Polygon network offers smart contracts development and maintenance, while Polkadot users can use smart contract by utilizing the Parachains
Cryptocurrency has been gaining attraction in recent times. Digital assets are based on block chain technology, which is a decentralized digital ledger that records all transactions made using the currency. However, out of multiple crypto assets, few have become more popular than others due to their market cap, user adoption, and technological advancements.
Two of the most popular cryptocurrencies are Polygon (MATIC) and Polkadot (DOT) both have unique features and differences.
Let’s find out in next 90 days, who will win the race for $10.0 mark
Polygon (MATIC)
Polygon (MATIC) is a Layer 2 scaling solution for Ethereum. It offers to solve the scalability issues as faced in Ethereum, and provides a faster, cheaper, and more efficient alternative.
Polygon already gained popularity in the decentralized applications, with several projects migrating to its network. If more demand arises in dApps, it will add to the value and in price of the network.
In addition, Polygon Layer 2 is less expensive than Ethereum with gas fees.
Technically speaking, on the weekly chart, the Polygon (MATIC) price trades lower after touching an all time high of $2.98 on November 21. Further, the price appreciated nearly 400% to the high of $1.56, from the low of $0.31 made on July 22.
Polkadot (DOT)
Polkadot is gaining popularity with new projects and partnerships, as it enhances the network value. The polkadot project raised over $144.3 million through the Web3 Foundation in an ICO itself in October 2017. The network eliminates the need to worry about network compatibility or turn around time when transferring digital assets quickly and securely.
On the weekly analysis, the Polkadot (Dot) price found support around 0.50% Fibonacci retracement level. A drop below this level on the weekly basis would bring more losses in the token.
In conclusion, both Polygon and Polkadot have different features and potential growth. It would be prudent to consider both fundamentals and technical features before making a choice.
