives with long-term sustainability, but its design warrants close inspection, especially from a monetary supply and staking inflation standpoint.

Supply Cap and Release Schedule

ZIL started with a fixed supply model, capped at 21 billion tokens—a number intended to mirror psychological parallels with Bitcoin while enabling a more granular micro-payment environment. However, the release schedule complicates the initial simplicity. A significant portion of the token supply was allocated for staking rewards and ecosystem grants, with a tail emission mechanism that sustains token issuance for validator incentives.

Approximately 60% of the supply was gradually unlocked via mining or staking rewards, but this method created inflationary pressure that has yet to be fully mitigated. This resembles emission dynamics seen in networks like Helium and Filecoin, where continual issuance for incentivization strains long-term scarcity narratives. For a deeper comparison, refer to tokenomics breakdowns such as https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/decoding-helium-hnt-tokenomics-for-iot-success or https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/decoding-filecoin-tokenomics-a-sustainable-future.

Staking Rewards and Inflation

Staking was added post-genesis via the Zillion platform. Validators earn ZIL for securing the network, and delegators can stake to these nodes in exchange for a portion of the reward. However, the annual percentage yield fluctuates depending on the total amount staked. Unlike more stable implementations such as Lido Finance or Rocket Pool, Zilliqa’s model exposes stakers to volatile rewards, making it more speculative than yield-optimized.

The inflation rate remains a concern. While capped supplies often suggest deflationary mechanisms over time, Zilliqa’s current structure emits enough new ZIL to risk medium-term devaluation, especially during periods of low on-chain activity.

Token Utility Beyond Gas

ZIL’s role extends to ecosystem services (dApp gas fees), governance voting, and collateral within DeFi applications on the platform’s burgeoning infrastructure. However, the utility remains under-leveraged compared to protocols like SUI and Polygon, which integrate deeper staking derivatives or specialized DeFi roles. See https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/unlocking-sui-tokenomics-a-deep-dive and https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/decoding-polygon-the-future-of-matic-tokenomics for further analysis of comparative utility structures.

Overall, while Zilliqa’s tokenomics are functionally sound for a chain emphasizing throughput and usability, questions around token velocity and inflation suggest a need for adaptive monetary control mechanisms.

Zilliqa Governance

Zilliqa Governance: Sharding without Voices?

Zilliqa’s approach to governance reflects the technical ethos of its protocol—structured, performance-oriented, and arguably limited in decentralization. Unlike governance-first platforms such as Sui or Aave, Zilliqa prioritizes scalability and throughput with its sharded architecture but lags in providing meaningful on-chain governance mechanisms for its token holders.

Governance over the Zilliqa network today is predominantly guided by its core development team and the Zilliqa Research group, with limited direct token-based DAO-style voting systems in place. Unlike delegated governance models found in platforms like Rocket Pool, Zilliqa has historically adopted a more centralized decision-making framework—a model justified for network security and development velocity, but one that has faced criticism for being insufficiently community-inclusive.

The $ZIL token itself does not have built-in governance utility in the protocol's core. Holders cannot meaningfully direct protocol upgrades, parameter changes, or foundation grants. The absence of a formal proposal-submission pipeline or voting structure limits the scope of influence for ecosystem participants—starkly contrasting governance-rich ecosystems such as Filecoin.

Instead, governance-related feedback often takes place via off-chain channels: GitHub discussions, community AMAs, and Discord forums. While the Zilliqa team has made efforts to “listen” to suggestions, the final authority still rests with internal stakeholders—a setup that raises questions about the protocol’s claim to decentralization. Particularly in a network relying on sharded validator architecture, the lack of corresponding decentralized governance creates an asymmetry between technical and administrative decentralization.

Validator participation is also tightly controlled. Becoming a staking seed node requires approval from the foundation, and validator onboarding is non-permissionless. This further challenges the ethos of open governance, reminiscent of critiques often aimed at networks favoring performance over decentralized ideals—mirroring issues raised in Critiques of Moonbeam, where permissioning diluted the governance argument.

If Zilliqa introduces on-chain governance in the future, it would need to navigate the complexity of integrating meaningful community participation without compromising its throughput-focused architecture. Until then, its governance model remains more corporate than cooperative in nature—structured for stability, but leaving much of the community decision-making power in the wings.

