Comments | Desperate currency circle, princes will be related to each other?

I think of an article by Messari analyzing Tezos: Tezos has doubled its market value, but its usage rate is extremely low. Still can't escape the empty block problem of the new chain. Although the price of Tezos has grown steadily over the past year, there has been no corresponding increase in activity across the network. The number of transactions is much larger than the number of transfers, which means that most transactions are commissioned/transferred/unlocked for such non-monetary transactions. The number of smart contracts is only 108, and there are very few.

A major chain upgrade of Tezos recently is the Babylonian agreement. The upgrades are mainly the details of the agreement: consensus algorithms, smart contract functions, simplification of complex code, and reward system for baking nodes.

The Tezos project is a magical existence: the dividends of the ICO boom, a huge sum of money, holding $600-700 million. And because there were fewer competing products at the time, it was once regarded as the successor of Ethereum, so it has a strong community and consensus on a global scale.

If Ethereum is the first person to eat the platform dividend, then Tezos may be the second and last one. Before the public competition becomes hot, it can accumulate large financing projects with large communities and consensus. In the future, the star public chain project will be difficult to gather consensus and community in the early stage. Because there is only private placement, there is no public offering. Although the money can still be full, because the organization is rich enough. But in terms of participation, it is really not as good as Tezos.

So Tezos can be so slow and unscrupulous. The chain management that was originally proud is now flooded. I’ve been updating some of the details. The new niche language Ocaml. The goal of Tezos is for people of the next century. It is nurturing the next generation of people to develop Tezos. What is certain at the moment is that if Tezos has reasonable and moderate spending, it can survive to the next bull market with a high probability. Not being dead is a prerequisite for success. Because Tezos has too much money, it can use time to change space and kill other public chains.

Another wonderful thing is that Tezos is the only one of all current public chain projects that has no project schedule and timetable. Maybe I don’t need any progress at all. I’m holding 700 million U.S. dollars in my hand. One year later, I found that the whole industry has no progress at all, and my foundation’s money is much more…

Tezos is still worthy of layout: a global community, strong consensus, and strong capital. Based on these three points, we will hang more than 20 public chains that will be launched in 2020. There are not a few large public chains that can do these three things at the same time.

But even if a public chain reaches the above three points, there will be problems with the Tezos described above, and the network usage rate is extremely low. No one really uses the network, and not many developers have gone to the top to develop. This is not just a problem with Tezos, but a common problem with all the names of the Ethereum killer, the high-performance chain, and the public chain 3.0.

I think of a question I asked when I interviewed Solana CEO the day before yesterday. "How to look at the new public chain project. If the valuation does not melt more than $100 million, it is difficult to live on the fierce public chain battlefield." His answer is that having ample funds in the public chain is only a prerequisite for ultimate success.

“If you can't capitalize a company enough to produce that product, you won't be able to compete. In such an early market, valuation basically determines the amount of money you can raise and the size of your community. And the best engineers who can make great products are not cheap."

Yes, for a company, the labor cost is very expensive, and the excellent engineers in the blockchain are more expensive. Before the public chain breaks out, you must have enough money to burn. Despite the reality that most public chains have burned out their money, there is still no single achievement.

More money can't solve all problems. More money does not necessarily bring network effects and developer ecology.

The performance of Algorand and Hashgraph is temporarily disappointing. The market performance of these two giants that have been on the line has explained the problem to a certain extent. Hype, which is exaggerated in the primary market, hopes that investors will pay when the secondary market goes up, but it turns out that everyone does not buy it.

DAG was once popular in the last era, but after the carnival, everyone found that its centralization problem was serious. The consensus that the number of nodes is too small to reach the minimum of the currency circle is that everyone thinks that its nodes are really too small to be successful. Hashgraph's current nodes are 29, and they are all authoritative organizations. The participation of ordinary investors is almost zero. This reminds me of another consensus algorithm POA and IOTA and Byteball.

Algorand worked hard, but was still trapped in a short-term game between foundations, private investors and ordinary investors. There are constant news, but most of them are about the chips themselves. It is a bit disappointing. There is a lot of cooperation, but the general feeling is that it can be more in-depth. The term for self-marketing is borderless finance, but at present DeFi is a big trend in Ethereum. But compared to other professors' running chains, Algorand is still ok overall.

I don't know if Chainlink's cooperative pull is a good or bad head. Since then, the projects in the currency circle have learned the path of Chainlink and made a poster. The logo of the two projects is called cooperation. But the real cooperation is not about the announcement, but the substantive development level.

