Which Blockchains Should Your Exchange Support?

The “Support Everything” Trap

Every new exchange operator goes through the same phase. They make a spreadsheet with 30 blockchains, get excited about supporting all of them, and then realize three weeks into development that each chain integration is its own little nightmare of RPC nodes, wallet derivation paths, confirmation logic, and edge cases that nobody warned them about.

I’ve watched this play out dozens of times. A founder tells me they want to support 25 chains at launch. I ask them how many engineers they have. They say two. I try not to visibly wince.

Here’s the reality: Binance didn’t launch with 50 chains. Coinbase supported exactly two assets (Bitcoin and Ethereum) when they started. Even Kraken added chains gradually over years. And these are companies with hundreds of engineers and bottomless budgets.

You need to be strategic about this. Every blockchain you support comes with real costs — node infrastructure, wallet maintenance, deposit monitoring, withdrawal processing, and customer support tickets when someone sends tokens on the wrong network. That last one alone will eat your support team alive if you’re not careful.

The good news? You don’t need to support everything. The data is actually pretty clear about which chains matter, and the 80/20 rule applies aggressively here. A handful of chains cover the vast majority of real trading demand. The rest is nice-to-have, and “nice-to-have” is a luxury you can afford once you’re profitable.

Let me walk you through how to think about this, based on what we’ve seen work across hundreds of exchanges running on Codono’s platform.

Tier 1: The Non-Negotiables

These are the chains you absolutely must support on day one. Skip any of these and you’re leaving the majority of your potential trading volume on the table.

Bitcoin

This shouldn’t need explaining, but I’ll say it anyway: Bitcoin is still the center of gravity for the entire crypto market. It’s the asset that brings in the most deposits, the pair that generates the most trading volume, and the coin that your users will ask about first.

From an integration standpoint, Bitcoin is actually one of the more straightforward chains. The UTXO model is different from account-based chains, but it’s well-documented and every wallet library on earth supports it. You’ll run a full node (or use a trusted provider), monitor for incoming deposits with a reasonable number of confirmations (3-6 is standard), and process withdrawals through a hot wallet with cold storage for the bulk of funds.

The main challenge with Bitcoin is fee management. Transaction fees fluctuate wildly depending on network congestion — during the 2024 ordinals craze, fees spiked to $30-$80 per transaction. You need dynamic fee estimation and the ability to batch withdrawals to keep costs manageable. If you set a static fee and forget about it, you’ll either overpay during quiet periods or have stuck transactions during busy ones.

Bitcoin alone typically accounts for 30-40% of deposit volume on a general-purpose exchange. It’s not optional.

Ethereum

Ethereum is your second non-negotiable, and it’s arguably more important than Bitcoin from a pure integration perspective. Why? Because Ethereum isn’t just ETH — it’s the gateway to the entire ERC-20 token ecosystem. When you integrate Ethereum, you simultaneously gain the ability to support thousands of tokens: USDC, LINK, UNI, AAVE, and whatever the hot new token is this month.

The EVM (Ethereum Virtual Machine) integration is the foundation that makes most other chain integrations easier later. Once you’ve built your Ethereum wallet infrastructure, supporting other EVM-compatible chains like BSC, Polygon, and Arbitrum becomes dramatically simpler because they share the same address format, transaction structure, and smart contract interface.

Ethereum’s challenges are well known: gas fees can be painful (though they’ve improved significantly post-merge and with the Dencun upgrade), and you need robust gas price estimation to avoid overpaying or having transactions stuck in the mempool. You also need to handle ERC-20 token approvals and transfers correctly — the number of exchanges that have lost funds to botched token contract interactions is higher than anyone wants to admit.

For deposit monitoring, you’ll want to track both direct ETH transfers and internal contract calls. The standard approach is running a Geth or Erigon node and indexing relevant transactions, though services like Alchemy and Infura can supplement your own node for reliability.

USDT and USDC (Stablecoins Are a Chain Question)

Stablecoins deserve their own section because they exist across multiple chains and this is where things get tricky. USDT lives on Ethereum (ERC-20), TRON (TRC-20), BSC (BEP-20), Solana (SPL), Polygon, Avalanche, Arbitrum, Optimism, and several others. USDC has a similar multi-chain footprint.

