Partnered With:

From Tezos, Cosmos and ethereum, look at the 2020 public link investment trend

Read this article in 29 Minutes

In 2020, we will re-examine the new public chain, not to pursue the big and complete, but to do a good job in specific use cases.

Article title: investment trend of currency circle in 2020: the downgrading process of public chain
Source: RealSatoshi makoto

This article summary

1. Current situation and problems of Tezos

2.Cosmos status and problems

3.Ethereum status and benefits

4. Public chain degradation process

Words: 5000 words

Tezos status and problems

Tezos 007 will be proposed this summer and activated in the fall. The agreement includes: integration of Sapling's private trading capabilities, status baking accounts, environment upgrades, security randomness, governance, meta-trading, and Michelson. Cyrptium Labs as Tezos developers and one of the main baking division, wrote two articles about zero knowledge technology Supersonic SNARK, the anonymous technology will be used for Tezos upgrade the following agreement.

Privacy racetracks, led by zk zero knowledge technology, are likely to be hot this year. The doubling of the number of anonymous Zcash transactions in the past month may provide a glimpse. Including the etheric fang Layer2 solution zk - a Rollup, Zcash launched on the COINS of Layer2 solution zk - channel, etheric fang ecological privacy project Aztec zk ^ 2 Rollup, Coda zk - SNARK technology, MatterLabs zk - sync, and Supersonic Tezos SNARK.

Since the most important aspect of this protocol upgrade is the integration of the privacy transaction function, we can also reasonably expect the secondary market price increase caused by the integration of this protocol.

It is hard to imagine that the infrastructure of the Web3.0 era would be a very centralized PoS chain with nodes in a few hands. Tezos is currently the most decentralized PoS public chain, but the trend of nodes towards centralization is still inevitable: the top three exchange nodes of Tezos, Coinbase/Binance/Kraken, account for a total of 19% of the voting rights of Tezos network, and their weight ratio is constantly increasing every month.

By contrast, the voting rights of independent node service providers led by Cryptium Labs are gradually declining. This suggests that holders are gradually pledging their COINS back to the exchange. As one of the biggest contributors to Tezos, the nodal service provider led by Cryptium Labs, the decrease of votes means the decrease of node income, which may also evolve into the decrease of node confidence, and lose the motivation to contribute to the ecology. This is bad for Tezos's ecology in the long run.

Tezos was designed to decentralize the network enough, but will it work?

Recent controversies. Arthur, the male founder of Tezos, was removed from the Tezos foundation's technical committee and posted on Reddit that he had received covert threats. The woman founder told Reddit that she had not yet confirmed whether her card game emerrailings was based on the Tezos platform. The card game is clearly based on the Tezos platform, though, according to publicity in the public press.

The two events sparked a debate in the Tezos community. As for Arthur's withdrawal from the foundation's technical committee, I think the foundation needs to give the community a reasonable explanation. This is a matter of transparency for the Tezos foundation. Regarding the platform of female founder card game, I think the community's so-called "must do more based on Tezos platform" is a kind of moral kidnapping. Tezos platform is naturally a good thing, if other platforms, is not unacceptable.

Personally, I think Tezos deepens and improves the governance on the chain more than anything else. On the asset chain, NFT is a backup development plan. How could ethereum fail Tezos in NFT? It's all about giving investors some confidence. On the chain governance is the fundamental difference between Tezos and ethereum.

Ethereum foundation spent only $6 million this year, while Tezos foundation spent $36 million in six months. Of that, 13 Tezos global communities received $13 million, or an average of $1 million each. With $600 million in hand, is the burn rate too high to sustain the project in the long run? We admit that there is a good chance that money will continue to be burned, but is it reasonable to burn money like this? More money is not an excuse for the foundation to splurge, or it will go the way of EOS and block.one. There is also the issue of transparency. How much do foundation members get paid each month? Is it really selfish to borrow ecological aid? Hope the fund USES money wisely and saves money to spend. Tezos, after all, is a decades-long social movement aimed at the next century.