Hashgraph and Algorand have many similarities: this year, the star public chain, the main performance, the financing amount of more than 100 million US dollars, node centering, less circulation, the secondary market on the line suffered constant selling.

One of the most worrying is its liquidity and potential selling pressure. Hashgraph released a total of 30% of the total tokens in three years. The total release period has been extended to 10 years, which is a bit desperate. The project side is trying to slow down the selling pressure in the secondary market by changing the token release policy, but the wool is on the sheep: a lot of selling pressure is not released soon, and it will be released later. Pessimistic to think about this matter, mostly for the treatment of the symptoms.

AVA Labs launched Athereum at this year's Devcon conference. Directly moved the entire Ethereum to its own project Avalanche. Open source software is not patented, so it can be copied and copied at will. But network effects and developer ecology cannot. Most of the copying and imitation is futile, and Sun Yuchen has only one.

Dfinity is finally going to announce the SDK on the November 1st blockchain in San Francisco. There is an experience in the currency circle: If you don't buy a coin now, you won't buy it in the future. Analogy to Dfinity, it may be that if you have the first and second delay, then you must have the third and fourth delay. Dfinity even puts the pigeons in the Wanxiang block chain week, and it is easy to put a pigeon in the San Francisco block chain.

After the public chain enters the white-hot competition, the identification of one chain is particularly important. The above items are still less recognizable. They are all doing things, but all the efforts seem to be taking the old road of the Ethereum public chain. It's hard to summarize what they're doing with a little. It's hard to have a point that makes you goose bumps all over the body: no pain, no itching, no better than no.

EOS is slightly tired. The node that once supported EOS recently wrote a Block.one essay, detailing the seven sins of the company behind EOS. It is inevitable that it will be awkward. The major EOS nodes are in a bad position, and some nodes ran to do the nodes of the emerging PoS public chain such as Cosmos and Polkadot. Regardless of the indicators such as governance, voting, or decentralization, PoS is superior to DPoS. However, some people joked that this is a 50-step laugh, because the centralization of PoS is still serious. But we need to remember that the degree of decentralization is always comparative, and it is inseparable from the reference.

EOS has been successful for a period of time to attract a batch of spinach DApp from Ethereum to EOS, because spinach DApp has low requirements for decentralization and anti-censorship, but EOS has not succeeded in establishing DeFi ecology. . The Synthetix team once wrote that the team initially decided to build DeFi products on both Ethereum and EOS, and found that their initial logic was flawed. Later, the team publicly stated that it was a waste of time to build DeFi products outside of Ethereum.

Ethereum's decentralization, network effects and rich developer tools have built a powerful moat for EFI's DeFi. It makes it difficult for the DeFi protocol to leave Ethereum to invest in other competitive smart contract platforms.

Telegram and the SEC have recently staged a good show. It is inevitable that the extension will be on the line. In the future, huge financing projects will become more and more difficult, and the regulatory layer will be the biggest obstacle to the online secondary market. Why does the SEC want to succumb to Telegram before the online secondary market, because as long as it is still in the primary market, everything is under control, private investors will not exceed three digits, refunds for refunds, fines for fines . Once the secondary market is circulated and the chips are dispersed, it is difficult to stop the brutal growth of the project. Be sure to kill in the cradle.

Another point worth pondering is whether Telegram's so-called huge network effect can be smoothly transferred to TON. What is the conversion rate? Does the existing user of Telegram really need TON, and whether the addition of tokens will lead to friction. At least I am very satisfied with Telegram now. These have to be verified one by one.

Token Daily has always been a foreign media that I like very much. Although the output is not high, the articles are classic. The latest article, the content of the public chain 3.0 can be in the DeFi field and Ethereum.

I have been thinking about a problem before, that is, the so-called public chain 3.0 is relative to Ethereum. Although Ethereum is not perfect, it still appears to be impeccable under the influence of its peers. And this article gave me the answer.

At the beginning of the article, I listed the many moats and advantages of Ethereum, and then put forward a very important point: With the upgrade of Ethereum 2.0, different dapps will be encouraged to occupy different segmentation chains. Whether the level of sex can be maintained raises a lot of suspicion. The uncertainty of Ethereum's 2.0 will be a very good opportunity for competitive smart contract platforms.

