The beginning of 2024 saw the emergence of multiple layer2; each promising to scale Ethereum, offer a high transaction throughput and reduce network fees. We will go over the major solutions and compare their performance.
The beginning
Polygon (Matic) was the first layer2 to get mass adoption. It is designed to improve the scalability and efficiency of Ethereum by offering faster and cheaper transactions while retaining the security and decentralization of the Ethereum blockchain. Polygon acts as a Proof of stake sidechain that does commit all transactions to Ethereum. It uses a technique called checkpointing to periodically batch and commit information about the state of the sidechain (transaction summary) to the Ethereum.
Zero-Knowledge Proofs
Zero-knowledge proofs are a well-established cryptographic concept that has been researched and developed by cryptographers for several decades. ZK-proofs are based on the idea that a party (the “prover”) can demonstrate to a different party (the “verifier”) that a statement is true without disclosing any specifics about the information itself. ZK-Rollup solutions will be developed by many players for scaling Ethereum
Polygon zkEVM
In order for Polygon to offer all the benefits of Ethereum’s security and compatibility with existing smart contracts, a new zkEVM solution is offered. zkEVM is a specific implementation of ZK-proofs on Ethereum Virtual Machine. The focus shifts to using ZK-proofs to commit transactions directly to Ethereum in a more efficient and secure way, rather than relying on periodic checkpoints. Polygon is not moving entirely to zkEVM but rather positioning it as one of several options within its broader ecosystem.
zkSync
zkSync uses ZK-Rollups but incorporates a unique virtual machine and transaction logic to optimize for scalability and developer flexibility. zkSync aims to provide compatibility with many Ethereum-based tools and smart contracts, but it does so by using a custom virtual machine called the zkSync VM. Since it’s a custom VM, developers might need to make slight modifications to their smart contracts. zkSync focuses on providing a developer-friendly environment while striving to support more advanced features. It is not as deeply tied to Ethereum’s architecture as zkEVM. zkSync is focused on more complex use cases such as account abstraction and native layer3 support.
Polygon POS vs zkEVM vs zkSync
Transactions fees on zkEVM and zkSync are paid in ETH. This lowers the demand on the native tokens MATIC and ZK. Polygon POS still uses MATIC as its transaction fee token.
MATIC will be migrated to POL. The goal is to use it as a core utility token that can help secure and scale multiple chains inclusing zkEVM. POL’s primary goal is to be used for staking to secure all of Polygon’s chains and may be used as a transaction token.
zkSync just launched its native token ZK. For now, it is mostly a governance token that allows users to vote on protocol upgrades. It is used for staking and securing the network, but it’s still not used for transaction fees. It might be used to pay for transaction fees on the different chains that launch of zkSync, so its future depends on new interconnected ZK chains.
The price of ZK token has not performed well following the airdrop, probably because of lack of utility. The migration from MATIC to POL did not help the token gain in value. POL and ZK have a potential, but they greatly depend on the chain’s adoption. Polygon will be more suited for general purpose applications while Zksync will be more suited for specific applications.
Let’s do a comparison of Polygon vs Zksync:
token price
total supply
Fully diluted Market Cap
TVL
zksync
0.13$
21b
2.6b
136M
Polygon
0.38$
10.2b
3.9b
900M Polygon + 14M Zkevm
In terms of zk technology, we can see that zksync has more adoption, while polygon relies more on its legacy. However, both chains are facing stiff competition.
Optimistic rollups
Optimistic Rollups is a Layer 2 scaling solution that garnered considerable interest due to its ability to process more transactions efficiently while utilizing Ethereum’s security. Unlike ZK-Rollups, which employ cryptographic proofs for transaction validation, Optimistic Rollups operate on the premise that transactions are inherently valid but incorporate a dispute resolution mechanism (fraud proofs) to address any disputes. If a transaction is fraudulent, the fraud proof triggers a challenge period, and the invalid transaction can be reverted. ZK-Rollups deliver quicker finality by eliminating the challenge period. On the other hand, Optimistic Rollups are typically more convenient for developers to develop and maintain in terms of EVM-compatibility, making them more developer-friendly in the immediate future.