The Tezos bitcoin tzBTC has also been released, which means bitcoin will go into every major chain except ethereum. A bitcoin token movement of blockchain is under way. But the question remains, will the corporate chains outside ethereum be able to successfully forge enough bitcoins on their own corporate chains that users will buy them?

In addition, there is still no practical application on Tezos. Of course, this is what ethereum killers have in common. If there were an app, it wouldn't be called ethereum killer, but "enough of a public chain to counter ethereum killer." And some of the ethereum community's maximalists often attack Tezos with no apps on Tezos. Let's just say it's going to take some time. Overall, Tezos has done very well.

Cosmos status and problems

Cosmos Game Of Zones was officially launched, with an episode in which the Game Of Zones twitter account initially blocked all members Of the Tendermint team. Tendermint designer Peng Zhong tweeted that Zaki's blocking was against the spirit of Cosmos's agreement. GoZ later apologized and unblocked its official twitter feed.

The incident can be seen as a follow-up to an earlier internal power struggle in Cosmos. The previous internal strife seemed to end with Zaki's resignation, but Zaki and his supporters continued to contribute to the Cosmos ecosystem, and the conflict between the two sides changed from internal conflict to friction in the Cosmos network collaboration.

It is hard to accept that IBC, the core and most important development component of Cosmos, is being developed by two or three people who have been kicked out of the company by a power struggle. Tendermint, on the other hand, has done nothing, either to maintain the Tendermint and cosmes-sdk systems themselves, or to work on less significant projects like Vigro.

The so-called multi-entity system, which makes power more decentralized, is just a pretext and an excuse. Zaki's claim on twitter that he would continue to contribute to Cosmos despite leaving Tendermint was a step down for both sides.

So far I don't see this as a good collaboration model. I saw a handful of people fighting alone for IBC, and the cosmos-loving ones who had been kicked out of the company. Before the project is mature, it is easier to talk about the so-called decentralization of the project rather than to evade work and responsibility.

The good news is that IBC development, while slow, is still on schedule. Now Game Of Zones is officially open and teams can sign up. While we don't know the practical geometry of IBC once it's developed, the good news is that it will be developed, but it's just a matter of time.

After the development of IBC, the most important thing should be to attract people to use IBC as a cross-chain standard. This requires the team to take the initiative to promote and market. Rather than passively waiting for other projects to come and use IBC. But based on the current team's urine nature, it seems they can't be expected to actively promote.

The only explanation is that the team has become financially free through the Cosmos project and has no other incentive to do anything. As far as the project is concerned, Cosmos has done its bit. With the completion of the IBC, the technology promised in the white paper was implemented. How many teams can make empty talk a reality? And for private equity investors, 30 times earnings is already remarkable. Project members, naturally, gain initial wealth freedom because of the team's token incentive distribution.

Furthermore, the project side did not abandon the project, except to say that there was a large delay in the development schedule and that our expectations for Cosmos were too high, resulting in a large psychological gap.

The team lacked cohesion, and the core developers left Tendermint company one after another. As the CEO, Jae did nothing, and he was responsible for a lot. Cosmos itself has a first-mover advantage with a king, but it has played a decent hand, with a bewildering array of behaviour and manoeuvring that is a pity.

But as a whole, the Cosmos project has run its course. Only suffered the secondary market investors did not make money.

A Cosmos governance working group was formed earlier this year to assist the Cosmos Hub proposal to reduce the threshold for governance participation. So far, we have published a document on parameter changes, a demonstration document on community funding spending proposals, and are working on building a governance community.

The governance process for Cosmos is much shorter than for Tezos, which takes at least three months, and for Cosmos less than a month. If the team is more aggressive, it should take the initiative to dominate the Cosmos network for regular upgrades. Once a month, for example. But three months after Cosmos's last upgrade, no one or group has come forward with a new proposal. It was a bit disappointing.

Cosmos developed Ethermint to migrate ethereum ecology to Cosmos, but the actual adoption rate of Ethermint is currently close to zero. And Ethermint has some technical history of debt, and while it was outsourced to the Chainsafe team, looking at their codebase, Chainsafe mainly developed ethereum and Polkadot. Ethermint's development has been stalled for a long time.

