The Future of the Future of Finance

[Anonymous No.49373050]

K E K
E
K

[Anonymous No.49373067]

[Anonymous No.49373109]

>>49373067
>>49373050
L2 is a retarded solution to scalability. It's a fantastic solution to VERY SPECIFIC things but not scalability. Right now we have 100 million services, now imagine 100 million L2s trying to settle/bid for blockspace on ETH L1, no matter how big you make the blocks (danksampling = big blocks) Ethereum will never scale, EVER.
The whole value pop is GONE. Ethereum should be €3. It has no value long term.

Only chains which solve scaling L1 can survive. Explain to me which can.

[Anonymous No.49373201]

>>49373109
Hedera Hashgraph by Swirlds Labs

[Anonymous No.49373213]

>>49373201
DAGs can't scale. Hbar is a centralized VC scam.

[Anonymous No.49373220]

>>49373201
Based and gossip pilled.
Blockchain not needed.

[Anonymous No.49373243]

>>49373050
>>49373067
I don’t get it. Are you fudding optimisim?

[Anonymous No.49373272]

That's why Avalanche is the absolute king for scalability. L2s are dogshit scams.

[Anonymous No.49373296]

>>49373272
Subnets are L2.

[Anonymous No.49373356]

>>49373109
We have a gay autist right here ;-)

[Anonymous No.49373360]

>>49373356
If you had a better argument you would have made one.

[Anonymous No.49373381]

>>49373296
They aren't retard

[Anonymous No.49373394]

>>49373050
>>49373067
L2s are the future

[Anonymous No.49373402]

>>49373381
They settle to the P chain so yes they basically are. In reality, they are Side-chains so yeah, maybe not L2 because L2 inherent security from the main chain. Subnets so not.
Avax is a scam.

[Anonymous No.49373436]

>>49373381
Subnets are layer 2s but with even less security and no value accrual for avax itself

[Anonymous No.49373450]

>>49373272
L2s are great in theory, Especially ZK stuff, But i believe we're looking at 2025+ when it comes to decentralised, capable L2s.

Rightnow they're more centralised than Tron and BNB, I lost some of my respect for few Ethereum community members for blindly shilling them at their current state.

[Anonymous No.49373461]

>>49373436
basedo

[Anonymous No.49373490]

>>49373450
Vitalik literally said the future (for ETH) is centralized block production (L2s).
I am sorry you don't like the future anon.

[Anonymous No.49373495]

>>49373402
>>49373436
Miniscule IQ posts. You literally have no fucking idea how subnets work and I'm too lazy to write it out. Fuck you.

[Anonymous No.49373505]

starknet is better

[Anonymous No.49373507]

>>49373495
If you had a better argument you would have made one.

[Anonymous No.49373535]

So ICP?

[Anonymous No.49373866]

>>49373507
Dude you're the one making a low effort claim and you expect him to explain to you in length why you're wrong? But i'll bite because i'm autistic retard who can't stand things not being as they supposed to be:

>In Avalanche the primary network is already functioning with the same philosophical design as ETH, Meaning any activity on the C-X-P (or maybe even more chains they'll add to the primary network) will burn AVAX and reduce the supply. The primary network is likely to take all of the DeFi activity (Subnets are mostly for gaming/CLOBs/IOT etc). The C-Chain will act as the main settlement layer for Rollups too, It's not either/or, In fact the main reason i hold AVAX in addition to Ether is because i believe it has a very strong case for acting as popular settlement layer, Chain robustness and Snowman consensus make a great combo desu
>Every subnets need to secure multiple validators, thousands/millions (depends on the size of the application) of AVAX per subnet which'll cause liquidity crisis long term
>AVAX will be used for moving across subnets
>Subnets will need to lock millions of $ in AMMs to provide liquidity
>General use cases subnets are probably going to be the most popular subnets, These subnets will use AVAX for gas and do probably tens/hundreds of millions of txs per day in aggerate
>Many subnets, especially those who care about decentralisation, will use AVAX as gas token because it's far easier to incentivise validators with AVAX instead of unattractive native token they use for their dapp
>Even if they use their own native token, Avalanche validators can and probably will demand payment in AVAX so those subnets will need to buy AVAX in order to incentive them

Unrelated key feature that stem from Avalanche architecture:
>Validating subnets will possibly be a cheat code to financial freedom, Imagine how many people will surge to buy a validators if it proves to be as profitable as it sound in theory.. We'll have to wait and see.

[Anonymous No.49373927]

>>49373213
Why can’t the Hashgraph scale?

[Anonymous No.49374061]

>>49373436
>>49373866
I'll note that a single Crab game made AVAX burn at pace of 7M AVAX per year, Imagine how much AVAX will be burned if Subnets take off.

Also, The whole notion of revenue through tx fees is a meme i feel shamed Ethereum people used as excuse to say "everything is alright here", Bitcoin never had a great revenue (I believe Avalanche itself generated more value through tx fees for months), So are most things, From land to commodities, But they're things of value, Avalanche has max supply and the economic design long term is deflationary, AVAX is potentially very scarce property.

[Anonymous No.49374466]

>>49373201
Youre a fucking retard jesus christ kill yourself.
Stop wasting pixels on my screen you shit muncher.
>>49373109

Kadena

[Anonymous No.49374573]

>>49373067
>>49373050
What is this site anon?

