We may certainly say that a "permissioned" blockchain cannot have a native coin (or cryptocurreny) since in permissioned blockchain we need a permission to be eligible to participate for transactions validation and so having a native coin in a permissioned blockchain is not meaningful.

However, on the other hand, can we say that having a native coin/cryptocurrency for a "permissionless" blockchain is crucial? Or is there any permissionless blockchain without native coin? In that case, how to ensure security and how to motivate miners/validators for participation in transactions validation?

1 Answer 1


Ripple is actually a permissioned "chain", even if we stretch what the definition of a chain is. It is run by validators and as far as I know, it is not permissionless (which I equate with "trustless").

I do not see a specific need for a permissionless network to have its own coin or token. It could in theory still be driven on top of an already-existing coin from another network. It depends alot on your proof-of-what algorithm. You could have a network that awards "miners" ETH for doing "work" even if your own network does not have its own native token, per se.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.