The user demand breakdown right now looks roughly like this:

• USDT on TRON: the most popular option by transaction count, because TRC-20 transfers cost less than $1
• USDT on Ethereum: still huge for larger transactions and DeFi users
• USDC on Ethereum: preferred by institutional and US-adjacent users
• USDT/USDC on BSC and Polygon: growing fast, popular in Asian and emerging markets

At minimum, you need USDT support on Ethereum and TRON. That covers the vast majority of stablecoin deposit demand. Adding USDC on Ethereum is strongly recommended for the institutional crowd. Everything beyond that is Tier 2 territory.

A common mistake: not clearly distinguishing between the same token on different networks in your deposit interface. Users will send USDT on BSC to an Ethereum address and then file angry support tickets. Clear network labeling and deposit address validation are critical. I can’t stress this enough — network confusion is the single largest source of customer support issues related to deposits.

Tier 2: High-Value Additions

Once your Tier 1 chains are rock solid, these are the chains that will meaningfully expand your addressable market.

Binance Smart Chain (BSC)

BSC is where a huge chunk of retail DeFi activity lives, especially in Asian markets. Low fees (usually under $0.10 per transaction), fast block times (3 seconds), and full EVM compatibility make it a natural second EVM chain after Ethereum.

The integration lift from Ethereum to BSC is genuinely minimal if your wallet architecture is well-designed. Same address derivation, same transaction format, same ABI for token contracts. You’re mostly just pointing at different RPC endpoints and adjusting confirmation requirements. Most teams can get BSC running in a few days once Ethereum is solid.

BEP-20 tokens like CAKE, XVS, and the seemingly infinite supply of meme tokens give your users access to the Binance ecosystem. And as mentioned, USDT and USDC on BSC are increasingly popular deposit routes.

Solana

Solana is the biggest non-EVM chain you’ll need to deal with, and it’s a genuinely different beast from everything in the EVM world. The account model, transaction format, and programming environment (Rust-based programs rather than Solidity smart contracts) are all distinct.

Solana’s appeal is obvious: sub-second finality, transaction fees measured in fractions of a cent, and a massive ecosystem of SPL tokens including some of the most actively traded meme coins in crypto. If your exchange caters to retail traders — and especially if you’re targeting the meme coin market — Solana support isn’t really optional anymore.

The integration complexity is real, though. You’ll need to learn Solana’s account model (accounts are different from Ethereum accounts), handle the SPL token program for token transfers, and deal with Solana’s occasional network congestion issues. The RPC infrastructure is also more demanding — Solana nodes are resource-hungry and the RPC API has its quirks.

Budget 2-4 weeks of engineering time for a Solana integration if your team hasn’t worked with it before. It’s not impossible, but it’s not a weekend project either.

TRON

TRON might not get much love on crypto Twitter, but the usage numbers don’t lie. TRON processes more USDT transactions than any other chain. In regions like Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and parts of Africa, TRC-20 USDT is the default way people move stablecoins around.

If you’re building an exchange for emerging markets, TRON is arguably more important than Solana. The fees are negligible, the network is reliable, and the user demand is massive.

Integration-wise, TRON is its own thing — it’s not EVM compatible despite some surface-level similarities. It uses its own virtual machine (TVM), its own address format (base58 starting with “T”), and its own RPC protocol. However, the ecosystem is mature and well-documented. Libraries like TronWeb make the integration manageable, and the overall complexity is moderate — somewhere between adding another EVM chain and a full Solana integration.

Polygon

Polygon (specifically Polygon PoS, now rebranded to Polygon zkEVM for the newer chain) is another EVM-compatible chain that’s trivial to add once you have Ethereum infrastructure. Low fees, fast confirmations, and a solid DeFi ecosystem make it a popular choice.

The main use case for Polygon on your exchange is cheap deposits and withdrawals. Users who don’t want to pay Ethereum gas fees will appreciate having Polygon as an option for USDT, USDC, and other tokens. It’s especially popular among DeFi users who bridge between Polygon and Ethereum regularly.

Adding Polygon alongside your Ethereum integration is usually a one-to-two day effort for an experienced team. The ROI is excellent.

