Permissioned vs. Permissionless Blockchains: What Is the Difference?
When Bitcoin launched in 2009, it introduced the world to the concept of a transparent, immutable, open, and distributed ledger that anyone could access.
This innovation disrupted finance by proving that trust could be established through code rather than intermediaries. However, as blockchain technology evolved, industries like banking, healthcare, and logistics realised they needed the security and immutability of a blockchain without the total transparency and anonymity that defines chains like Bitcoin and Ethereum.
This divergence has led to the development of two distinct blockchain architectures: permissioned and permissionless blockchains. While one prioritises decentralisation and open, publicly-accessible networks, the other focuses on corporate use cases, a proprietary design, and regulatory compliance.
Today, we'll introduce you to the core differences between permissioned vs. permissionless blockchains, their unique advantages, and how they are shaping the crypto market. Let's get started!
What Is a Permissionless Blockchain?
A permissionless blockchain, often referred to as a public blockchain, is an open network where anyone can join, participate, and validate transactions without prior approval or vetting. It operates on the principle of being trustless, meaning that participants do not need to know or trust one another to transact safely.
Instead, they trust the underlying code and cryptographic protocols. In a permissionless network, the software is open-source. Anyone with a compatible device and an internet connection can download the ledger, run a node, and participate in the consensus mechanism—typically Proof-of-Work (PoW) or Proof-of-Stake (PoS) (or one of their variants). While PoW uses computational power produced by physical crypto mining equipment, the PoS algorithm requires validators to stake native tokens. What's common in all consensus mechanisms is that they leverage economic incentives (e.g., block rewards, staking rewards) to ensure that pseudonymous network participants act honestly.
This open architecture offers distinct benefits, primarily decentralisation and resistance to censorship. Because the ledger is distributed across thousands of nodes globally, there is no single point of failure or central authority capable of blocking transactions or shutting down the network. Furthermore, every transaction is recorded on a public ledger, providing complete transparency and auditability for anyone interested in verifying the data.
However, these strengths come with trade-offs. The requirement for global consensus among thousands of independent nodes can make these networks slower and harder to scale compared to their permissioned counterparts. Additionally, while user identities remain pseudonymous, represented only by alphanumeric addresses, all transaction details and balances are fully visible to the public, which may not suit every use case.
Despite these limitations, permissionless blockchains serve as the backbone of the crypto market. Bitcoin stands as the definitive example, allowing truly global financial transactions without intermediaries as part of a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Furthermore, Ethereum leverages this open architecture to power smart contracts and dApps with a focus on decentralisation and security. At the same time, chains like Solana and Avalanche sacrifice some decentralisation to scale efficiently and power high-speed applications with fast and low-cost transactions.
What Is a Permissioned Blockchain?
A permissioned blockchain, often associated with private or consortium blockchains, is a closed network where an access control layer restricts who can join, read data, or validate transactions. Unlike public chains, these are not free-for-all environments; participants are typically known, vetted, and approved entities.
In a permissioned network, a central authority or a consortium of organisations determines the rules of the network. Users and validators often must undergo strict Know Your Customer (KYC) identity verification before they are granted access. Because the participants are known and trusted, these networks do not need energy-intensive consensus mechanisms. Instead, they use lighter, more efficient protocols because there are fewer nodes to coordinate.
The primary advantage of this closed environment is privacy, as sensitive business data can be shielded from the public and competitors. Because there are fewer nodes involved in the validation process, these networks also offer significantly higher scalability and faster transaction settlement times compared to their public counterparts. Furthermore, as all participants are pre-vetted, enterprises can adhere to data protection regulations like GDPR or HIPAA more easily.
On the downside, this efficiency comes at the cost of decentralisation. The network relies heavily on trust in the governing entity or consortium, introducing a single point of failure, potential counterparty risks, and a lack of public transparency compared to open networks. Moreover, as a central entity supervises the chain, permissioned blockchains are more prone to censorship.
These characteristics make permissioned networks ideal for enterprise applications. Hyperledger Fabric is a prominent example, used by major corporations like Walmart to trace supply chains privately. In the financial sector, R3's Corda allows banks to settle complex trades securely between known parties, while Quorum (originally developed by JPMorgan) utilises a permissioned version of Ethereum to facilitate interbank information sharing, high-speed settlements, and other use cases.
Permissioned vs. Permissionless Blockchain: Comparing the Key Differences
While both permissioned and permissionless blockchains utilise distributed ledger technology to record data and operate, their architectures serve fundamentally different goals. One prioritises decentralisation, openness, a lack of third parties, and censorship resistance, while the other prioritises control, privacy, efficiency, and corporate use cases.
The table below outlines the critical distinctions between permissioned and permissionless blockchain networks:
| Feature | Permissionless Blockchain | Permissioned Blockchain |
|---|---|---|
| Access | Open to anyone; no approval needed. | Restricted; requires approval/identity verification. |
| Decentralisation | High; distributed among many pseudonymous nodes. | Low; controlled by a central entity or consortium. |
| Transparency | High; full public ledger visibility. | Low; visibility restricted to authorised participants. |
| Identity | Pseudonymous. | Known and verified (KYC required). |
| Performance (Speed) | Slower; limited by global consensus. | Faster; high throughput with fewer nodes. |
| Security Model | Trustless; secured by incentives and cryptography. | Trust-based; secured by vetted participants. |
| Primary Use Case | Public crypto (DeFi, NFTs, RWAs, DePINs, stablecoins, etc.). | Enterprise (supply chain, banking, healthcare). |
| Governance | Community-governed (DAO or consensus). | Centralised or consortium-driven. |
The Backbone of Blockchain Architecture
The debate between permissioned vs. permissionless blockchain networks is not about which is better, but rather which is more suitable for a specific purpose. Permissionless blockchains represent the original vision of cryptocurrency—a world of financial sovereignty, public access, censorship-resistance, and decentralisation. In contrast, permissioned blockchains offer a pragmatic solution for enterprises that require the efficiency of a shared ledger but must operate within the bounds of strict privacy and regulatory compliance.
VALR provides secure, regulated, and intuitive access to over 100 cryptocurrencies issued on permissionless blockchain networks, allowing you to gain exposure to a wide range of assets.
Ready to get started? Create a VALR account today!
Risk Disclosure
Trading or investing in crypto assets is risky and may result in the loss of capital as the value may fluctuate. VALR (Pty) Ltd is a licensed financial services provider (FSP #53308).
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this article are the personal views of the author and should not form the basis for making investment decisions, nor be construed as a recommendation or advice to engage in investment transactions.