/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>50141917

I don't even know why I still come here, entertaining crypto-tourist. You are either in it for the fundamentals or you will die poor. It's either this or that.

In reality, all the L1's that are competing for supremacy are cursed by the rising cost of storage and hosting on traditional cloud. The exceptions are Ethereum, ICP and Near (Near has little to no Network transactions) ICP has zero dependency on traditional cloud. Ethereum's cost of storage, hosting is off setted by the enormous volume, transactions and fees.
Rising cost in energy, semiconductors, storage, hosting on traditional cloud make most L1's unprofitable for node-providers.

When the price of Solana, Avalanche drops under a certain threshold, node provides must sell in large quantities to offset the cost for storage, hosting. Corrupt exchanges like FTX can only ramp up the price to offset cost, but in reality, the sustainability of a project depends on the network transactions, there aren't enough network transactions on Solana to maintain this bloated valuation.
Grayscale released a rapport that Binance probably took down on the behest of SBF.

https://coinmarketcap.com/headlines/news/grayscale-report-highlights-potential-solana-risks-should-you-be-concerned/

It outlines exactly what I just typed. You can ramp up the price of Solana to make it profitable for node-providers, but ultimately, the sustainability of a network depends on transaction output. The FUD here is low-iq. Few understand the cost of running a protocol on AWS, even fewer understand that it's unsustainable without exchanges propping up prices. ICP is not a scam and Moonman didn't scam you by recommending ICP.