Optimism and Arbitrum One
Both optimism and arbitrum are implementations of Optimistic rollups. Both are very fast, low fee and more fluid to use compared to zkSync. Let’s compare them:
token price
total supply
Fully diluted Market Cap
TVL
Optimism
1.6$
4.3b
6.8b
640M
Arbitrum
0.55$
10b
5.5b
2.4b
Considering the total supply, OP token is performing better than ARB token, however Arbitrum has much more adoption. This might be because OP is considered by many as an exposure to the Base network. Both chains use ETH as transaction fee, which makes their token more of a governance/staking rather than a utility token.
Superchains
Optimism developed the OP stack, which is an open source modular framework developed that enables the creation and deployment of custom Layer 2 solutions (or Optimistic Rollups) on Ethereum. It is part of Optimism’s vision of a superchain to foster a vibrant ecosystem of Layer 2 networks, allowing developers to easily build their own scaling solutions tailored to specific use cases. The OP token does not benefit directly from the OPStack.
We can find a similarity with the Cosmos ecosystem, where blockchains can use Cosmos to spin off new interconnected chains. The ATOM token was not directly benefiting from the ecosystem growth. Some proposals were made to inscease the utility of the ATOM token, but it did not have a great traction so far. OP and ATOM token both get their value from speculation and their future role in their ecosystem. For example, while Base network reached a profit sharing agreement with Optimism, it does not translate directly to profits for the OP token.
Arbitrum orbit offers an alternative to the OPstack that enables developers to create and deploy custom Layer 2 solutions (also known as rollups) on the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Base and Mode
Base and Mode are two chains that are developed using the OPstack. While Base is developed by Coinbase with a goal of mass retail adoption, Mode is a chain dedicated initially for gaming.
token price
total supply
Fully diluted Market Cap
TVL
Mode
0.01$
10b
112M
303M
Base
No token
–
–
2.24b
We can see that the Mode network is not getting much traction. Most of the remaining TVL is temporary and aiming at the season 2 of the airdrop. Season 2 will dilute the token even more. Mode has received many fundings from optimism and it’s switching its narrative to AI-powered financial applications. This new niche might help it recover for the future.
Base continues to attract widespread retail adoption despite not offering an airdrop. Its achievements can be attributed to effective marketing strategies, a reliable network, and the adoption of meme coins. Although Scroll and Linea incentivize liquidity provision with airdrops, Base’s higher Total Value Locked (TVL) sets it apart as a network.
Linea and scroll
Linea and Scroll are the two leading zkRollup solutions. Scroll is more focused on zkEVM for full compatibility with Ethereum. Linea is developed by Consensys, a leading blockchain software company, which works on products like MetaMask and Infura. As of today, Linea is more fluid than Scroll.
Both have a competing airdrop campaign which is supposed to attract a lot of liquidity. Linea expecting as much as 3b. However, Linea has a 500 M TVL while Scroll has around 700M. This TVL does not compare this the 2.24b that is locked at Base, which does not offer a clear airdrop. Most of the TVL in Linea and Scroll will probably go towards newer projects once the airdrop campaigns end.
Mantle
Mantle is an optimistic rollup layer2. Mantle’s primary use cases include supporting DeFi applications, NFT platforms, and gaming dApps that require fast, low-cost transactions while maintaining security.
token price
total supply
Fully diluted Market Cap
TVL
Mantle
0.6$
6.2b
3.7b
415M + 1.2b ETH LRT
Mantle looks like a strong contender in the layer2 market. It was able to capture a good chunk of Ethereum’s LRT market with its meTH token and the COOK airdrop. Mantle’s marketing around the PUFF meme coin was brilliant. Another distinction is the usage of MNT token for transaction fees, which shows confidence at this early stage.
Dapps are launching their own chain
An increasing number of decentralized applications (dapps) are opting to create their own blockchain. This gives them more options and adaptability for their offerings. For instance, prominent decentralized exchanges (DEXs) and perpetual exchanges are establishing their blockchains. Logx has launched using the Arbitrum orbit stack, while Aevo is utilizing the OP stack. This move will strengthen the positions of both Arbitrum and Optimism as superchains rather than just Layer 2 solutions. The success of their respective tokens within the Superchain ecosystem will be crucial in determining their success, as the primary focus now lies in innovation rather than revenue generation.