A report by Coindesk's female reporter, "Scam is still innovative / iterative? The obsessives of Ethereum on Devcon still believe that 2.0" is a stone that stirs up waves. This article said that the conference revealed many problems existing in Ethereum 2.0: the expansion plan was slower than expected, and Layer 2's progress was stagnant. The migration of tokens and smart contracts: the latter has no clear plan. The research and development of Ethereum 2.0 did not receive sufficient funds. The 2.0 development team grew stronger but lacked coordination.

At the same time, discussions about ETH 2.0 began to increase. V God produced six papers on ETH 2.0 and shards as a prelude. In the past few days, the Chinese community has established a community to discuss ETH 2.0 and a number of content output about 2.0. I am paying little attention to the progress of Ethereum 2.0. In my impression, it has always been out of reach. Until I read this article, I began to seriously study ETH2.0. How is it going?

Ethereum 2.0 is divided into four phases: Phase 0 (Building a PoS Chain Beacon), Phase 1 (Implementing Fragments), Phase 2 (Implementing a Sliced ​​eWASM Virtual Machine), and Phase 3 (launching a Light Client). The current 0 phase has been frozen. Among them, Phase0 is expected to go online in the first quarter of 2020, while Phase 1 and 2 are expected to go online at the end of 2020.

At present, in general, the 0 phase should not be a problem when it goes online in early 2020. After the completion of the 0th stage, the user can take the Stake in the hand. But this is still a long way from the final version of ETH2.0. The analysis of the Aragon team is worthy of reference: they believe that Ethereum 2.0 will not achieve the same feature profile with the current Ethereum main network before 2021 or 2022 (through conversations with some Ethereum 2.0 developers).

The confidence of this analysis is relatively high. Aragon is a project with a high reputation and status in the Ethereum Ecology. It also has close communication with the core developers of Ethereum. At the same time as a project, Aragon must find a marketable product by 2022.

That is to say, the competitors of Ethereum still have 1-2 years: every minute and every second that occurs in the process of Ethereum moving from 1.0 to 2.0 is Ethereum. The goods have a chance to kill a bloody road. The emerging public chain can only expect the Ethernet 2.0 delay and then give yourself some time to struggle. Although it is selfish to think of it from the perspective of the whole industry, the launch of Ethernet 2.0 is bound to be a positive for the whole industry. It means that the world's second-largest market capitalization has successfully transformed PoS and PoS into the mainstream.

Decentralization is also a very big advantage of Ethereum. The chips are scattered enough, the number of currency holders is enough, and the number of nodes is as high as 20,000-30,000. This is currently difficult to achieve with PoS networks. Cosmos currently has only 100 nodes and will reach 300 nodes in 1-2 years. Algorand currently has dozens of nodes. Tezos has only a hundred nodes. The Solana test network has 300 nodes.

It seems that for the PoS network, hundreds of nodes are the current maximum load. But I think of the words of the former Solana CEO: It is difficult to compare the PoS verification node with the PoW node. Another example is Chris in placeholder's paper: Today we have a better understanding of the characteristics of POW assets, but the understanding of the capital assets created by POS is still in its infancy.

Our understanding of PoS is still very limited. So everything is still unknown. One thing that can be determined is that the future public chain wants to use PoS. The biggest illustration is Ethereum itself. Turning to the PoS road and long, still do not hesitate to turn to PoS.

The event about Aragon's move to Cosmos was a time for the industry to talk about. But what everyone doesn't know is that Aragon's discussion about why he moved from Polkadot to Cosmos is a clever way to avoid heavy weight, and he has expressed his dissatisfaction with Boca. After inference by the group of friends, the situation should be like this:

1. Aragon is undecided between Wasm and EVM

2. Someone recommended Wasm, but Poca said that EVM substrate can be fixed in two weeks.

3. Aragorn first put aside the development of the independent chain, and engaged in six months of EVM based on EVM. At this time, the cost of VM replacement is too high.

4. Boca said that EVM is temporarily uncertain.

5. Aragon angers Cosmos Ethermint

Aragorn is more familiar with EVM and has more foundation. Then Poca first recommended Wasm and added a little EVM. I didn't expect Boca to play big hair and later said that it couldn't be done. In fact, it is a pity that Poca is the number one horse, and then Edgeware does not live up to expectations (the main network is postponed).

The Aragon migration made me see some possibilities in Cosmos:

First of all, Boca and Cosmos are two projects that can compete on the same stage, the same level, and not in some propaganda, Cosmos is inferior to Poca: two ideas, two philosophies, two systems. In the end, let the market choose and let the developers choose. Developers are the most pragmatic/realistic group.

