# NFT Technology for Enhanced Global Digital Registers: A Novel Approach to Tokenization
## 7 Comparison and Discussion of Research Results
### Comparison with Decentralized Global Registry Systems  
In this section, we compare our proposed NFT-based system with existing decentralized global registry systems. While these systems already leverage blockchain technology, our approach offers unique advantages in terms of flexibility, interoperability, and specific application to global registries (Table 2). Scalability and Performance: The Ethereum Name Service (ENS) processes approximately 300,000 registrations and 3 million lookups per month [53; 54]. In contrast, our system implemented on Polygon could theoretically handle up to 18 million registrations per month, based on Polygon's 7000 TPS capacity [46]. This represents a significant improvement in scalability. * Cost Efficiency: ENS domain registrations cost between $5 and $1000 per year, depending on the name length [41; 48]. Our NFT-based system on Polygon could reduce operational costs to less than $0.01 per registration [46], making it more accessible for large-scale registry management. * Interoperability: While IPFS offers high interoperability at the protocol level, it lacks native integration with smart contract platforms. Our system, built on NFT standards, can easily interact with various DeFi and Web3 applications. For instance, the number of unique addresses interacting with NFTs on Ethereum surpassed 4 million [55; 56; 57], demonstrating the widespread adoption and interoperability of NFT standards. * Customizability: ENS allows for limited metadata storage on-chain. Our NFT-based approach leverages the ERC-721 or ERC-1155 standards, which support extensive metadata. This allows for more complex registry entries, similar to how Decentralized manages virtual land parcels, with over 97,000 unique landowners recorded [46]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Feature** & **Ethereum Name Service (ENS)** & **InterPlanetary File System (IPFS)** & **Our NFT-Based System** \\ \hline Primary Function & Domain name resolution & Distributed file storage & Global registry management \\ \hline Blockchain Platform & Ethereum & Custom (IPFS) & Multiple (e.g., Ethereum, Polygon) \\ \hline Data Storage & On-chain (limited) & Off-chain (distributed) & On-chain (NFT metadata) \\ \hline Scalability (TPS) & 15–30 & N/A (not transaction-based) & Up to 7000 (on Polygon) \\ \hline Interoperability & Limited to the Ethereum & & \\  & ecosystem & High (protocol-level) & High (cross-chain capability) \\ \hline Cost per Operation & \$1–5 (variable) & Negligible & \$0.001-\$0.01 (on Polygon) \\ \hline Update Speed & 15 s (Ethereum block time) & Near instantaneous & 2 s (Polygon block time) \\ \hline Custom Metadata Support & Limited & Extensive & Extensive (NFT standard) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Comparison with Decentralized Global Registry Systems. * Update Speed: IPFS content addressing is near-instantaneous but achieving consensus on the latest version of mutable data can be challenging. Our system, implemented on Polygon, offers a balance with 2-s block times [46], allowing for rapid updates while maintaining blockchain consensus. * Adoption and Ecosystem: ENS has registered over 2.8 million domain names as of 2023 [55; 57]. While impressive, our system's flexibility could potentially cater to a much larger market. For comparison, the ISBN system assigns approximately 1.5 million new identifiers annually [47; 52]. Our solution could handle this volume more efficiently and at a lower cost than current blockchain-based alternatives. * Cross-chain Compatibility: Unlike ENS, which is primarily Ethereum-based, our system can be implemented across multiple chains. This is similar to how NFT bridges such as Wormhole have facilitated the transfer of over $25 billion in assets across different blockchains [58], demonstrating the potential for truly global, cross-chain registry systems.