Upcoming Layer2 – Does the market need more solutions?
New Layer2 projects such as Mintchain, redstone, fraxtal, ZetaChain, and Taiko are emerging. Each chain is targeting a specific market niche and many of them are built on a superchain. Platforms like Dymension are simplifying the process of launching new rollups. The market is rapidly becoming saturated, while Solana continues to thrive without requiring layer2 solutions. Several layer2 projects on Ethereum are expected to shift their focus to serve as a layer2 solution for Bitcoin. The layer2s that will stand out after the bull run and airdrop hype are over will probably be Base, Mantle and Linea.
The $COOK token is the future governance token for Mantle’s LRT token $mETH. Mantle eth is an LRT similar to EtherFi’s eeth implemented by Mantel. $mETH appreciates over time from staking and restaking rewards.
We will go through 4 easy ways to farm the $COOK airdrop.
Methamorphosis campaign
The first step is to register to Metamorphosis campaign and start accumulating powder. You can accumulate powder by simply holding mETH in your wallet. You can get multipliers by participating in DEFI. Depending on your risk tolerance, you can also loop your assets and use leverage to maximize your powder. You can also deposit mETH in Karak (invite code absd6, Egi8A) and farm Karak at the same time.
Mantle reward station
If you are bullish on Mantle’s MNT token, you can head to Mantle’s reward station and lock your tokens. The longer you lock your tokens, the more rewards you get. By using the reward station, you know exactly how many COOK token you are getting every day. With the Methamorphosis campaign, we still don’t know the conversion rate between powder and COOK.
Pendle.finance
You can participate in pendle’s liquidity pools for an extra multiplier. With pendle, you have the interesting YT option where you can literally “buy” points. So by buying even a small portion of YT, it is equivalent to depositing a much larger amount of mETH. However note that any YT you buy will have 0$ value at maturity (25 dec) and the value decreases every day, so you are literally buying powder.
$PUFF token
A portion of the $COOK token will go to the PUFF community. So holding the $PUFF token might make you eligible for the $COOK airdrop, however, we do not know if there’s a minimum to hold, what is the earning potential or whether you will have to exchange your PUFF for COOK. However if you are bullish on PUFF, it might be a good option.
Don’t forget to do your own research since there’s a lot of layers of risk involved in farming.
Ethereum restaking technologies are becoming increasingly complex and confusing. Since it’s one of the trending narratives, let’s break it down to understand the differences between the layers and compare the technologies.
Ethereum Native Staking
The first layer is Ethereum native staking. To become a staking validator, you need 32 ETH, a dedicated computer and a strong internet connection. Unlike Proof of Work mining (bitcoin), The hardware does not have to be powerful. The security is guaranteed by the staked 32 ETH. The validator will run specific software and be penalized for downtimes and malicious behavior.
Pooled Staking
If you don’t have 32 ETH, you have the option to delegate your ETH to a trusted validator. The validator will distribute the rewards and retain a commission. Typically, you will need to manually claim your rewards. Your tokens still belong to you since they are locked in a smart contract, and only you can initiate the withdrawal. However, you will need to trust the validator on multiple levels:
You need to trust that the validator’s smart contract is free of bugs and has undergone audits.
You must ensure that the validator will not experience downtime, as your ETH is also at risk of being slashed.
It’s important to note that it usually takes a few days for your tokens to be available after unlocking them.
Liquid Staking (LST)
Liquid staking is an advanced form of pooled staking. Instead of your tokens being locked, they are sent to a common pool within the smart contract. You receive a liquid version of ETH (LST token, for example, eeth), representing your share in the pool. You can unstake at any time by sending your LST back to the smart contract and receiving your original ETH in return. There is a short unlocking period, but if you don’t want to wait, you can swap your LST for ETH on a DEX. The main advantage is that your tokens, although staked, remain liquid. You can reuse them in DEFI.
A commission of the rewards is kept by the protocol, and the rest is sent to the common pool. This means you don’t have to claim your reward and pay network fees; the rewards accrue directly in the value of your LST. Over time, the value of 1 LST becomes greater than 1 ETH. Most LSTs are available on layer 2 networks, which helps you save on network fees.
Mantle Eth: They have a new campaign going on in 3 days!
