Elrond: Blockchain Network, EGLD and MultiversX Guide
Elrond Is the MultiversX Blockchain Network and EGLD Ecosystem
Elrond Is the original name many people still use when searching for MultiversX, a public blockchain network built for fast transactions, smart contracts, decentralized applications, and the native EGLD asset. Today, Elrond is best understood as the earlier brand behind MultiversX, while EGLD remains the token used for fees, staking, transfers, governance participation, and activity across the network’s apps and services.
Elrond became widely known for its focus on scalability, low transaction costs, and a technical design that combines sharding with proof-of-stake validation. The project later moved under the MultiversX name, but the word Elrond still appears in older articles, wallet discussions, exchange listings, community posts, and search queries. If you are trying to understand Elrond, you are usually trying to understand how MultiversX works, what EGLD does, and how to use the network without taking unnecessary risks.
The important starting point is simple: Elrond is not only a coin name, and it is not only a wallet. It refers to a blockchain ecosystem with accounts, validators, smart contracts, token standards, decentralized finance tools, NFT infrastructure, and consumer apps. EGLD is the asset that powers those actions. For a practical user, the main questions are whether the network fits a real use case, how to protect a wallet, and what details should be verified before sending funds.
What is Elrond called today?
Elrond is now generally presented as MultiversX, the current brand for the same broad blockchain ecosystem. The rebrand matters because many official tools, documentation pages, apps, and developer references now use the MultiversX name, while older learning materials may still say Elrond. That can be confusing when a user is setting up a wallet, checking an address, or comparing token information across services.
Elrond remains a useful search term because people often encounter it in legacy guides, exchange histories, and early project explanations. In current usage, MultiversX is the network name and EGLD is the native token. You may also see references to xPortal, the MultiversX wallet ecosystem, decentralized exchanges, bridges, staking providers, validators, and developer tools for building smart contracts.
For accuracy, treat Elrond as the historical name and MultiversX as the current network identity. Before making a transaction, confirm that a wallet, app, validator, or exchange is using current MultiversX information. Names can persist long after products change, and crypto interfaces often contain a mix of old and new terminology.
How does Elrond work as a blockchain?
Elrond was designed around the idea that a public blockchain should process many transactions without forcing every computer in the network to do the same work at the same time. MultiversX uses adaptive state sharding, which separates work across different shards so the system can handle transactions, account state, and network activity more efficiently. This is one reason Elrond is often discussed in conversations about scalable blockchain architecture.
The protocol also uses Secure Proof of Stake, often shortened as SPoS, for validator participation and block production. Instead of mining through proof-of-work hardware, validators stake EGLD and run node software. Validator groups participate in consensus, propose blocks, and help keep the ledger synchronized. Elrond uses cryptographic techniques such as BLS signatures and randomized validator selection to support fast finality and reduce predictable attack patterns.
In practice, Elrond is built from several moving parts that have to work together: user accounts, validators, shards, smart contracts, transaction fees, token balances, and developer tools. A simple EGLD transfer may feel similar to sending money in a wallet app, but behind the screen the network is checking signatures, assigning work, updating balances, and finalizing the transaction on-chain.
What is EGLD in the Elrond ecosystem?
Elrond uses EGLD as its native asset. EGLD pays transaction fees, secures the network through staking, supports validator rewards, and acts as a base asset across many MultiversX applications. When someone says they are buying, sending, staking, or storing Elrond, they often mean they are dealing with EGLD on the MultiversX network.
EGLD should be understood as a crypto asset with utility and market risk. It can be used to pay for smart contract execution, move value between compatible accounts, participate in staking, and interact with decentralized applications. It can also rise or fall sharply in market price. Elrond users should never assume that technical usefulness guarantees investment returns, liquidity, or future adoption.
For deeper internal reading, a beginner usually benefits from separating the asset from the network. The asset topic belongs in an , while network participation belongs in a . Keeping those ideas separate helps avoid a common mistake: treating a blockchain token, the blockchain network, and a wallet app as if they were the same thing.
What can people use Elrond for?
Elrond supports several common blockchain use cases. The most basic is sending and receiving EGLD between compatible addresses. Beyond transfers, the network can run smart contracts, issue tokens, support NFT activity, connect to decentralized finance protocols, and provide infrastructure for Web3 applications. Developers may use MultiversX tools to build apps that need fast settlement, programmable assets, or user-owned accounts.
Elrond is also used by people who want to stake EGLD, either by delegating through a provider or, for technically capable operators with enough capital, by running validator infrastructure. Staking is not the same as a bank deposit. Rewards can vary, funds may be subject to lockup or unbonding periods, and poor operational choices can create risk. Users should verify current staking rules before committing assets.
Common Elrond use cases include:
Sending EGLD to another MultiversX address for direct settlement.