Cosmos has an advantage, too, in its underlying ecology. The DEX of major exchanges such as coinan is released based on cosmos-sdk, as well as projects such as kava and IRISnet. In the short to medium term, these bottom ecological projects are not easy to destroy. Although Cosmos's team quarreled, CEO leadership was lacking, and IBC development was seriously behind schedule, the richness of its underlying ecology meant it was not yet zero and dead. Cosmos's first-mover advantage was enough to keep it going for a long time.

Ethereum status and advantages

TBTC recently completed a $7.7 million funding round led by Paradigm to try to bring bitcoin into the ethereum ecosystem. The need for decentralized financial applications on ethereum is clear, and bitcoin is the world's largest cryptocurrency. Building a bridge between bitcoin and DeFi makes sense, and tBTC is a solid attempt to do just that.

Once tBTC is established and combined with the Uniswap exchange, it will be possible to trade bitcoins and Erc20 tokens within ethereum ecosystem, increasing the overall value of DeFi by a billion or even a billion dollars.

There is also competition among uniswap-class AMM automated marketmaker exchanges. Recently Balancer, a rival to Uniswap, received $3m in funding led by Placeholder and $190,000 in liquidity three days after its launch. At the same time, Uniswap itself will be upgraded to version 2.0, with new functions such as flash loan, agreement charging mechanism and Erc20 token exchange. On the other hand, Uniswap and Balancer themselves are likely to be sniped by Uniswap competitors with token economies.

Instead of wiping out ethereum's DeFi ecosystem, the 312 market crash sent trading volumes on two platforms, Uniswap and Kyber, to new highs of more than $30 million a day, enough to rival a centralized exchange. DeFi's ecological anti-vulnerability has emerged.

In the past month, the global market value of the stable currency has increased by $1.5 billion. The market value of the stable currency, BUSD, has increased from $100 million on March 12 to $200 million in just two weeks. Coinbase injected $1 million into the Uniswap USDC to boost liquidity. The total market value of the currency is $7 billion. Nearly 90 percent of these releases are based on ethereum.

Currently, USDT ranks 4th, USDC 18th, PAX 28th, BUSD 35th and TUSD 37th. It can be predicted that in the future, the proportion of stable currency in the total market value will become larger and larger, and the market value of a single stable currency will move towards the Top20 or even the Top10.

What has this led to? Take a look at the Top10 components of the list: currency, stable currency and flat Taiwan dollar. There are only two smart contract platforms left: ETH and EOS. EOS is likely to be squeezed out of the Top10. The gradual erosion of the Top10 by the centralised products of the stable and Taiwan dollars can't help but feel a touch of magic.

Why is DeFi only available on ethereum? Because when billions of dollars of assets are locked into the contract, the project will be very cautious and will only choose the platform that is decentralized enough and safe enough. Decentralisation is slow, but it is a constant source of innovation and the power of blockchain. Only decentralized, safe, and fair enough to attract developers to your ecosystem.

Will the Rollup of ethereum's next-generation Layer2 technology go the way of Plasma or blaze a new trail? Why Layer2 has not been in practice for years. Rollup will be falsified eventually, right?

The degrading process of public chain

In 2020, we can't help but take a fresh look at those new corporate chains, the so-called ethereum killers. Haseeb is right: we are in the middle of this war, and every new lineman who arrives at the front is beheaded by ethereum. We underestimated the network effect of ethereum. And we finally realized how hard it was to defeat ethereum.

While the Tezos community is saying that EOS is so fast, Tezos is so slow, and TPS should not be improved soon, Tezos founder Arthur said something to the effect that Tezos's top priority is to make Tezos decentralized enough. Looking back, this sentence at that time in the heat of the public chain of the great leap forward period is precious.

The same reason why ethereum 2.0 is so slow is that the basic goal of the community is to improve TPS while being sufficiently decentralized, not by reducing nodes. If ethereum 2.0 is built, it will be the most decentralized PoS on the market. Each PoS node only needs to deposit 32ETH, and there will be hundreds of PoS nodes.