Restaking (LRT):
Restaking involves reusing the Ethereum validator infrastructure and resources to simultaneously secure new networks. Validators use custom software to secure multiple networks, earning additional yield using the same hardware and power. New decentralized blockchains seeking a stable and secure network for their proof of stake needs can utilize this service for a modest fee, as opposed to establishing their own network of validators from scratch. So we can view restaking as a shared security layer.
By restaking your ETH, you receive a token in return (Liquid restaked token – LRT) and earn additional yield from the new protocols in addition to your native Ethereum restaking. Most LST providers automatically restake your initial staked ETH, allowing you to benefit from restaking advantages. LST providers may collaborate with various restaking providers to optimize your yields.
Top LRT platforms:
EigenLayer Eigenlayer is the first restaking protocol. For now, it only supports the Ethereum mainnet and allows you to restake ETH, most established LSTs as well as its governance token EIGEN.
Symbiotic: Symbiotic is a direct competitor to Eigenlayer. It accepts different tokens as a collateral and offers networks seeking security the choice of different vaults, each vault having its own security strategy. Mellow finance partnered with Lido to create vaults on symbiotic to compete directly with Eigenlayer. If you want to participage in Symbiotic airdrop, you can check Ether.fi’s super symbiotic vault.
Karak is an emerging competitor with strong backing. It supports many chains including Layer2s and a full basket of tokens. You can use the following referal codes (absd6, Egi8A, XNC6A, PXmRT)
Mitosis
Mitosis is neither an LST nor an LRT. This may be confusing because when you deposit your LST (Etherfi eETH), you receive miweETH in return (Mitosis LST). However, Mitosis will not use your LST for restaking (security layer) purposes. Instead, Mitosis functions as a liquidity layer (Ecosystem-owned liquidity). It acts as a vault and seeks out opportunities in DEFI to maximize profits. With substantial liquidity, it can access custom deals that regular users cannot. Additionally, users can participate in governance to vote on future proposals for strategies.
Zircuit
We will talk briefly about Zircuit since it might be confused as and LRT. Zircuit in fact is a Layer2 solution (AI based) and when you restake your LST with Zircuit, it’s for the purpose of securint the Zircuit network.
Risks
Projects are evolving rapidly, with new concepts emerging daily. Protocols are teaming up to stay ahead of the curve and all this might be confusing for the average user. It’s important to consider the risks associated with each project before getting involved. The risk is very real – at the end of the day, you are giving up your ETH for some LST which is nothing but an ERC20 “pegged” to ETH based mostly on trust. While you can unstake and receive your original ETH back, there’s a possibility of a smart contract bug locking your deposit or the value of LST decreasing on the secondary market for various reasons. So if you use your LST in DEFI you might be at risk of liquidation. A lot can go wrong, so conducting thorough research is crucial.
So you missed ZKsync’s airdrop although you made sure to check all the boxes. You bridged from Ethereum’s main net, kept a minimum balance of .005 ETH, interacted with many protocols. You ensured to use paymaster, paid some network fees and got nothing. Without getting too technical, the main criteria for ZKSync was Time Weighted Average Balance. In short what mattered the most is how much you bridged and how long you kept it there. Sounds easy, but who would have guessed! Bridging an extra 100$ and keeping it a a liquidity pool could have made all the difference. Most farmers are discouraged and want to quit crypto farming altogether. This is one of the risks of farming, we put a lot of effort and money with no guarantees in return. Each project is free to choose how to manage its airdrop and we must be ready for everything.
Our option is to find the next project which might have a better distribution and is more promising. Let’s have a look at the upcoming opportunities that are in line.
Zksync ecosystem
Before removing your liquidity from zksync, double check if you have some points in in the ecosystem’s dapps. It might be worth continuing to farm these projects as some of them like Syncswap promised to distribute part (or all) of their ZK token allocation back to their communities.
Zyfi has an active campaign where you can earn points by doing basic activities, like swapping using paymaster and. You can also earn points by interacting with different protocols. It’s easy to track your progress, however there’s no leaderboard so it’s hard to estimate how you’re doing compared to others. Make sure not to push a lot of “spam” transactions and do your own research before using such protocols, the risks are not negligible.