Technical future of Zilliqa

Zilliqa's Technical Evolution and the Roadmap Ahead

Zilliqa’s core technical proposition centers around high-throughput sharded architecture, and over the years, its development trajectory has expanded from pure scalability to interoperability, programmability, and usability. Zilliqa continues to evolve beyond its original design, with current and future technical developments aiming to bridge the gap between performance-centric architectures and real-world decentralized use cases.

The Scilla smart contract language remains a cornerstone of the Zilliqa stack, providing a formal verification-focused approach to security. However, despite its robustness, Scilla hasn't seen widespread developer adoption compared to EVM-compatible options. Recognizing this, Zilliqa has been working toward broader EVM compatibility. The ongoing implementation of EVM support—including full Solidity interoperability and integration with MetaMask—is designed to onboard the broader Ethereum developer community. This also enables deployment of Ethereum-native tooling and dApps directly onto Zilliqa with minimal friction, signaling a pragmatic pivot toward ecosystem inclusivity.

Another key focus has been the Zilliqa 2.0 upgrade. This phase introduces a modular architecture, allowing node operators greater flexibility and scalability. The redesign tackles centralization concerns arising from the original Directory Service nodes, offering a restructured staking infrastructure and smoother validator onboarding. The emphasis here is on enhancing decentralization without compromising network throughput.

Zilliqa also plans to overhaul its consensus mechanism. Moving away from PBFT (Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance)-based consensus toward a hybrid PoS (Proof-of-Stake) model increases energy efficiency and aligns ZIL with emerging green-chain narratives. This update is also designed to reduce block finality time significantly while making participation more accessible to smaller stakers and validators—traits more aligned with projects supporting distributed validator infrastructures like those discussed in Unlocking Rocket Pool RPLs Key Roles in Crypto.

Cross-chain interoperability is becoming increasingly critical, and Zilliqa acknowledges that reliance on bridges is no longer sufficient. Future technical development includes native support for cross-chain messaging protocols to broaden Zilliqa’s utility across blockchain ecosystems. This positions Zilliqa to potentially participate in unified DeFi layers and multichain smart contract execution—an area echoing broader trends explored in The Unexplored Terrain of Cross-Chain DeFi Building Bridges to a Unified Financial Ecosystem.

Challenges persist, primarily around developer traction, decentralization of validator sets, and complexities in maintaining network-level backward compatibility amidst deep architectural changes. Nonetheless, the roadmap suggests a strategic shift from academic novelty to ecosystem maturity.

Comparing Zilliqa to it’s rivals

Zilliqa vs Ethereum: Sharding, EVM Integration, and Network Architecture

In any discussion of high-throughput blockchain platforms, Zilliqa (ZIL) and Ethereum (ETH) stand at opposing ends of the architectural spectrum, especially in their approach to scaling and execution environments. While both are smart contract-capable and support dApp development, the core technical differences stem from their consensus mechanisms and network design.

Zilliqa’s foundational value proposition lies in its native implementation of sharding from the genesis block. Transactional throughput in Zilliqa increases linearly with network size, thanks to network sharding and parallel processing across shard nodes. This is in stark contrast to Ethereum’s monolithic chain structure until its modular shift began with the Beacon Chain and eventual plans for full sharded data layers under Ethereum 2.0.

The difference is not just philosophical but functional. Ethereum’s rollup-centric roadmap, emphasizing Layer 2 scaling (e.g., Optimistic and ZK-rollups), adds complexity and latency to dApp deployment and interaction. In contrast, Zilliqa processes transactions in parallel shards, avoiding L2 dependencies and dramatically reducing execution bottlenecks at Layer 1. However, the complexity of managing sharded state and ensuring consistency across shards in Zilliqa presents its own risks, particularly with cross-shard communication and smart contract composability.

A crucial point of divergence is the execution environment. Ethereum’s EVM dominates interoperability and tooling, bolstered by a massive developer community and years of maturity. Zilliqa initially used its own intermediate-level language, Scilla, designed with formal verification and safety in mind. While Scilla provides a secure design space—particularly in preventing reentrancy bugs and runtime errors—it isolates Zilliqa from the massive EVM ecosystem.