Tier 3: Regional and Niche Chains

These chains serve specific markets or user segments. Whether they’re worth supporting depends entirely on your target audience.

TON (The Open Network)

TON is the blockchain attached to Telegram’s 900+ million user base, and that distribution advantage alone makes it worth watching. In regions where Telegram dominates messaging — Russia, CIS countries, Iran, parts of Southeast Asia — TON adoption has been explosive.

The integration is non-trivial. TON uses a unique architecture with its own virtual machine, a sharding model that’s different from anything else in the space, and a workchain concept that takes some time to wrap your head around. The developer tooling has improved significantly in 2024-2025 but is still less mature than Ethereum or Solana tooling.

If your exchange targets Telegram-heavy markets, TON is a strong Tier 2 or even Tier 1 chain. For a general-purpose global exchange, it’s a solid Tier 3 addition.

Avalanche

Avalanche has carved out a niche in institutional DeFi and gaming. Its subnet architecture is genuinely interesting from a technical standpoint, and the C-Chain (its primary smart contract chain) is EVM-compatible, making integration straightforward.

The user base is smaller than BSC or Solana but tends to skew towards higher-value transactions. If you’re targeting institutional or semi-institutional traders, Avalanche support signals that you take the ecosystem seriously.

Arbitrum and Optimism (Ethereum L2s)

These Layer 2 rollups offer Ethereum security with dramatically lower fees and faster confirmations. They’re EVM-compatible, so integration complexity is minimal once you have Ethereum support.

The question isn’t whether L2s matter — they clearly do, as a growing percentage of Ethereum activity is moving to L2s. The question is which L2s to support. Arbitrum has the largest TVL and most active DeFi ecosystem. Optimism has the OP Stack and growing adoption. Base (Coinbase’s L2) is growing rapidly. And there are dozens more.

My recommendation: start with Arbitrum if you’re adding an L2. It has the most users, the deepest liquidity, and the broadest token ecosystem. Add others as demand warrants.

Chain Comparison: The Numbers

Here’s a practical comparison of the chains we’ve discussed, focusing on the metrics that actually matter for exchange operators:

Chain	TPS (Practical)	Avg Fee	Finality	Token Ecosystem	EVM Compatible
Bitcoin	7	$1-$5	30-60 min	Limited (BRC-20 emerging)	No
Ethereum	15-30	$0.50-$10	12-15 min	500,000+ tokens	Yes (it IS the VM)
BSC	160+	$0.03-$0.10	3-5 sec	50,000+ tokens	Yes
Solana	4,000+	less than $0.01	less than 1 sec	30,000+ tokens	No
TRON	2,000	less than $0.01	3 sec	10,000+ tokens	No (TVM)
Polygon PoS	650+	less than $0.01	2 sec	30,000+ tokens	Yes
TON	1,000+	less than $0.01	5 sec	5,000+ tokens	No
Avalanche	4,500	$0.01-$0.10	less than 2 sec	8,000+ tokens	Yes (C-Chain)
Arbitrum	40,000+	$0.01-$0.10	less than 1 sec	15,000+ tokens	Yes

A few notes on this table: TPS numbers are practical throughput, not theoretical maximums that nobody actually hits. Fees are averages — they can spike during congestion on any chain. Token ecosystem sizes are approximate and change daily.

The key takeaway: for exchanges, finality time matters more than raw TPS. You need to know when a deposit is safe to credit. Bitcoin’s 30-60 minute finality (at 3-6 confirmations) is the outlier here — most modern chains offer near-instant finality, which is a much better user experience for deposits.

Integration Complexity: Ranking From Easiest to Hardest

Based on our experience integrating these chains into the Codono platform, here’s how they rank in terms of engineering effort (assuming you already have Ethereum support):

Easiest (1-2 days):

1. BSC — Nearly identical to Ethereum. Change the RPC endpoint, adjust gas parameters, done.
2. Polygon — Same story as BSC. EVM compatibility is a beautiful thing.
3. Arbitrum — EVM compatible L2. Minor differences in gas estimation but otherwise familiar territory.
4. Avalanche (C-Chain) — Another EVM clone. Sensing a pattern?