Using a wallet to connect with decentralized applications.
Paying gas fees for smart contract interactions.
Delegating EGLD to participate in network security.
Holding tokens or NFTs issued on the MultiversX network.
Building applications that need scalable blockchain infrastructure.
These use cases are strongest when the user has a reason to be on-chain. Elrond may be unnecessary if a normal payment service, database, or custodial account solves the same problem with less complexity. The network becomes more relevant when ownership, public settlement, composable smart contracts, or decentralized access are part of the goal.
How do you get started with Elrond safely?
Elrond is easiest to approach in small steps. A new user should first identify the current official MultiversX wallet options, learn the difference between a public address and a secret recovery phrase, and test with a small amount before moving meaningful funds. Crypto mistakes can be permanent, so the setup process deserves more attention than a normal app signup.
Choose a wallet that explicitly supports MultiversX and EGLD.
Write down the recovery phrase or backup method offline, exactly as instructed.
Send a small test transaction before transferring a larger balance.
Check the address format, network name, amount, and fee before approval.
Use hardware wallets or stronger security practices for larger holdings.
Verify staking, exchange, and bridge details from official sources before use.
Elrond users should be cautious with direct messages, fake support accounts, cloned websites, and urgent claims about upgrades or rewards. No legitimate wallet support process should require a user to reveal a seed phrase. If an app asks for unlimited permissions, unusual signing approvals, or a recovery phrase in a browser form, stop and verify what is happening before continuing.
What are Elrond fees, speed, and transaction basics?
Elrond is known for emphasizing fast transactions and low fees, but exact costs can change with network conditions, application behavior, and protocol updates. A simple EGLD transfer is usually different from a smart contract interaction, and a decentralized exchange trade can involve more computation than sending funds from one account to another. Users should always review the fee displayed in the wallet before signing.
The fee is paid in EGLD because EGLD is the native fuel of the MultiversX network. This fee compensates validators and helps prevent spam. Elrond transaction screens may show a gas limit, a network fee, a token amount, and a receiving address. Each field matters. A low fee is useful only if the transaction is going to the correct address on the correct network.
Elrond transactions are generally designed for quick finality, but a user should still wait for confirmation before assuming a transfer is complete. Exchanges may require additional confirmations before crediting a deposit. Bridges and decentralized applications may add their own waiting periods. When funds appear delayed, check the transaction hash in a reputable explorer and compare it with the wallet or exchange status.
Is Elrond safe to use?
Elrond can be safe to use when a person follows sound wallet practices, verifies official information, and understands that blockchain transactions are irreversible. The network design uses validators, staking, cryptography, and protocol rules to secure the ledger. That does not remove user-level risk. Most everyday losses in crypto come from phishing, bad backups, mistaken addresses, malicious links, poor device security, or misunderstanding what a signature approves.
Elrond also carries market, technical, regulatory, and application risks. EGLD can be volatile. Smart contracts can contain bugs. Staking providers can differ in reliability, fees, and terms. Bridges can add extra risk because they connect different systems. A crypto asset may be available on more than one exchange or network representation, so deposits and withdrawals should be checked carefully.
For a new user, the safest mindset is verification before speed. Confirm the current official domain, compare addresses visually, keep recovery words private, and avoid making decisions based on guaranteed-return claims. Elrond information should be checked against current MultiversX sources because details such as staking parameters, wallet products, governance rules, and economic settings can evolve.
How does Elrond compare with other blockchain networks?
Elrond competes in a broad category that includes smart contract platforms, high-throughput blockchains, proof-of-stake networks, and ecosystems focused on decentralized applications. Compared with older proof-of-work networks, Elrond is designed around staking rather than mining. Compared with some general smart contract platforms, its main technical identity has been sharding, fast execution, and a native asset model centered on EGLD.
Topic
Elrond / MultiversX focus
What users should compare
Scaling
Adaptive state sharding and parallel processing
Real app usage, congestion, developer adoption
Consensus
Secure Proof of Stake with validators
Validator distribution, staking rules, governance
Fees
EGLD pays network fees
Displayed fee, token support, exchange costs
Applications
Smart contracts, DeFi, NFTs, wallets, Web3 apps
Security audits, liquidity, user experience
Elrond should not be evaluated only by theoretical speed or token price. A practical comparison includes wallet quality, developer documentation, ecosystem depth, exchange support, security history, decentralization, liquidity, and whether the applications you want actually exist. The best network for a user depends on the task, not on a single headline metric.
What should you verify before using Elrond?
Elrond research should end with verification, especially if money is involved. Check whether a guide uses the Elrond name because it is old, or whether it has been updated for MultiversX. Confirm that the wallet supports the correct network and that the token being moved is EGLD rather than a wrapped or exchange-specific representation. Small checks prevent large mistakes.
