For builders and technology researchers, a Layer 1 blockchain is a base blockchain network in the stack being discussed. To classify one, focus on the network’s role—not just a token, application, or product name—and state the scope and date of the assessment. The evidence available here supports a working definition, but does not substantiate a current, dated list of named networks; this article therefore explains the criteria without presenting unverified examples as fact.

What “Layer 1 blockchain” means

A blockchain is a tamper-evident, tamper-resistant digital ledger implemented in a distributed fashion. source “Layer 1” is commonly used for the base blockchain network and its protocol, rather than as a separately standardized technical category. In practical terms, the label identifies a network’s foundational role within a particular blockchain stack. It does not, on its own, specify the network’s participation rules, consensus method, privacy model, finality, or governance.

The term is relational: a network is called Layer 1 in relation to other systems and functions associated with it. An application running on a network is not, for that reason alone, the network itself. Nor does a token name establish that a separate base-layer blockchain exists. A useful classification names the network and describes the stack in which it is said to serve as a base.

Terminology can vary across ecosystems and sources. One reason to look beyond labels is that the term “Layer 2” is not used uniformly in industry; architecture can be more informative than the label. This does not establish a universal taxonomy for all blockchain designs. It means a classification should state its working definition and avoid presenting a disputed boundary as settled fact.

Criteria for including a blockchain in the category

Use a short, repeatable test. First, identify the candidate as a blockchain network rather than a token, application, service, or product. Second, establish that it functions as a base network in the specific stack under discussion. Third, record the evidence and date used to make that determination. These are practical editorial criteria, not a claim that an industry-wide certification or global registry defines every case.

Architecture matters because systems can assign technical functions differently. A modular blockchain model, for example, separates execution, settlement, consensus, and data availability into functions that may be assigned to specialized layers. That model illustrates why a project’s role should be established from its architecture, not inferred from its name. It does not determine how every project must be categorized, and a system may combine functions in ways that complicate a simple label.

Keep network classification separate from token classification. A token may be associated with a blockchain, but the token’s existence or naming does not demonstrate that it constitutes an independent base-layer network. Similarly, an application may use blockchain infrastructure without becoming a Layer 1. If documentation describes a product but does not establish the underlying network and its role, the classification should remain unconfirmed.

Also distinguish a base layer from systems built on or connected to it. An Ethereum Layer 2 solution derives some security from Ethereum’s Layer 1 consensus rather than operating only under a separate validator set; the specific guarantee depends on the system’s proof, data-availability, settlement, governance, and exit mechanisms. source This example clarifies the relationship between a named base network and a system using it. It is not a full account of Layer 2 operation or a comparison of scaling approaches.

Examples of Layer 1 blockchains

A named example should be included only when current primary protocol documentation supports both the network’s existence and its classification under the stated criteria. The evidence supplied for this article does not provide that documentation for specific named networks, nor does it establish a date on which such examples were checked. It would be inappropriate to supply names from memory or to imply that they have been verified for this article.

Readers evaluating a proposed example can apply the criteria directly: identify the network, locate primary documentation describing its protocol and role, determine whether it serves as the base blockchain in the relevant stack, and note when the documentation was checked. A list should distinguish verified entries from unresolved cases. If a source establishes only a token, application, or branding claim, that is not enough to confirm inclusion.

Any examples list should be labeled non-exhaustive unless its compiler has defined a complete scope and verified every entry within it. It should also disclose its cutoff date. The absence of a named list here is a limitation of the available evidence, not a conclusion that no qualifying networks exist.

Why “all” is difficult to establish

The word “all” implies a complete inventory, but completeness depends on what the inventory counts. A compiler must define whether the intended scope includes permissioned networks, application-specific chains, inactive projects, testnets, forks, or rebranded projects. The evidence available here does not verify current status for those categories or settle their boundaries, so this article excludes them from any purported census.

The label can also be less informative than the system’s actual operation. A distributed architecture does not establish how decentralized a particular network is in practice; crypto and DeFi systems can exhibit substantial de facto centralization even when their stated architecture or ethos emphasizes decentralization. This is a caution against reading operating characteristics into the Layer 1 label. It is not a test for whether a network belongs in the category.

For a useful list, document the inclusion rule, the sources checked for each candidate, the status categories used, and the cutoff date. If the available documentation does not resolve whether something is a base network or a component of a larger stack, mark it as disputed or leave it out. These steps make the list’s limits visible rather than suggesting unsupported global completeness.

How this category differs from nearby blockchain topics

This article addresses category identification, not detailed Layer 1-versus-Layer 2 mechanics, performance comparisons, or network selection. Scaling work may seek to increase transaction speed and throughput without sacrificing decentralization or security, but that is a design objective—not a universal score or guarantee. source The objective does not establish whether a particular network is Layer 1.

When recording a classification, state the network, the stack in which it is considered foundational, the primary documentation supporting that role, and the date checked. Then keep the conclusion within that scope: it is a classification under stated criteria, not a ranking, endorsement, or exhaustive global directory.

Sources and references