ONE vs NEAR: Comparing Two Blockchain Platforms for Scalable DApp Development

Introduction: Investment Comparison of ONE vs NEAR

In the cryptocurrency market, the comparison between Harmony (ONE) vs NEAR (NEAR) has always been a topic that investors can't ignore. The two not only have significant differences in market cap ranking, application scenarios, and price performance, but also represent different cryptocurrency asset positioning.

Harmony (ONE): Since its launch in 2019, it has gained market recognition for its high scalability and security based on sharding technology.

NEAR (NEAR): Introduced in 2020, it has been hailed as a highly scalable base protocol, ensuring fast enough support for DApp operations on mobile devices.

This article will provide a comprehensive analysis of the investment value comparison between Harmony vs NEAR, focusing on historical price trends, supply mechanisms, institutional adoption, technological ecosystems, and future predictions, attempting to answer the question that investors are most concerned about:

"Which is the better buy right now?"

I. Price History Comparison and Current Market Status

ONE (Coin A) and NEAR (Coin B) Historical Price Trends

• 2021: ONE reached its all-time high of $0.37902 on October 26, 2021.
• 2022: NEAR reached its all-time high of $20.44 on January 17, 2022.
• Comparative analysis: In the recent market cycle, ONE has fallen from its high of $0.37902 to a current price of $0.006604, while NEAR has declined from $20.44 to $2.224.

Current Market Situation (2025-10-20)

• ONE current price: $0.006604
• NEAR current price: $2.224
• 24-hour trading volume: $130,198.32 (ONE) vs $2,478,947.07 (NEAR)
• Market Sentiment Index (Fear & Greed Index): 29 (Fear)

Click to view real-time prices:

• View ONE current price Market Price
• View NEAR current price Market Price

II. Core Factors Affecting Investment Value of ONE vs NEAR

Supply Mechanisms Comparison (Tokenomics)

• ONE: Harmony ONE has a maximum supply cap of 13.156 billion tokens. It initially issued 12.6 billion tokens in 2019, with additional issuance through staking rewards. Currently, ONE operates with an inflation rate of approximately 3% annually.
• NEAR: NEAR Protocol implemented a deflationary model through its tokenomics. The initial supply was 1 billion tokens, with 5% annual inflation. However, 70% of transaction fees are burned, creating a deflationary effect that could offset inflation when network activity is high.
• 📌 Historical pattern: Deflationary or supply-capped tokens tend to perform better during bull markets. NEAR's partial burning mechanism provides stronger tokenomic fundamentals during periods of high network usage.

Institutional Adoption and Market Applications

• Institutional holdings: NEAR has attracted more institutional investment, with notable backers including Andreessen Horowitz (a16z), Pantera Capital, and Electric Capital. ONE has fewer major institutional backers.
• Enterprise adoption: NEAR has developed stronger enterprise partnerships, including Aurora (Ethereum compatibility layer) and Pagoda (development platform). ONE's cross-chain bridges have seen limited institutional adoption compared to NEAR's ecosystem.
• Regulatory attitudes: Both tokens operate in similar regulatory environments. Neither has faced specific regulatory challenges that would significantly differentiate their market positions.

Technical Development and Ecosystem Building

• ONE technical upgrades: Harmony implemented sharding technology for scalability and a trustless Ethereum bridge, but development momentum has slowed since 2022.
• NEAR technical development: NEAR has continued strong development with its sharding solution (Nightshade), fast finality, and Aurora EVM compatibility layer. The protocol has maintained consistent technical progress.
• Ecosystem comparison: NEAR's ecosystem shows stronger development metrics with over 1,000 projects building on the platform, including significant DeFi protocols and NFT marketplaces. ONE's ecosystem has faced challenges with fewer active developers and projects.

Macroeconomic Factors and Market Cycles

• Performance in inflationary environments: NEAR's partial fee-burning mechanism provides better theoretical protection against inflation compared to ONE's fixed issuance model.
• Macroeconomic monetary policy: Both tokens show correlation to broader crypto market movements in response to interest rate changes and USD strength.
• Geopolitical factors: NEAR has demonstrated broader global adoption across different regions, potentially offering better resilience to regional regulatory changes.