From this point of view, the new chains lost from the start. Because they focus on high performance. What they don't realize is that while the degree of decentralization is irreversible, performance can improve iteratively. In other words, for a common chain, the degree of decentralization takes precedence over performance. So is it fair to say that ethereum's killers lost the war before it was fought and ethereum won it?

In the New Year, we should also revisit the cross-link Polkadot and Cosmos. Their advantages are not that great. Because each public chain can make a set of its own cross-chain communication criteria, each public chain can have its own cross-chain characteristics. In other words, the cross-link can exist either as a single track or as just one of the features of the cross-link.

Recently, VB called on the taifang community on twitter to quickly develop the cross-link feature of ethereum. Summa quickly responded to VB's cross-link call by opening several of ethereum's cross-link Bridges. In addition, Nervos, Solana and other projects also have their own cross-chain development plans. All of which makes me even more pessimistic about the trans-chain duo Polkadot and Cosmos. I think there's going to be a war between the public chains: the battle for cross-chain communications.

Each common chain can be equipped with a set of cross-chain criteria: Polkadot's XPCM, Cosmos's IBC, Nervos's cross-chain criteria, ethereum's cross-chain criteria, and so on. The competition will be fierce. But the competition is worth it. The competition among standards is the competition at the highest level.

So who will win the battle for cross-link communications? There is no doubt that ethereum still has the best chance of winning. Because ethereum is increasingly dominant in DeFi. Not interacting with ethereum will significantly reduce the utility of these ethereum competitors. As a result, ethereum's competitors will increasingly need to interoperate with ethereum or cross the chain.

In order to interact with ethereum, ethereum's competitors will need to follow some sort of interoperability standard. And this cross-link standard is what ethereum did. And that's what Polkadot and Cosmos want to do. Wouldn't it end up being made by ethereum, too.

Rather than pursuing a polkadot-style winner-takes-all and all-in approach, ethereum killers are better off pursuing use cases in a particular domain and direction. A wise common chain should optimize a single use case, and this use case will be the key to DeFi and Web3.0. A typical example is Chainlink, which, as an Oracle public chain, cleverly avoids the direct battlefield of the public chain competition and becomes the partner of all the public chains. Because Oracle is the rigid requirement for all common links.

Trying to focus on a wide range of use cases is difficult. Because typically, the solution is a small improvement in a variety of use cases, but not enough to solve any of them. It's better to be the best in a particular use case or industry, to be able to position yourself without being eroded by ethereum.

Imagine a future where different types of applications are on different chains:

Ethereum becomes a DeFi chain. All financial related transactions take place on ethereum. Tezos becomes an STO chain. All the stuff about hair security happens on Tezos. Cosmos becomes an interoperability chain, and all chain interoperations go through Cosmos. Chainlink becomes an Oracle chain that provides authentic and trusted data sources for major projects. Nervos becomes a Layer2 chain, dedicated to providing the Layer2 development framework for the public chain, a one-click release of Layer2. Filecoin becomes a storage chain that provides the transfer and storage of files. Solana becomes an DEX chain, and transactions with high performance DEX occur on Solana. Coda becomes a compression chain, specialized for compressing data-heavy transactions. Near becomes a sharding chain, and the solution is suitable for sharding type applications.

It is worth mentioning that Polkadot and Cosmos advocate the idea of application customization chain. Application custom chain, that is, as an application itself to send a chain. You can also think of it as the application of Commons. At present, the application of custom chain demand is not large, on the contrary, there is a public chain into the application chain. What happened in the process of going from a common chain to a common chain to an application chain?

By deliberately pursuing a full range of use cases, you may end up with every use case being unprofessional. If the public chain can not do a big and complete, there is no need to struggle, and the next thing is not a shame. Don't you have a long history of being a lonely loser on a single use case?

To retreat is to advance, just show the heroic qualities of the public chain.

Source link:weixin.qq.com