/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>51366018
> Permissioned
A non-issue, as permission is granted through governance. If you think this is a problem you have a problem with DAO governance in general (every project)

> Centralized
Not as decentralized as BTC for sure, ICP is on a different place in the trade-off spectrum, closer to SOL, Near, DOT, etc... Trading decentralization for feature richness, maximizing decentralization at all costs is a meme, and not use-case friendly.

> High end servers
Only if you choose to use ICP in high performance, you can also choose to use Badland subnets with shit performance, ran in raspberry pis.

> Claims not needing oracles
Incorrect, claims being an oracle, an improved type over chain link as well.

> 500tps
A non-problem, ICP apps can run across subnets, if an app needs 500k tps it can just run across 5000 subnets, with no degraded performance. As opposed to AVAX subnets that can't talk to each other so they're dead on arrival when it comes to scalability.

Thx for coming to my Ted talk.

>>51256524
Then why can't avax subnets talk to each other? Sounds like inferior tech relative to something like ICP where a Dapp can be deployed through tens or even hundreds of subnets in order to achieve real scalability. In AVAX a Dapp is ALWAYS limited by the subnet Max tps. ):

>>51228096
AVAX doesn't have a team nor the ingenuity to pull any relevant infrastructure off. They've been alive for too long as a marketing scheme, zero.

>>51219757
Based

>>51211080
Avax went down 2 ranks since crypto leaks and ICP went up 2 ranks since. I think it's actually a very damaging situation for avax, don't see any relevant actor associating w em in the future. Also dapps in avax can't be extended beyond a single subnet which becomes a limiting factor for scalability. Cheers brothers.
Verification not required

>>51213540
Hmu when the Turkish military can split subnets to scale

>>51205166
Hit me up when avax can split subnets in order to scale

>>51205131
>>51205173

Zero