Futures
Access hundreds of perpetual contracts
TradFi
Gold
One platform for global traditional assets
Options
Hot
Trade European-style vanilla options
Unified Account
Maximize your capital efficiency
Demo Trading
Introduction to Futures Trading
Learn the basics of futures trading
Futures Events
Join events to earn rewards
Demo Trading
Use virtual funds to practice risk-free trading
Launch
CandyDrop
Collect candies to earn airdrops
Launchpool
Quick staking, earn potential new tokens
HODLer Airdrop
Hold GT and get massive airdrops for free
Pre-IPOs
Unlock full access to global stock IPOs
Alpha Points
Trade on-chain assets and earn airdrops
Futures Points
Earn futures points and claim airdrop rewards
Promotions
AI
Gate AI
Your all-in-one conversational AI partner
Gate AI Bot
Use Gate AI directly in your social App
GateClaw
Gate Blue Lobster, ready to go
Gate for AI Agent
AI infrastructure, Gate MCP, Skills, and CLI
Gate Skills Hub
10K+ Skills
From office tasks to trading, the all-in-one skill hub makes AI even more useful.
GateRouter
Smartly choose from 30+ AI models, with 0% extra fees
Researcher Says Canton Resembles Banking System, Not Crypto
A crypto researcher is calling out Canton Network for fake TVL metrics, centralized control, and misleading claims about being a blockchain.
A crypto researcher is raising serious concerns about the Canton Network.
Justin Bons took to X to call out what he describes as misleading claims. He argues that Canton operates more like a traditional banking system than a blockchain. The network uses invitation-only validator processes, tiered fees, and built-in censorship.
Bons says these features make Canton fundamentally incompatible with crypto’s core values.
Related reading:
Canton’s Permissioned Structure Draws Centralization Criticism
At the center of Bons’ criticism is Canton’s validator system. He points out that joining the network requires a formal application.
Existing validators decide who gets approved. That process, he argues, disqualifies Canton from being called permissionless. In truly decentralized systems, participation relies on economic incentives, not approvals from a central group.
Bons also highlights Canton’s inflation rate, which he puts at 21.8%.
Validators, he notes, receive token rewards without staking anything. A select group of applications also receives rewards chosen by this central authority.
He compares this setup to a Ponzi-like scheme, where the token serves no functional purpose in a centralized design.
He also criticizes Canton’s tiered fee model. Smaller users pay higher fees while larger ones pay less. This structure, Bons says, mirrors traditional banking inequality rather than crypto’s open-access promise.
Fake TVL Claims Fuel Investor Misleading Concerns
Bons takes direct aim at Canton’s reported total value locked figures.
Canton claims over $326 billion in real-world asset TVL. That number would place it ahead of every other blockchain by a significant margin. But Bons says the figure is an accounting trick, not a real metric.
He explains that partner companies like Broadridge mirror their balance sheets onto Canton’s private networks. That mirrored data is then counted as on-chain TVL.
According to Bons, nothing would change on those companies’ books if Canton shut down tomorrow. DeFiLlama, a widely respected data platform, reportedly lists Canton’s TVL at $0.
This gap between Canton’s claims and third-party data is central to Bons’ argument. He says reputable trackers simply do not recognize Canton’s reported figures as legitimate.
Canton’s Model Compared to Private Internet Era Failures
Bons draws a historical comparison to make his broader point. He references how large institutions once pushed private internet alternatives over the public internet.
The public internet ultimately prevailed. He believes crypto will follow the same path, with open systems winning out over permissioned ones.
He stops short of calling for legal action but urges the crypto community to reject Canton publicly.
His core concern is that Canton borrows crypto’s language and branding without delivering its principles. He argues this misleads both retail participants and institutional investors unfamiliar with the difference.