You can also check KZ. KZ is a meme coin that rewards all farmers of zksync that did not qualify for the airdrop. While it’s hard to assess its future value, you can at least see if you qualify for some points already. It is also backed by major players.
Scroll & Linea
Scroll and Linea both have active campaigns that are competing directly with each others. Their goal is to attract the most liquidity to their ecosystem. On Linea, you can earn liquidity experience points LXPL by depositing selected assets on specific platforms. It’s not clear how the LXPL compares with LXP, the basic experience points that you were able to earn in linea park. You can track your progress and compare your metrics with others on a dashboard provided by Openblock. As of today, you can still farm Linea. However, you should be aware that LXPL points will decrease as the campaign advances and it will end when the TVL reaches 3b.
Scroll has a similar program where you earn “sessions” if you provide specific assets. You can track your sessions here. For now, you can earn sessions just by holding assets. Later on, you can earn sessions by providing liquidity and it will be retroactive. It’s important to note that you do not earn sessions anymore for transactions fees, so pushing transactions will not earn you points.
While both projects are comparable to zksync, make sure it’s not too late before jumping in.
Taiko
Taiko’s initial airdrop was somewhat similar to Zksync. A lot of farmers were excluded although they made sure to transact on all the test nets (there were many!) and participated in Galxe quests. However, only the top 300k wallets received an airdrop.
At first, Taiko dismissed the Galxe quests as being simply for educational purposes. However for season 2, they decided to give users retroactive points retroactively for previous Galxe quests. Season 2 is much more structured that season 1 where you had to use many Testnets, never sure how many transactions you should push. In season 2 you can track your points, check the leaderboard and claim your Galxe points.
If you decide to remove your assets from Zksync to Taiko, you can optimize each transaction to qualify for many airdrops at the same time. By using a combination of 0xastra and orbitrer.finance, you can earn points on 0xastra, orbitrer, taiko and KZ depending on the route.
0xastra is a new GameFi experience powered by Orbitrer. You can earn points and complete quests interactively by bridging assets. If you ever used orbitrer, you can claim points on 0xastra retroactively, so it’s a good idea to check them out.
As usual, always do an extensive research before using any projects.
Syscoin is presented as a modular multi role layer “related” to Bitcoin. There’s a lot going on, a lot of modules and a lot of acronyms around Syscoin. Let’s break it down and understand exactly how is it related to Bitcoin, how it compares to other projects and what potential does it have.
What is Syscoin
Syscoin started as a fork of bitcoin, which is a proof of work blockchain. Over the years it has successfully picked many new concepts from the blockchain industry and integrated them to Syscoin in a consistent design. Syscoin has kept its code closely up to date with bitcoin core making sure to integrate new upgrade (ex: taproot). However the difference in the code is non-negligent and the upgrades may not be seamless.
Technologies
Besides sharing the initial code base, the other major relation is that Syscoin is merge mined with bitcoin. Merge mining is a technique that allows miners to efficiently use their computational power to mine multiple cryptocurrencies simultaneously. It enhances the security of auxiliary chains and provides additional rewards to miners without requiring extra resources. It is equivalent to restaking in the Ethereum ecosystem although much different. Merge mining leverages computational power, whereas restaking involves the allocation and reallocation of staked tokens. Syscoin shares the security and difficulty from Bitcoin miners on the Bitcoin network. Syscoin plans to use BTC difficulty to create in a decentralized way a difficulty-based re-staking concept.
We do not view Syscoin as a complete Bitcoin Layer2 yet as data is not exchanged between the blockchains. However, with the new BTC Eigenbridge, it may become possible to transfer assets from and to bitcoin.
While Syscoin is primarily a Layer 1 blockchain with its own base protocol, it incorporates several Layer 2 technologies and features to enhance scalability, speed, and interoperability.
By trying to combine too many concept, Syscoin is evolving into a general purpose blockchain that tries to solve many challenges at the same time. While this offers a lot of options, it can be very confusing and hard to market. We will go over these concepts.
Concepts
Syscoin offers many solutions across several layers. Solutions include micropayments, smart contracts, value bridging, data layer and more. Let’s review them and compare them with other projects.