Moderate (1-2 weeks): 5. TRON — Own VM and address format, but mature tooling and good documentation. 6. TON — Unique architecture, improving developer tools. The learning curve is real but manageable.

Significant (2-4 weeks): 7. Solana — Completely different programming model, account structure, and token standard. Good documentation but a steep learning curve for EVM-native developers. 8. Bitcoin — UTXO model is fundamentally different from account-based chains. Fee estimation, UTXO management, and transaction construction all require specialized logic.

Note that Bitcoin ranks as “significant” complexity despite being the oldest chain. That’s because the UTXO model is genuinely different from account-based chains, and proper UTXO management (coin selection, change address handling, fee bumping via RBF) requires careful engineering.

Multi-Chain Wallet Architecture: Getting It Right

This is where a lot of exchanges get into trouble. If your wallet architecture isn’t designed for multi-chain from the start, adding new chains becomes increasingly painful.

The key architectural decisions you need to make early:

HD wallet derivation. Use BIP-32/BIP-44 hierarchical deterministic wallets. This lets you derive addresses for multiple chains from a single master seed, which dramatically simplifies key management and backup procedures. One seed, many chains, many addresses per chain. If you’re not doing this, you’re creating a key management nightmare for yourself.

Hot/cold wallet split. Every chain needs its own hot wallet (for processing withdrawals) and cold storage (for the bulk of funds). The percentage split depends on your withdrawal volume, but 5% hot / 95% cold is a good starting point. Your crypto wallet infrastructure is the most security-critical component of your entire exchange.

Deposit address generation. You generally want to generate a unique deposit address per user per chain. For EVM chains, this is straightforward — derive addresses from your HD wallet. For Bitcoin, same thing with UTXO-aware monitoring. For Solana, you’ll create associated token accounts. For TRON, dedicated addresses.

Consolidation strategy. Deposits arrive at individual user addresses, but you need to consolidate them into your hot wallet for withdrawal processing. This consolidation process has gas/fee costs on every chain, and optimizing it matters more than you’d think. Batching consolidation during low-fee periods can save thousands of dollars per month on high-volume exchanges.

Withdrawal queue processing. Don’t process withdrawals in real-time one by one. Queue them and process in batches at regular intervals (every 5-15 minutes is common). This lets you batch transactions on chains that support it (Bitcoin, Ethereum) and apply human review for large withdrawals. The slight delay in withdrawal processing is a reasonable trade-off for security and cost efficiency.

One thing I’ll emphasize: build your wallet layer as an abstraction. Each chain should implement a common interface — generate address, check balance, send transaction, monitor deposits. The rest of your exchange shouldn’t need to know whether it’s talking to Bitcoin or Solana. This abstraction is what makes adding new chains manageable instead of a rewrite every time.

EVM vs. Non-EVM: The Integration Divide

This is the single most important technical distinction when you’re planning your chain support roadmap. Understanding it will save you a lot of time and money.

EVM-compatible chains (Ethereum, BSC, Polygon, Arbitrum, Avalanche C-Chain, Optimism, Base, and dozens of others) all share the same fundamental architecture. Same address format (0x-prefixed, 20 bytes). Same transaction structure. Same ABI for interacting with smart contracts. Same token standard interfaces (ERC-20). Same JSON-RPC API for node communication.

What this means in practice: once you build a robust Ethereum integration, supporting additional EVM chains is largely a configuration exercise. You’re changing RPC endpoints, chain IDs, gas parameters, and confirmation requirements. The core wallet logic, deposit monitoring, and withdrawal processing all stay the same.

This is why experienced exchange operators always build their Ethereum integration first and build it well. It becomes the template for every EVM chain that follows. Invest extra time in making your Ethereum layer clean and modular, because you’re going to reuse it five or ten times.

Non-EVM chains (Bitcoin, Solana, TRON, TON, Cosmos-based chains, Polkadot parachains) each require their own integration from near-scratch. Different address formats, different transaction construction, different node APIs, different token standards, different signing mechanisms.

Each non-EVM chain is essentially a standalone engineering project. You’ll need chain-specific libraries, chain-specific node infrastructure, and chain-specific monitoring logic. This is why Bitcoin, despite being the oldest and most important chain, still takes meaningful engineering effort to integrate properly.