However, the recent introduction of EVM compatibility on Zilliqa aims to bridge this isolation, allowing Solidity-based contracts to deploy natively. This strategic pivot mirrors similar moves by networks like Moonbeam [https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/moonbeam-bridging-ethereum-and-polkadot], which recognize the de facto standardization of EVM in the multichain ecosystem.

On consensus, Ethereum’s transition to Proof of Stake via the Casper FFG algorithm (and validator incentivization via liquid staking protocols like Rocket Pool), contrasts with Zilliqa’s practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance (pBFT) combined with proof-of-work for Sybil resistance. Ethereum’s validator ecosystem, which supports decentralized ETH staking as examined in [https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/unlocking-ethereum-staking-with-rocket-pool], represents a broad trust distribution model. Zilliqa's reliance on designated shard leaders may raise concerns around centralization pressure and attack surfaces as the network scales or if shard participation lowers.

Both platforms have taken divergent routes to scalability, decentralization, and composability—but the trade-offs in execution performance, development ergonomics, and network trust models remain central points of evaluation.

Zilliqa vs Solana: A Technical Head-to-Head on Layer-1 Performance

When comparing Zilliqa (ZIL) and Solana (SOL), two fundamentally different approaches to layer-1 blockchain design emerge—Zilliqa with its original sharding architecture versus Solana's monolithic, high-throughput execution layer. Solana boasts high TPS figures via its proof-of-history (PoH), while Zilliqa leans into parallelism through sharding. This divergence directly affects how each chain handles scalability, network congestion, smart contract deployment, and validator incentives.

Solana's primary edge lies in its single global state machine and optimized block propagation through Gulf Stream and Turbine. This architecture favors ultra-low-latency applications like high-frequency trading and decentralized exchanges. Solana can process tens of thousands of transactions per second without sharding, making it attractive for DApps where speed is critical. However, this performance comes with considerable infrastructure complexity, with validator nodes requiring high-spec hardware, raising centralization concerns.

In contrast, Zilliqa was the first public blockchain to implement sharding. By dividing the network into shards that process transactions in parallel, Zilliqa achieves horizontal scalability. While this model limits state sharing between contracts across shards, it offers predictable security and performance trade-offs. Zilliqa's approach results in a more conservative TPS ceiling compared to Solana, but its separation of consensus and computation offers throughput efficiency without requiring validator-class hardware, arguably making it more decentralized in validator participation.

A significant divergence appears in smart contract languages. Solana uses Rust, which ensures memory safety and performance but has a steep learning curve. Zilliqa’s Scilla language was purpose-built for formal verification to reduce vulnerable contract patterns, targeting a more deterministic programming experience. However, Scilla's limited tooling and smaller developer community hinder broader adoption compared to Rust and Solidity ecosystems.

Validator economics also display contrast. Solana requires higher uptime and resource costs, but supports rapid staking and delegation mechanisms. Zilliqa's staking mechanisms are lighter but have often lacked the flexibility and yield competitiveness seen in ecosystems like Rocket Pool.

Network outages have been a recurring issue for Solana, often attributed to its monolithic and high-throughput architecture struggling under load spikes or spam attacks. Zilliqa’s sharded structure has proven more resilient in maintaining uptime but lags behind in composability, especially for DeFi protocols needing atomic interactions across contracts.

From a decentralization versus throughput standpoint, Zilliqa and Solana illustrate stark trade-offs. Solana prioritizes speed and user scale, often at the expense of hardware inclusivity and stability. Meanwhile, Zilliqa's controlled scaling via sharding supports more consistent behavior but limits it in hosting interconnected smart contract ecosystems.

Zilliqa vs Avalanche (AVAX): Scaling, Sharding, and Smart Contract Complexity

When comparing Zilliqa (ZIL) and Avalanche (AVAX), distinctions in scalability strategy, consensus design, and smart contract execution become especially evident. Both projects target high-throughput and low-latency decentralized applications, but the architectural divergence shapes developer experience, performance benchmarks, and compatibility with decentralized finance ecosystems.