III. 2025-2030 Price Prediction: ONE vs NEAR

Short-term Prediction (2025)

• ONE: Conservative $0.00453813 - $0.006577 | Optimistic $0.006577 - $0.0072347
• NEAR: Conservative $1.64428 - $2.222 | Optimistic $2.222 - $2.57752

Mid-term Prediction (2027)

• ONE may enter a growth phase, with estimated prices $0.0043392908475 - $0.0084579397875
• NEAR may enter a bullish market, with estimated prices $2.370722904 - $3.835776384
• Key drivers: Institutional capital inflow, ETF, ecosystem development

Long-term Prediction (2030)

• ONE: Base scenario $0.005853712087019 - $0.01064311288549 | Optimistic scenario $0.01064311288549 - $0.01564537594167
• NEAR: Base scenario $3.590230197634344 - $4.1267013765912 | Optimistic scenario $4.1267013765912 - $6.107518037354976

View detailed price predictions for ONE and NEAR

Disclaimer

ONE:

NEAR:

IV. Investment Strategy Comparison: ONE vs NEAR

Long-term vs Short-term Investment Strategies

• ONE: Suitable for investors focused on cross-chain interoperability and potential ecosystem growth
• NEAR: Suitable for investors seeking a more established ecosystem and potential for deflationary tokenomics

Risk Management and Asset Allocation

• Conservative investors: ONE: 20% vs NEAR: 80%
• Aggressive investors: ONE: 40% vs NEAR: 60%
• Hedging tools: Stablecoin allocation, options, cross-currency portfolios

V. Potential Risk Comparison

Market Risks

• ONE: Higher volatility and lower liquidity compared to NEAR
• NEAR: Potential for increased competition in the Layer 1 space

Technical Risks

• ONE: Scalability challenges, network stability issues
• NEAR: Centralization concerns, potential security vulnerabilities in sharding implementation

Regulatory Risks

• Global regulatory policies may have different impacts on both tokens, with NEAR potentially facing more scrutiny due to its larger market presence

VI. Conclusion: Which Is the Better Buy?

📌 Investment Value Summary:

• ONE advantages: Lower market cap with potential for higher growth, cross-chain focus
• NEAR advantages: Stronger ecosystem development, institutional backing, deflationary tokenomics

✅ Investment Advice:

• New investors: Consider a higher allocation to NEAR due to its more established ecosystem and stronger market position
• Experienced investors: Balanced approach with a slight tilt towards NEAR, while keeping an eye on ONE's potential for higher returns
• Institutional investors: Focus on NEAR for its stronger fundamentals and ecosystem growth, with a smaller allocation to ONE for diversification

⚠️ Risk Warning: The cryptocurrency market is highly volatile, and this article does not constitute investment advice. None

VII. FAQ

Q1: What are the main differences between ONE and NEAR in terms of market performance? A: ONE reached its all-time high of $0.37902 in October 2021, while NEAR peaked at $20.44 in January 2022. Currently, ONE is trading at $0.006604, and NEAR at $2.224, with NEAR showing a significantly higher trading volume of $2,478,947.07 compared to ONE's $130,198.32 in the last 24 hours.

Q2: How do the tokenomics of ONE and NEAR compare? A: ONE has a maximum supply cap of 13.156 billion tokens with an annual inflation rate of about 3%. NEAR, on the other hand, started with 1 billion tokens and has a 5% annual inflation rate, but implements a partial burning mechanism where 70% of transaction fees are burned, potentially creating a deflationary effect during high network activity.

Q3: Which token has attracted more institutional investment? A: NEAR has attracted more institutional investment, with notable backers including Andreessen Horowitz (a16z), Pantera Capital, and Electric Capital. ONE has fewer major institutional backers comparatively.

Q4: How do the ecosystems of ONE and NEAR compare? A: NEAR's ecosystem shows stronger development metrics with over 1,000 projects building on the platform, including significant DeFi protocols and NFT marketplaces. ONE's ecosystem has faced challenges with fewer active developers and projects.

Q5: What are the long-term price predictions for ONE and NEAR by 2030? A: For ONE, the base scenario predicts a range of $0.005853712087019 to $0.01064311288549, with an optimistic scenario reaching up to $0.01564537594167. For NEAR, the base scenario predicts a range of $3.590230197634344 to $4.1267013765912, with an optimistic scenario reaching up to $6.107518037354976.

Q6: How do investment strategies differ for ONE and NEAR? A: ONE is suitable for investors focused on cross-chain interoperability and potential ecosystem growth, while NEAR is suitable for those seeking a more established ecosystem and potential for deflationary tokenomics. Conservative investors might allocate 20% to ONE and 80% to NEAR, while aggressive investors might opt for 40% ONE and 60% NEAR.

Q7: What are the main risks associated with investing in ONE and NEAR? A: ONE faces higher volatility, lower liquidity, scalability challenges, and network stability issues. NEAR risks include increased competition in the Layer 1 space, potential centralization concerns, and possible security vulnerabilities in its sharding implementation. Both tokens may face varying impacts from global regulatory policies.