Elrond users should also review the basics of custody. If you keep EGLD on an exchange, the exchange controls withdrawal access until you move the asset to your own wallet. If you self-custody, you control the keys and also carry the responsibility for backups. Neither choice is perfect for everyone. Custody, convenience, and risk should be matched to the user’s experience level.
The balanced view is that Elrond, now MultiversX, is a serious blockchain ecosystem with distinctive scaling architecture and a native asset used across transactions, staking, and applications. It is also part of a high-risk crypto market where names, products, rules, and prices can change. Use Elrond with current information, careful transaction habits, and a clear reason for being on the network.
Reader rating:
4.5 / 5
based on 706 ratings
Questions and Answers
Is Elrond the same as MultiversX?
Elrond is the former name that many people still use for the blockchain now known as MultiversX. In current materials, MultiversX is the network and ecosystem name, while EGLD is the native asset used for fees, staking, transfers, and applications. Older guides may still say Elrond, so users should verify that wallets, apps, and instructions reflect current MultiversX details.
What is EGLD used for on Elrond?
EGLD is the native asset of the Elrond, now MultiversX, ecosystem. It is used to pay transaction fees, move value between compatible accounts, interact with smart contracts, participate in staking, and support validator incentives. EGLD also trades as a crypto asset, so its market value can be volatile and should not be treated as a guaranteed investment outcome.
How does Elrond process transactions quickly?
Elrond was built around adaptive state sharding and Secure Proof of Stake. Sharding divides network work across different parts of the system, while validators use staked EGLD and consensus rules to finalize blocks. This design aims to support higher throughput and low fees, but users should still check current network conditions, wallet fee estimates, and application-specific processing times.
Can I stake EGLD on Elrond?
Yes, EGLD can be staked in the MultiversX ecosystem, either through delegation options or by operating validator infrastructure if the user meets the technical and capital requirements. Staking can provide rewards, but it also involves rules, fees, lockups, provider risk, and changing network parameters. Always verify current staking terms through official sources before delegating or running a node.
Is Elrond safe for beginners?
Elrond can be used by beginners who take time to learn wallet security and transaction checks. The main risks are often user-level mistakes such as exposing a recovery phrase, using a fake website, approving a malicious transaction, or sending funds to the wrong network. Start with small test transactions, keep backups offline, and verify wallet and app details before using larger amounts.
What wallets support Elrond and EGLD?
Elrond, under the current MultiversX ecosystem, is supported by wallets built for EGLD and MultiversX accounts, including official ecosystem wallet options and some hardware or third-party integrations. Support can change over time, so users should confirm compatibility before depositing funds. A wallet should show the correct network, address format, fee asset, and signing request before any transaction is approved.
How is Elrond different from other smart contract platforms?
Elrond is commonly compared with other smart contract networks because it supports programmable applications, tokens, DeFi activity, and NFT infrastructure. Its distinguishing technical themes are adaptive state sharding, Secure Proof of Stake, and the EGLD native asset. A fair comparison should also consider ecosystem size, liquidity, developer tools, wallet experience, decentralization, security history, and whether the apps you need are available.
Did a Brazilian Woman Pray to a Toy of Elrond instead of to God? A Response to Benjamin L. Corey
2017-01-11T16:15:08-04:00
David Russell Mosley
David Russell Mosley
Description
Oberzell, Ortschaft Taldorf, Stadt Ravensburg
Kirche zur Schmerzhaften Muttergottes Antonius-Figur des 19. Jahrhunderts
Date August 2008
Source Own work (own photograph)
Author Photo: Andreas Praefcke
Ordinary Time
11 January 2017
The Edge of Elfland
Hudson, New Hampshire
Dear Readers,
You’ve almost certainly seen it, an article, like this
one
, which declares that a Brazilian woman has unintentionally been praying to a small figurine of Elrond from
The Lord of the Rings
. Maybe you laughed, I did a little. Maybe you made good-hearted jokes about St. Elrond and wondered whether St. Frodo existed, as some of my friends did. It was a bit funny and quite adorable. You see, the Brazilian woman in question believed the figurine to be one of St. Anthony, and so she used it as an aid when she prayed to St. Anthony. All good and fun, especially for those who understood that this woman was not praying
to
the toy but was praying to the saint she believed the toy represented.
When the article first broke I didn’t share it. Mostly because I wouldn’t have been able to keep myself from being a killjoy and pointing just what I have done, that the woman was not praying to the “statue.” Once you make that explicit, it becomes less funny. Sure, a person praying to Elrond, thinking him a saint in the Church would be a bit funny (and a bit sad), but that’s not what was going on here. Still, she was praying to a saint and I know that many of my fellow protestants would take issue with that alone. In fact, one fellow protestant, and fellow Patheos (though on a different channel) blogger, did take issue.
