Last night, I came across news that Wyoming, in selecting a blockchain for its upcoming stablecoin WYST, conducted a public scoring process. Eleven blockchains made the shortlist, with Aptos and Solana tying for first place at 32 points, Sei close behind at 30, and Ethereum and several L2s scoring 26 or lower. This outcome might differ significantly from the perceived ecosystem activity and token prices of these chains. How exactly were these scores determined? Curious, I delved into the details with the help of GPT.

First, kudos to the U.S. state government for its transparency.
The Wyoming Stable Token Commission, behind the WYST stablecoin, was established in March 2023 under the state’s Stable Token Act. The commission maintains a public Notion document containing project introductions, meeting schedules and records, scoring criteria and memos, Q&A, contact details, and links to its YouTube, X (Twitter), Warpcast, and GitHub accounts. This level of transparency surpasses many half-hearted projects today.

Interested readers can check it out here:
https://stabletoken.notion.site/

How did the state government choose the blockchain?
In Q4 2024, the commission shortlisted 28 public blockchains. First, 14 were eliminated based on four yes/no criteria: permissionless access, supply transparency, on-chain analytics, and freeze capability. Next, the remaining chains were scored on nine metrics (3 points each), including network stability, active users, TVL, stablecoin market cap, TPS, transaction fees, finality time, block time, and whether the chain was registered in Wyoming. Finally, additional points were awarded for five advantages (2 points each: privacy, interoperability, smart contract programmability, use cases, and partnerships) and deducted for six risks (-2 points each: legal violations by entities or teams, security breach history, poor network uptime, lack of bug bounties, and lack of code maintenance).

The final recommendation included five Layer 1 chains—Solana (32 points), Avalanche (26), Ethereum (26), Stellar (24), and Sui (26)—and four Layer 2 chains—Arbitrum (26), Base (25), Optimism (19), and Polygon (26)—as "candidate blockchains."

Aptos and SEI were newly added in Q1 2025.
This quarter, the commission updated its criteria, adding "vendor support" (the chain must have approved partners for development, auditing, and infrastructure deployment, possibly funded by foundations) and requiring that the chain be fully indexed and supported by approved on-chain analytics platforms (e.g., Chainalysis, TRM Labs).

Two new bonus criteria were introduced:

• Emerging Market Trends: Whether the chain hosts projects in AI, DePIN, VR, gaming assets, etc.

• Foundation Support: Whether the foundation can assist with technical development, WYST liquidity, or marketing.

Aptos and SEI scored 32 and 30 points, respectively, securing their spots in the shortlist.

How did these score differences arise?
I created a comparison table of key metrics. Note: Since the nine previously shortlisted chains weren’t rescored, some data reflects late 2024.

Why did Ethereum lag behind?
Ethereum’s TVL is leagues ahead, but its TPS, finality time, transaction fees, and block time put it at a disadvantage. Layer 2 fragmentation also left its mainnet active users on par with SEI, far behind Aptos and Solana.

How did Aptos tie with Solana?
Aptos performed well across compliance, speed, cost, and stability. However, Solana didn’t participate in the updated scoring round, which included the two new bonus criteria. Without those, Solana would still lead.

Notable takeaways for Ethereum supporters:
While Ethereum touts itself as the best chain for real-world assets, government evaluations treat permissionless access as a binary checkbox. Network stability is just one core metric; technical shortcomings (e.g., Solana’s past outages, penalized by -1 each) had minimal impact. Decentralization wasn’t scored—freeze capability and local presence mattered more. Performance, cost, and scale dominated the criteria.

The process remains open.
Wyoming’s stablecoin initiative adheres to "multi-chain support and technological neutrality," with ongoing updates and feedback collection. Chains not yet shortlisted can still apply.

Beyond blockchain selection, Wyoming’s stablecoin project is noteworthy.
As the first U.S. state to plan a stablecoin, Wyoming initially aimed for a July 4 launch but delayed it to Q3 2025 (suggested date: August 20). Next steps include public feedback on reserve rules, creating a commission ledger/chart of accounts, setting up trust and liquidity accounts with custodians, and partnering with exchanges, payment platforms, wallets, and market makers for WYST distribution.

Final steps:
Franklin Templeton will manage reserves, Chainalysis will handle on-chain analytics, and integration will be completed with LayerZero and Fireblocks. After deploying WYST’s contract by August 20, an official announcement will follow at the Wyoming Blockchain Conference.

Other states are joining the race.
Nebraska passed its Financial Innovation Act, authorizing Telcoin to issue a state-backed stablecoin (tentatively eUSD). Tinian Island (a U.S. territory) attempted to launch the Marianas US Dollar (MUSD) but faced a governor’s veto in April, later overturned by the Senate in May.

This echoes the Free Banking Era (1837–1866), when states, cities, banks, railroads, and even churches issued ~8,000 currencies. The accompanying image shows a $1 private note from the Delaware Bridge Company (1836–1841).

Recent discussions about RMB stablecoins have also heated up, with corporations exploring options. Beyond the "whether to issue" question lies the "which chain?" dilemma: a dedicated chain, corporate consortium chains (e.g., AntChain, JD Chain), international public chains, or domestic options like Hashkey Chain or Conflux. Wyoming’s scoring system, though imperfect, sets a precedent for others to follow. Expect more fascinating governance developments ahead.