Second, don't demonize the shared security of the card. As the Aragon article says: Poca's shared security is really interesting, but that's it. Since I used Cosmos, I will send a coin myself to protect the security of the chain. Unlike some propaganda, independent security is worse than shared security.

I also heard some remarks, such as the Web3.0 era, there will still be some projects to choose Cosmos. The implication is that most projects will use the Polkadot scenario. I don't comment much on this point of view itself. But we can also see from all kinds of signs: Boca and Cosmos are destined to be opposite. Although the world of encryption advocates the spirit of inclusiveness, there are places where there are people.

When I remembered chatting with Chjango of Cosmos two weeks ago, we asked her how she viewed the competition and cooperation between Cosmos and Boca. Chjango answered the question directly: I like Ethereum.

There will be two distinct factions in the future: the Poca and the Cosmos. This trend is gradually taking shape. As the biggest consciousness of an encrypted investor, it must be a brave team. Remember: one person gets the word, the dog grows up. The success of a project will benefit all the ecological and related stakeholders around the project.

The Orange Book has a point in the "Public Chain should pay attention to this recent thing" is worth thinking about:

“I’ve always felt that there’s no need in the application chain, because most applications require smart-featured contracts that don’t require a dedicated chain for the application. But in the early days, the application chain might need more and more— – Anyway, the lower layers do not make money, so why not just fill the entire technology stack first, maybe a layer will capture the value in the future?"

The Application-Specific Blockchain will be the main theme for the next 3-5 years.

Formerly explosive applications such as CryptoKitty, after discovering that they could not capture the value in the upper layer, they chose to go to the sea to make a public chain. As the Orange Book says, “The industry is still in the early stages, and star applications have chosen to take root in the underlying technology stack, not because they really want to grab the market with the underlying agreement, but because the upper layer is too weak. The story of the short-term upper-level application is not supported by the users and cannot be fulfilled. It is better to talk about a longer, bigger story and more time."

If the future trend is really the case, then the application customization chain led by Cosmos and Polkadot will definitely be popular.

Many people question the use of these two cross-chain projects: the land is a garbage air chain, and the two garbage is still garbage after crossing. And I think that compared to the cross-chain positioning, Cosmos and Polkadot are more like a hair chain tool, the so-called application custom chain. At some point in the future, these two people will cause a bubble frenzy in the application chain.

As Aragon said:

“Given the work done on the Cosmos SDK and Ethermint, the work required to start Aragon Chain will be much less than any other solution. The modularization of the Cosmos SDK will allow us to continue to improve Aragon Chain. At the same time Tendermint equity proof algorithm It is the PoS algorithm currently available and tested under the most rigorous PoS consensus test, and it has gained more than $1 billion in value."

It is natural to introduce three features of the Web 3.0 era blockchain: modularity, customizability, interoperability. It is precisely because of the two characteristics of modularity and customizability that the third feature of interoperability is derived. So the cross-chain I understand is such a logic.

Some people say that the person who wrote the fat agreement by USV is really damned. Because that is the article that makes everyone rush to the public chain.

Some people say that the current public chain projects are overvalued, and the project intensity is far greater than the demand. In the end, there are only a handful of public chains left, and the others will all be in the same place. But the bottom stack is a battleground for the military. Whoever can occupy the high or low level can get tens of billions or even more than $100 billion. Despite the intense killing, I still want to kill.

But who can make it clear that the underlying public chain is now a sharp point in the small lotus, or is it a hundred flowers, or is the winners eating, or is it already broken? This problem is the most difficult.

For those institutions with a fund of several hundred million, buy a lot of bits and ethers, and then vote for the mainstream public chain, there is always one, how is victory. In fact, the organization does not know which public chain can come out in the future, so the most safe way is to vote all over again. They really don't care much about the inflation of Grin and Beam, the question of which Polkadot and Cosmos can dominate the universe. After all, what can be solved with money, why waste time discussing it.

First, accumulate wealth through BTC and ETH, and then lay out the next generation of public chains. Money continues to make money. Strong and strong, reasonable.

But when the whole industry sang multi-bitcoin and Ethereum at the same time, I knew that it was a good time to bet at the moment. Because the entire industry has fallen into a bottleneck.

Shengji will decline, and it will come. Misfortunes and blessings are too far apart.

The history of the currency circle is nothing more than this.

And what you need is a question:

Do you accept your life? If you don't recognize it, please bet on it.