DApp Store | Web3 Hub tapahtumille ja peleille

Trendaavat aiheet

Brendan Farmer

works on ZK @0xPolygon, previously mir

Finally, this is great news. The best person to run a startup is its founder. Over the past few years, Polygon has led the industry in ZK R&D with plonky2 and plonky3 (I'm biased as this is my and @dlubarov 's team 😁) But Polygon's real strength, its DNA, is in taking products to market and dominating in growth and BD. It hasn't been able to for the past few years, but it's finally going back to its roots. Despite the best efforts of the Hermez team, the zkEVM project wasn't successful and will be deprecated. But this is a positive move because it means Polygon will be able to focus completely on Polygon PoS and the Agglayer. Since I first started thinking about the AL in early 2023, the technical vision hasn't really changed. But now there's a sound strategy around go-to-market with Katana and other chains. Polygon PoS is quietly gaining traction and will ship incredible technical improvements later this year. Excited to see Polygon back in the market.

BIG update - As the largest holder of POL and someone who dedicated his life to development and success of @0xPolygon from the very beginning, I have decided to take full control of Polygon Foundation and will be its CEO going forward. Polygon Foundation owns and oversees multiple entities including one of the major contributors, Polygon Labs, which will continue to be led by Marc Boiron @0xMarcB as its CEO, who in my mind is the best executive/leader in the entire crypto industry. I’ve always stayed away from moving into the CEO role because I’ve been focused on building PF as an institutionally governed foundation. But right now, Polygon needs clear direction and focused execution and that means stepping up. With a healthy treasury and several hundred million in cash, we’re in a great position to keep building for the long term, without any distractions or pressure to raise. Today, I’m announcing a series of much-needed changes designed to deliver greater value to POL stakers and bring increased clarity to the broader market. 1. We will depreciate Polygon zkEVM next year. Polygon’s razor focus is going to be Polygon PoS and @Agglayer, nothing else. Polygon PoS will focus on Stablecoin payments and RWAs, while Agglayer will focus on building a trustless Internet of Blockchains. 2. The first milestone of the Polygon POS's Gigagas roadmap is now live in testnet. This first upgrade pushes network capacity beyond 1,000 transactions per second early July and it's only the beginning. We already have the plan to move to zero reorgs and <1 second finality with >5000 TPS achieved in a devnet enviornment. This will put Polygon PoS amongst the most performant blockchains by Sept-Oct timeframe. And beyond that, we have a clear path to scale to 100k+ TPS over next few years. These upgrades massively increase the economic viability of Polygon protocol and thereby the value for POL stakers. 3. Agglayer v0.3 has been in the making and I am announcing week of June 30th as the rollout date. This version of Agglayer is feature complete except fast interop which we anticipate to be completed by end of Q3. We are back to massive shipping mode. 4. The Agglayer Breakout program will continue to spin off projects resulting in increased focus for Polygon PoS and Agglayer and massive airdrops to POL stakers. We are in the business of building blockchain networks and ZK is an important tool to bring that internet level scalability to blockchains. We have contributed a lot to ZK and will continue to do so in a more neutral way by spinning out more of ZK research efforts. Next up is Polygon ZisK led by Jordi Baylina @jbaylina. More to come. 5. Now that the SEC has dropped its investigations and lawsuits related to MATIC as a security, which should have never existed given the nature of MATIC (and now POL), we are excited to see several large market makers coming back to the table in recent days to make markets in POL that strengthens the liquidity of POL on exchanges globally. 6. The Foundation will also engage in educational campaigns to ensure everyone is aware of the upgrade of MATIC to POL. 7. Bringing the Polygon brand front and center into what was previously the neutral Agglayer brand. It’s time to align the ecosystem more clearly and boldly under the Polygon identity. Also, going forward, major announcements from Polygon often will come from my twitter account, so follow me to be up to date and turn on your notifications. So why am I doing this? During 2021-22, we made a real effort to institutionalise the project by onboarding some amazing people as co-founders and board members and laying the foundation for scaling Polygon from the 10-100 stage of a venture. But little did I know, Ethereum itself was going to go into an existential crisis that would pull Polygon and the entire Ethereum ecosystem right back to the 1-to-10 stage … or by some measures, even 0-to-1. And the 0-to-1 stage is a different beast. It needs speed, courage to make bold bets, and the ability to handle failure. Also, the crypto industry has changed from being research centric to user centric and Polygon needs to change accordingly. Institutional setups and board structures are great for stability, but they tend to produce average-case decisions — not the sharp, aggressive moves needed to deliver exponential outcomes. Polygon is now back as a zero to one startup setup. With the support of an incredible team at Polygon Labs, and strong leadership including Marc @0xMarcB, Mudit Gupta @Mudit__Gupta (CTO), Ryan (COO) @web3RyanN and many others we are going to BRING IT. Let’s play!