Dr. Corey wrote an article yesterday which he entitled, “
When Bad Theology Tricks You Into Praying To A Toy (Should We Pray To Saints?)
.” The title alone shows that Dr. Corey fell prey to the same mistake all the secular outlets did. He acts as though this woman was praying
to
the toy, when she was praying to the saint she believed the toy to represent. This leads Corey to go on a diatribe against the practice of praying to saints. He even writes in his conclusion, “This is precisely what we see in this tragic story of the woman who spent years praying to a plastic toy from a movie. She could have spent all that time praying to God, just like Jesus instructed his followers to do.”
You see, Corey sees praying to saints as serving in place of praying to God. He even likens it (in a rather bad analogy) to calling to some guy you once knew in DC rather than call the president directly (if that were on offer to you). Of course, praying to saints doesn’t function this way at all. Rather than being like calling some guy you once knew in DC, praying to a saint would be more like calling the president’s Chief of Staff to ask the president a question. Even this analogy is incomplete, for praying to saints (which is in fact primarily asking saints to pray for you) is not something you do in place of praying to God. It can become that, in which case it becomes idolatry, but to suggest it is that by nature would be akin to suggesting that you can either love God or love your wife but you cannot love both. Instead, of course, in a proper relationship you love God by means of your love for your spouse. It isn’t an either/or.
Now, I know that many of my fellow protestants will not be convinced by this, and frankly, unless we’re willing to admit tradition is or at least can be a source of authority, I’m not sure we can ever fully come to terms with issues like this one. But, let me say a few things in its defense, especially against charges laid out by Dr. Corey.
First, Dr. Corey notes that praying to saints came into the church in the 3
rd
century along with other crazy ideas. As an example he notes that all Christians prior to the third century were pacifists. Of course, he provides no citations for this.
He also ignores the fact that for many of the earliest Christians going to church meant going to the catacombs where other dead Christians were buried
. But even if it were explicitly true that we had no evidence of Christians praying to departed Christians prior to the 3
rd
century this would still be an argument from silence (
which it isn’t
). You would still need to explain why Christians started praying to saints in the 3
rd
century when they hadn’t done so prior.
Dr. Corey also, in a strange twist (since he talks about himself as being a former fundamentalist) notes that the Bible nowhere enjoins us to pray to saints and the closest it gets to talking about the issue tells us not to talk to dead people. Interestingly, perhaps the only example of this is when Saul has the witch of Endor call up the spirit of Samuel. In this instance, the practice may have been wrong, but it certainly seems to have worked and Samuel appears to really talk to Saul. Also, Dr.Corey seems to miss the point that the problem was looking to the dead in order to divine future events, not asking holy people to pray for us.
Now, Dr. Corey’s biggest complaint is that this is a practice where you pray to someone else instead of praying to God. As I have noted, the practice is primarily to ask the holy departed to pray to God on our behalf. This practice cannot be suspect. As James writes in James 5.16 “The prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective.” Sure, this passage is in the context of healing and confessing sins, but the broader point is this: it is good and right to ask others to pray for you. What’s more, there appears to be the suggestion that some people’s prayer, due to their righteousness or holiness, is more effective than others. Does this passage enjoin us to ask dead Christians to pray for us: no. Does this passage enjoin us to ask others to pray for us: yes. Then, of course, there is the great cloud of witnesses referenced in Hebrews 12. Really, Dr. Corey needs to answer the question of what happens to departed Christians before he can determine whether or not, by the grace of God, they are capable of praying for us (the way even the rich man desired to pray for his brothers in the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus).
There are other things I could say, other points Dr. Corey has made I could attempt to refute. But here is the final point I want to make: If you disagree with the practice of praying to saints, you need to understand precisely what that practice really is, what its origins are, and why you disagree with it. It seems to me that Dr. Corey has not given the time necessary to actually understand what this practice is or why it shouldn’t be practiced. Disagree, by all means, but don’t be like the atheists who argue against a god’s existence that even you don’t believe in.
We and our
342
partners store and access personal data, like browsing data or unique identifiers, on your device. Selecting I Accept enables tracking technologies to support the purposes shown under we and our partners process data to provide. Selecting Reject All or withdrawing your consent will disable them. If trackers are disabled, some content and ads you see may not be as relevant to you. You can resurface this menu to change your choices or withdraw consent at any time by clicking the Manage Preferences link on the bottom of the webpage [or the floating icon on the bottom-left of the webpage, if applicable]. Your choices will have effect within our Website. For more details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
We and our partners process data to provide:
Use precise geolocation data. Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Store and/or access information on a device. Personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, audience research and services development.
