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.