Avalanche employs a unique consensus mechanism—Avalanche consensus—paired with a heterogeneous network structure of three interoperable chains (X-Chain, C-Chain, P-Chain). This tri-chain model enables modularity but introduces architectural complexity that can challenge application deployment and debugging. In contrast, Zilliqa uses a native sharding mechanism integrated directly into its protocol, offering linear scalability for transaction throughput while maintaining a single-chain model for smart contracts.

However, Zilliqa's approach to sharding applies selectively. Only transaction processing is parallelized across shards, whereas smart contract execution remains on a single shard. This limits Zilliqa’s efficiency gains in execution-heavy DeFi use cases. Avalanche’s C-Chain, being fully EVM-compatible, provides greater flexibility for Solidity-based smart contract migration, positioning AVAX as the more plug-and-play option for deploying existing Ethereum dApps.

Developer tooling differs significantly. Avalanche's full EVM compatibility aligns it with the massive Ethereum ecosystem, offering compatibility with MetaMask, Remix, and Truffle by default. Zilliqa, using its own Scilla language for smart contracts, narrows the pool of developers and slows adoption. While Scilla enhances formal verification and contract safety, it stands as a learning curve barrier when compared to Solidity’s ubiquity.

In terms of network finality, Avalanche achieves 1–2 second finality due to its consensus protocol’s extremely high throughput and probabilistic finality. Zilliqa operates on a practical Byzantine Fault Tolerant (pBFT) overlay, offering deterministic finality but usually at a cost of higher latency per transaction, especially during peak traffic periods.

Ecosystem liquidity is another differentiator. Avalanche supports a broader range of established protocols and bridges, enabling deeper integration into cross-chain DeFi ecosystems. Zilliqa, by focusing more narrowly on custom-built apps within its ecosystem, tends to lack that interoperability, impacting user choice and liquidity sourcing.

While Avalanche's broad EVM compatibility and composability attract established DeFi builders, Zilliqa’s isolated smart contract environment and specialized language choice marginalize its competitiveness in fast-evolving, multi-chain DeFi. However, Zilliqa’s deterministic execution and architectural simplicity may appeal to developers prioritizing safety over interoperability.

Primary criticisms of Zilliqa

Major Criticisms of Zilliqa (ZIL): Scalability Promises vs. Ecosystem Realities

Despite its early positioning as the world’s first sharded blockchain, Zilliqa has drawn increasing scrutiny for several foundational and operational issues that limit its real-world adoption and developer engagement. These criticisms reveal deep-seated architectural compromises and ecosystem stagnation that undercut initial expectations.

1. Sharding Implementation: Theoretical Strength, Practical Constraints

While Zilliqa’s sharding protocol was a breakthrough on paper, its real-world impact has been limited by the innate complexity and rigidity of the system. The network uses a combination of Directory Service nodes and shard nodes which increases operational overhead for validator participation. Unlike Ethereum’s eventual pivot toward rollups and modular chains, Zilliqa remains fundamentally monolithic in its architecture despite claiming horizontal scalability. This has hindered its ability to flexibly evolve and incorporate innovations, particularly in Layer-2 ecosystems.

2. Smart Contract Language: Scilla's Isolation

Zilliqa’s native smart contract language, Scilla, was designed for formal verification and safety assurances. However, this programming divergence from mainstream languages like Solidity or Rust has led to developer isolation. The steep learning curve and lack of compatibility with Ethereum tooling make onboarding talent difficult. This strategic decision has contributed to the network's sparse dApp ecosystem and low Total Value Locked (TVL), stalling any meaningful traction in DeFi or NFT sectors.

3. Ecosystem Fragmentation and Governance Ambiguity

Another core issue lies in Zilliqa's governance and network coordination. Despite years of development, the governance roadmap lacks robust community participation and on-chain voting mechanisms. This disorder resembles criticisms facing other projects with unclear authority models, as explored in https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/aave-under-fire-key-criticisms-explored. Furthermore, the lack of decentralized tooling for treasury management and proposal evaluation creates uncertainty in project direction.