UTXO chain
the UTXO chain forms the core Layer 1 blockchain, leveraging the same principles as Bitcoin for secure and efficient transaction processing. Syscoin allows for the creation of Syscoin Platform Tokens (SPTs) directly on its blockchain. These tokens can represent various assets and are managed using the UTXO model. Besides SPTs, Syscoin supports ordinals with the Taproot support.
NEVM chain
The NEVM (Network-Enhanced Virtual Machine) chain is a layer-2 solution on top of the UTXOchain. It introduces Ethereum-compatible smart contracts and decentralized applications (dApps) to the Syscoin platform, enabling developers to build and deploy sophisticated blockchain applications with programmable logic. Assets created on the UTXO chain, such as Syscoin Platform Tokens (SPTs), can interact with smart contracts deployed on the NEVM chain. This integration allows for diverse asset management and advanced use cases that combine the strengths of both chains.
The bridge allows assets created on UTXO to be bridged to the NEVM chain
Z-DAG
Zero Confirmation Directed Acyclic Graph technology in Syscoin is implemented as a Layer 2 solution on top of Syscoin’s Layer 1 blockchain. This structure allows Z-DAG to enhance the performance of Syscoin by enabling high-speed, low-latency transactions while still benefiting from the security and finality provided by the Layer 1. Z-DAG is primarily built on top of Syscoin’s UTXO model, where it enhances transaction processing speed and scalability. While it directly operates on the UTXO layer, the improved transaction efficiency also benefits the NEVM layer, indirectly supporting the performance of smart contracts and dApps on Syscoin. This integrated approach allows Syscoin to offer a robust and scalable blockchain platform that leverages both UTXO and NEVM models. Other projects such as Hedera HashGraph and Kaspa use Z-DAG technology, however, instead of using it as a layer2 solution, it is directly integrated in their core consensus mechanism.
Data layer
The data layer allows users to store arbitrary data on the blockchain, enabling a wide range of applications beyond simple token transfers and asset management. The Syscoin Platform Data layer is implemented on top of the UTXO chain, leveraging the security and immutability of the underlying blockchain. It can also be utilized in conjunction with the NEVM (Network-Enhanced Virtual Machine) layer. Smart contracts deployed on the NEVM chain can interact with data stored on the UTXO chain.
Rollux
Rollux is and OP Stack that serve as layer-2 scaling solutions in the Syscoin ecosystem, positioned between the UTXO and NEVM layers. By aggregating transactions off-chain and submitting aggregated transactions to the UTXO chain, rollups enhance scalability, reduce fees, and improve the efficiency of smart contract execution within the Syscoin network. It is important to note that Syscoin’s rollux offer both Optimistic rollups and zk-rollups approaches. Assets can be transferred between rollux and NEVM through a bridge.
How does Syscoin compare to Stacks
Syscoin and Stacks are blockchain platforms that enhance the capabilities of Bitcoin and Ethereum in unique ways. Syscoin leverages Bitcoin’s security through merge mining while incorporating Ethereum-compatible smart contracts and Layer 2 solutions like Z-DAG and zk-Rollups for scalability and fast transactions. It also features a bridge for interoperability with Ethereum. In contrast, Stacks operates as a Layer 1 blockchain that anchors its transactions to Bitcoin, using a unique consensus mechanism called Proof of Transfer (PoX). Stacks integrates directly with Bitcoin to provide smart contract functionality and rewards STX holders with Bitcoin through its stacking mechanism. Both platforms aim to combine the security of Bitcoin with advanced blockchain functionalities but employ different approaches to achieve their goals.
Stacks has gained more rapid and widespread adoption, particularly due to its innovative approach of leveraging Bitcoin’s security and introducing smart contracts. However, Syscoin’s longer history and solid integration with both Bitcoin and Ethereum ecosystems also make it a notable player. The choice between the two often depends on the specific needs and interests of the developers and users involved.
In terms of numbers, as of the time of writing, Stacks has a fully diluted market cap of 4.1b compared to 0.13b for Syscoin. Stacks has a TVL of 127M compared to almost no TVL on Syscoin. Overall, Stacks appears to have more widespread adoption and usage in terms of both protocol and third-party applications.
Overall, Syscoin is a promising technology, but it has yet to be battle-tested and seems to be more focused on improving its technology than growing its ecosystem.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
