
A Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) is a data structure where information is connected by directional links and never forms a loop back to the starting point. Imagine it as a production line: each task points to the tasks it depends on, always moving forward without looping back.
In Web3, “data” in a DAG can refer to a transaction, a block, or a broadcast event. “Directed” means each connection has a clear order, and “acyclic” ensures there are no self-referencing or circular dependencies. This structure makes dependencies clear and allows multiple paths to advance simultaneously, increasing processing throughput.
DAGs are particularly suitable for Web3 because they enable parallel processing without compromising dependency order. This helps alleviate the congestion and delays associated with single-chain sequential transaction processing, allowing more transactions to be absorbed and confirmed by the network at once.
In traditional blockchains, all transactions queue up one after another—like crossing a single-lane bridge. In contrast, a DAG acts like a multi-lane on-ramp: while intersections still enforce order, many vehicles (transactions) can move forward in parallel. In real-world projects, IOTA uses a DAG where transactions reference each other for confirmation; Avalanche’s X-Chain organizes parallel transactions using a DAG; Hedera employs an event DAG for virtual voting; Fantom, Kaspa, and Conflux use block-level DAGs to enhance throughput and fault tolerance. By December 2025, DAG-based architectures have become a major route to improving network performance.
The core components of a DAG are “nodes” and “edges.” Nodes represent records (such as transactions), while edges are directional references (indicating that one transaction references an earlier one). The acyclic property allows the data to be organized and executed in topological order—from dependencies to results.
In systems like IOTA, each new transaction references two “tips” (unconfirmed transactions), effectively pulling the queue forward. In block-level DAGs, new blocks can reference multiple recent blocks, merging various parallel chains of records. Ultimately, network rules and consensus mechanisms aggregate these parallel paths into an agreed-upon order.
DAGs in consensus are used to express “what happened first” and “what happened after,” forming the basis for voting or sampling that leads to network-wide agreement—this process is known as consensus. Consensus ensures that all participants agree on the same version of the ledger.
For example, in Avalanche, nodes repeatedly sample random peers to determine which transactions in the DAG are most “preferred,” finalizing results after several rounds. Hedera’s event DAG allows nodes to record message propagation, using virtual voting to establish event order without on-chain voting. Fantom achieves asynchronous Byzantine Fault Tolerance on its DAG, reducing latency. Kaspa’s GHOSTDAG and Conflux’s Tree-Graph select “bluer” or more primary sets within their block-level DAGs to determine the main chain. These methods all leverage graph structures for parallel generation, then apply rules to reconcile them into a unified sequence.
A typical application of DAGs in storage is the Merkle-DAG. Here, “Merkle” refers to assigning unique fingerprints (hashes) to content, and nodes connect via these fingerprints to form the graph. With the fingerprint, content can be precisely located without relying on a single server.
IPFS uses Merkle-DAGs for content addressing: files are split into blocks, each with its own fingerprint, and these blocks are connected via hashes to form a DAG. Anyone with the root hash can verify and retrieve the complete content. Git’s commit history is also a Merkle-DAG: every commit references previous commits and file hashes, ensuring verifiable and immutable history. When exchanges use NFTs, images and metadata are often stored on IPFS using Merkle-DAGs—improving availability but requiring attention to node uptime and persistent storage services.
Blockchains can be seen as a special case of DAGs: they form a single main path where all blocks are linked linearly. The key difference is that DAGs allow multiple branches to exist in parallel before merging into a network-accepted order.
In terms of trade-offs: DAGs offer potential advantages in throughput and latency but are more complex to implement, requiring advanced sorting and security mechanisms; linear blockchains are straightforward with mature tooling but can become bottlenecked under high load. Many modern protocols combine “parallel generation on the graph” with “final linear ordering” for balanced performance and clarity.
To experience DAG-based networks firsthand, start with wallets or exchanges that support relevant assets. Choose a network utilizing a DAG structure and conduct small-value transfers while observing the confirmation process.
Risks of using DAGs include increased complexity in ordering due to parallelism; poorly designed rules may affect finality. In low-traffic networks, extra weighting or fees may be needed to prevent Sybil attacks or spam. Tooling and infrastructure can vary across projects—cross-chain compatibility, explorers, and indexers may differ in quality. When transacting, always verify addresses, network selection, and minimum confirmation requirements to avoid mistakes.
As of December 2025, block-level and event-based DAGs are widely deployed across public chains and innovative consensus mechanisms. Explorers increasingly offer graphical interfaces, while developers focus on combining “parallel graph generation” with “final linear settlement” for both performance and clarity. On the content storage side, Merkle-DAGs continue supporting NFT content addressing and decentralized website verification.
DAGs use directional, loop-free structures to represent dependencies and order—allowing transactions, blocks, or events to progress in parallel before converging into a consistent sequence through protocol rules. They see broad application in both consensus (for throughput and fault tolerance) and storage (for verifiable content addressing). Compared to linear blockchains, they emphasize parallelism and flexibility but introduce added implementation and security complexity. For newcomers, engaging with a DAG-based network through small-scale trials and observing graph structures via explorers offers an intuitive introduction.
DAGs and blockchains each have their strengths and cannot fully replace one another. DAGs excel at high throughput and low latency; blockchains have more established decentralized consensus mechanisms and security guarantees. Both technologies are complementary—suited for different use cases and requirements.
“Acyclic” means data only moves forward—it never loops back. Imagine a workflow where Task A leads to Task B, then Task C; it never returns to A or B. This ensures logical data processing flow and final consistency.
If you run into problems, start by checking official documentation or community discussions for your project. Most mainstream DAG projects have active technical communities and developer forums; you can find updated support information on Gate news or project websites. Stay informed about project updates and risk notices as technology evolves.
The participation barrier is relatively low; most users can engage by holding or staking tokens within the ecosystem. However, specific requirements vary—some projects require running validator nodes (which is more technical), while others only need token holdings on platforms like Gate. Always read the whitepaper for detailed participation guidelines.
Main bottlenecks include data synchronization delays between nodes, computational overhead from complex graph topology, and compatibility issues during cross-chain operations. While DAGs are generally more efficient than blockchains, very large-scale deployments still require optimization of node networking and consensus algorithms.