The strategic implication: after your initial Ethereum + Bitcoin integration, prioritize EVM chains first because the marginal cost of each one is low. Then add non-EVM chains based on user demand, because each one is a real investment. Don’t let someone talk you into integrating five non-EVM chains simultaneously unless you have the engineering bandwidth to do it properly.

How Codono Handles Multi-Chain Support

Full disclosure: this is where I talk about our platform, because it’s directly relevant to how you’d actually solve these problems in practice.

The Codono exchange platform was built from the ground up as a multi-chain system. We don’t bolt on chain support as an afterthought — the wallet layer is designed around the abstraction model I described above, with each chain implementing a standardized interface.

Out of the box, Codono supports Bitcoin, Ethereum (plus all ERC-20 tokens), BSC (plus BEP-20 tokens), Solana (plus SPL tokens), TRON (plus TRC-20 tokens), Polygon, TON, and several other chains. The wallet system handles HD key derivation, hot/cold splitting, deposit monitoring, consolidation, and withdrawal processing for every supported chain.

What this means for you as an operator: you’re not building chain integrations from scratch. You’re configuring which chains you want active, setting confirmation thresholds, defining withdrawal limits, and managing your hot wallet allocations. The hard engineering work — the node communication, the transaction construction, the UTXO management for Bitcoin, the SPL token handling for Solana — is already done and already tested in production.

When we add support for a new chain, every Codono operator gets access to it through a software update. You don’t need to hire a blockchain engineer or spend weeks on integration. That’s the advantage of running on a platform that’s actively maintained and developed.

For operators who want to add a chain we don’t yet support, the wallet abstraction layer means you can build a custom integration that plugs into the existing system. You implement the standard interface — generate address, check balance, send transaction, monitor deposits — and everything else just works. Admin panel, user balances, deposit/withdrawal history, the trading engine — all chain-agnostic.

Putting It All Together: A Practical Rollout Plan

Based on everything above, here’s the chain rollout strategy I’d recommend for a new exchange:

Launch day: Bitcoin, Ethereum (with major ERC-20 tokens), USDT on TRON and Ethereum. This covers approximately 80% of deposit demand and lets you list the highest-volume trading pairs.

Month 2-3: BSC and Polygon. These are quick EVM additions that expand your stablecoin deposit options and open up the DeFi token market. Users in Asia and emerging markets will particularly appreciate BSC support.

Month 4-6: Solana and additional TRON token support. By now you should have real user data showing what your audience wants. If your users are asking for meme coins, Solana moves up the priority list. If you’re serving emerging markets, double down on TRON.

Month 6-12: TON, Arbitrum, Avalanche, and any other chains your user data supports. At this point, each new chain should be justified by actual user demand, not speculation. Look at your deposit requests, your support tickets, and your competitor analysis.

This isn’t a rigid schedule. If you’re specifically targeting the Telegram market, TON might be a launch-day chain. If you’re focused on DeFi traders, Arbitrum might jump ahead of TRON. Let your market and your data guide the priorities.

The key principle: launch with fewer chains done well, rather than many chains done poorly. A Bitcoin integration that reliably processes deposits and withdrawals is infinitely more valuable than a dozen half-finished chain integrations that lose user funds or generate constant support tickets.

The Bottom Line

Blockchain support is a competitive advantage, but only if it’s done right. A well-integrated chain creates seamless deposits, reliable withdrawals, and happy users. A poorly integrated chain creates stuck transactions, lost funds, and support nightmares.

Start with Bitcoin, Ethereum, and TRON. Add EVM chains quickly because the marginal cost is low. Add non-EVM chains strategically based on real user demand. And invest in wallet architecture that makes every subsequent chain integration easier than the last.

If you’re starting from scratch and the prospect of building all this wallet infrastructure sounds daunting — it should, because it is. That’s exactly why platforms like Codono exist. We’ve already done the hard work of integrating these chains, testing them in production, and handling the endless edge cases that come with managing real money across a dozen different blockchains.

Whether you build on our platform or build your own, the prioritization framework stays the same: follow the user demand, respect the engineering costs, and never launch a chain integration you’re not confident is bulletproof.

Your users are trusting you with their money. The blockchain layer is where that trust is tested most directly. Get it right.