4. Limited Interoperability in a Multi-Chain Era

While newer ecosystems prioritize cross-chain liquidity and composability, Zilliqa remains relatively siloed. Bridges to other networks exist, but are either custodial in nature or lack the audit guarantees and network effects necessary for meaningful adoption. This isolation runs counter to the current trend favoring interconnectivity, such as discussed in https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/the-unexplored-terrain-of-cross-chain-defi-building-bridges-to-a-unified-financial-ecosystem.

5. Token Utility Misalignment

ZIL's utility model is another point of contention. As newer token economies shift toward utility-focused and governance-enabled tokens, ZIL remains largely tied to gas fees and staking, without offering equivalent value accrual mechanisms or advanced governance roles. This weakens long-term user alignment and fails to mimic more mature DeFi ecosystems with well-structured incentive frameworks.

Collectively, these core criticisms reflect growing concerns about Zilliqa’s ability to maintain competitive relevance in a rapidly evolving blockchain environment driven by modular innovation, interoperability, and developer-centric design.

Founders

Meet the Founding Team Behind Zilliqa (ZIL): A Technical Genesis with Academic Roots

Zilliqa’s inception is closely tied to academic research and cryptographic rigor, setting its founding team apart in an industry often born out of hacker culture or iterative builds on existing chains. The initial paper that laid Zilliqa’s conceptual foundation—focused on sharding for high-throughput blockchain systems—originated from work done at the National University of Singapore (NUS). The founding team reflects this academic pedigree, headed by researchers and engineers who transitioned from scholarly insight to real-world blockchain implementation.

Xinshu Dong, the initial CEO, brought to the table a Ph.D. in computer science with specialization in cybersecurity. His background includes both academic research and the development of secure systems for corporate clients across APAC. While Dong eventually stepped away from direct involvement, his early leadership was instrumental in translating Zilliqa’s theoretical underpinnings into a public blockchain launch.

Amrit Kumar, one of Zilliqa’s most prominent co-founders, served as Chief Scientific Officer and later as President. He is widely associated with the protocol's core research in cryptographic privacy and scalability. Holding a Ph.D. from Université Grenoble Alpes, Kumar's research background lent weight to Zilliqa’s whitepapers and protocol rationale. He also spearheaded aspects of Zilliqa’s smart contract platform, Scilla—crafted as a peer-reviewed, intermediate-level language with formal verification in mind.

A weaker link in the founding narrative has been the project’s ability to maintain consistent, public-facing leadership. Over its existence, Zilliqa has seen multiple executive transitions including the stepping down of prominent early members. This has led to criticism over directional inconsistency, particularly during critical development phases.

Prateek Saxena, another key figure linked with Zilliqa’s origin story, was a scientific advisor rather than a formal co-founder. A professor at NUS and a contributor to the early technical whitepaper, his influence helped merge the academic blockchain framework with executable architecture. Saxena later gained wider recognition for advising and incubating other projects, including Kyber Network, indicating that his role in Zilliqa was foundational but not enduring.

Notably absent from Zilliqa’s team composition is a clear narrative around decentralized governance. Unlike protocols like Rocket Pool, which articulate community-led trajectories through structured governance frameworks (Decentralized Governance in Rocket Pool Explained), Zilliqa remains more top-down in administrative perception. While the protocol pushes decentralization via technology design, its leadership lineage lacks significant community insertion into core decision-making, raising questions around long-term protocol ownership.

Authors comments

This document was made by www.BestDapps.com

Sources

• https://www.zilliqa.com/
• https://whitepaper.io/document/40/zilliqa-whitepaper
• https://github.com/Zilliqa/Zilliqa
• https://blog.zilliqa.com/
• https://zilliqa.tech/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/ZIL-Staking-Final.pdf
• https://docs.zilliqa.com/
• https://explorer.zilliqa.com/
• https://viewblock.io/zilliqa
• https://twitter.com/zilliqa
• https://stack.zilliqa.com/docs/whitepaper/
• https://staking.zilliqa.com/
• https://www.zillacapital.com/
• https://learn.zilliqa.com/
• https://gov.zilliqa.com/
• https://scilla-lang.org/
• https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/zilliqa
• https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/zilliqa/
• https://zilliqa.moonlet.io/
• https://hub.zilliqa.com/
• https://zilswap.io/