[Anonymous No.49374581]

>>49373866
Lots of text, literally 2 real points, all of them dogshit and most unrelated because you just copy pasted. I'll bite thought because I'm actually an autistic retard who can't stand things not being as they supposed to be:

>(or maybe even more chains they'll add to the primary network)
You fundamentally can't add unlimited main chains, all of them would need to talk to one another which works with 3-maybe-10 chains but if you want to scale you need 1000+ chains which, duh, doesn't work with their architecture but this is the first time I heard someone talk about it and whoever wrote that is clearly clinically retarded, so I shouldn't have gone autismo on that one line.
>will burn AVAX and reduce the supply.
lazy copy paste job we are not talking about this
>The primary network is likely to take all of the DeFi activity
The C chain? The one chain which is already proving that avax's claims of anything +50 tps (while having low fees) are a lie?
>(Subnets are mostly for gaming/CLOBs/IOT etc).
>The C-Chain will act as the main settlement layer for Rollups too,
unrelated nonsense written by someone who doesn't even know how avax works.
>i hold AVAX in addition to Ether is because i believe it has a very strong case for acting as popular settlement layer
It really does not, it's an unscalable VC pump and dump and is not reliable enough to be a settlement layer for anything let alone shitty dog tokens.

>>Many subnets, especially those who care about decentralisation, will use AVAX as gas token because it's far easier to incentivise validators with AVAX instead of unattractive native token they use for their dapp
I love this, "they will have to use AVAX because maybe it will be better for validators, y-yes they don't have to but they might :DD"
Absolute cope, the purest copium I've tasted today
> can and probably will demand payment in AVAX
Probably, fucking kek

Stop frogposting you fucking clown.

[Anonymous No.49374608]

as a side note, the topic of discussion here is the security of Subnets, nothing else. If anyone here is trying to copy paste retard points that are not related to this, then they should not be taken seriously.

[Anonymous No.49374718]

>>49374581
>You fundamentally can't add unlimited main chains, all of them would need to talk to one another which works with 3-maybe-10 chains but if you want to scale you need 1000+ chains which, duh, doesn't work with their architecture but this is the first time I heard someone talk about it and whoever wrote that is clearly clinically retarded, so I shouldn't have gone autismo on that one line.

I never said unlimited, But they can add another one or two, The only irreplaceable chain is the P-Chain.

>The C chain? The one chain which is already proving that avax's claims of anything +50 tps (while having low fees) are a lie?

The C-Chain is the most scalable EVM chain so i don't get your point? It scaled 1500+ validators at Ethereum level load while maintaining instant finality and relatively cheap txs. All other limitations are down the the VM bytecode, You can't bypass it directly but need more sophisticated methods, I believe Avalanche is working on state pruning which's allow them to remove wasted state and as a result to increase the gas limit without increasing the pace of state growth

Rest of your comment is a waste of time, stop with the hate anon

[Anonymous No.49374798]

>>49374718
>But they can add another one or two
meaningless

>The C-Chain is the most scalable EVM chain so i don't get your point?
>It scaled 1500+ validators at Ethereum level
You realize this is a problem that PoS invented? PoW never had any problem with validators(nodes for miners or not) on PoW you can have literally 100k validators without ANY issues. Bringing this up to me is a very shady point.
>All other limitations are down the the VM bytecode, You can't bypass it directly but need more sophisticated methods,
Nonsense, I know there are le epic limitations of the EVM but they only appear when you do 300tps, avax shat the bed at around 100? But none of this matters because irregardless of the limitations of the EVM, avax cannot scale a single low bandwidth chain to any reasonable throughput. And avax shills know that, which is why they try to shill their shitty L2 sidechain solution.
>I believe Avalanche is working on state pruning which's allow them to remove wasted state and as a result to increase the gas limit without increasing the pace of state growth
i.e. increasing blocksize, the only way that modern L1s scale in 2022, isn't that fucking crazy.

Anyway, see >>49374608

[Anonymous No.49374810]

>>49374718
>Rest of your comment is a waste of time
Nigger you copy pasted an unrelated wall of text and you call my post a waste of time? Jump off a bridge.

[Anonymous No.49374822]

>>49374608
Shared security is one narrative out of many, It doesn't make sense in Subnets architecture (But can be done easily tho).

Shared security only make sense in the modular design, When you're taking things off-chain, Mostly because the limitations on network robustness growth are immense and flexibility is sacrificed. That's why i said C-Chain (Or other Subnets that borrowed sufficient amount from Avalanche primary network validators "pool") will serve a settlement layer for those who want shared security. It's the perfect network design for maintaining network robustness and allowing all scaling philosophies to flourish in the protocol, Add to that Avalanche consensus and you get a very sound and strong protocol, Rightnow and especially in the long run

[Anonymous No.49374833]

>>49374581
>Stop frogposting
Get the fuck out

[Anonymous No.49374839]

>>49374798
Oh fuck you're the KDA tranny lmao

[Anonymous No.49374841]

>>49374822
>Shared security is one narrative out of many, It doesn't make sense
Now this, This is the cope I was waiting for.
>Shared security only make sense in
oh yeah keep going
>C-Chain will serve a settlement layer for those who want shared security.
Congesting the C-Chain because that's how you make L2 actually work + stay secure, I love it.
Avax can't scale.

Are you done?

[Anonymous No.49374854]

>>49374839
>>49374833
shoo shoo

[Anonymous No.49374871]

>>49373109
>Only chains which solve scaling L1 can survive. Explain to me which can.
BSV
ICP
dyor don't expect to be spoofed

[Anonymous No.49374883]

>>49374841
>Putting things out of context this blatantly

One day i'll find a shred of dignity in you KDA tranny

[Anonymous No.49374891]

>>49374883
If you had a better argument you would have made one.