I realized that I don't know what "global price discovery at the speed of light" actually means. As I understand it, the thesis is that if there's a trading venue operated by a globally decentralized validator set, then anytime there's an event anywhere in the world, a trade can be included by the nearest block producer and propagated to the rest of the network for price formation. Nodes located in Djibouti don't have a disadvantage vs nodes located in NYC or London (for trading on information that originated in Djibouti). By contrast, venues like NASDAQ, Binance, Coinbase, Hyperliquid operate in a single geographic location. Traders who are colocated with these venues or who can get information to these venues more quickly have an advantage. Note that trading venues that are not globally decentralized can operate at much lower latency, which improves liquidity, compresses spreads, etc. The claim is that global price discovery at the speed of light will be better than NASDAQ, because someone who sees a critical event happen in Singapore can immediately trade on that information before the light cone even reaches NYC. Ok. There's an immediate problem, which is that decentralized NASDAQ will underperform NASDAQ on all information that originates near NYC, because NASDAQ's matching engine operates at much lower latency. Financial activity tends to be localized around financial hubs, so decentralized NASDAQ will underperform in the average case. But I'm not sure that I understand the microstructure. Let's say that an event happens in Taiwan that affects NVDA. I submit a trade to the Taiwanese block producer and this trade is propagated through the rest of the network. It seems like the same problem exists in both decentralized and centralized NASDAQ. Market makers are providing liquidity for NVDA globally, in NYC, London, by submitting trades to local block producers. As a taker/aggressor, if I can be the fastest to get information from Taiwan to these block producers, I can pick off those orders and make money at market makers' expense. Depending on the ordering in MCP, my trades might end up being placed higher in the block than those from the block producer in Taiwan. This seems like the same case as if I'm fastest in getting information from Taiwan to NASDAQ in NJ: I'll make money. But given that decentralized NASDAQ is at a disadvantage in how quickly it can match orders, it's hard for me to see how it's not strictly worse from a liquidity and execution standpoint. Even with dedicated fiber networks like doublezero, I'd imagine that professionalized HFT firms will either take priority for themselves on lines that they lease to decentralized protocols, or they'll outbid protocols for priority on information that they can profitably exploit. The actors with the strongest incentive to be fast should be fastest in propagating information. Of course, there are benefits to decentralization: permissionless access, liveness, censorship-resistance, different mechanism design, etc. But it seems like "global price discovery at the speed of light" already exists. Traders compete to be the first to communicate information from where it originates to a trading venue...at (almost) the speed of light.

The progress made by @SuccinctLabs and @RiscZero toward real-time proving has been super impressive. QT-ing not to be critical but because I think these questions are really interesting (and I would like to see RTP hit Ethereum!). 1. Proving all historical Ethereum blocks within 12s is not sufficient to cover worst-case prover time. This is important because there are possible pathological ("prover-killer") blocks where proving cost >> gas cost (proving cost is a measure of latency or $). The first step is proving all historical blocks within 12s. But this isn't enough. We need to work to identify pathological cases that haven't shown up on Ethereum yet. Not sure what the cost schedule is for SP1, but something like an entire block full of extcodehash could be expensive in latency terms. 2. Formal Verification also needs to cover the compiler 😱 @argumentxyz had a good article about the frequency at which compiler bugs are found ( tl;dr there's a specific class of "mis-optimization bugs" that could potentially be exploitable in zkVMs to create soundness issues. These bugs are found fairly frequently. @drakefjustin has argued that we can get around this with many zkVM implementations. But that doesn't work if those zkVMs share the same compiler toolchain and are vulnerable to the same bugs. 3. At-home proving is not needed I think that I agree that at-home proving isn't necessary. We already rely on extra-protocol actors like builders to construct blocks. The guarantee that we want is that *someone* is always available to generate proofs. Deferring RTP for the WW3 scenario where all provers go offline seems like overkill. Maybe in this scenario, Ethereum could default back to a mode where the gas limit decreases and blocks are re-executed rather verified with ZKPs. 4. 100x-ing the gas limit could create issues Parallelized proving definitely helps, but timing is so tight that we need to consider witness generation (not parallelizable in many zkVMs) and recursion. Recursion overhead should scale logarithmically, but if the gas limit increases by 100x, proving times could exceed block times. Bonus - I'd argue that it's really important for Ethereum to reduce block times and time to finality, in order to help users onboard to L2s, bridge from CEXs, etc. This increases the latency demands on proving. It would be suboptimal if we're unable to move to 1s block times because the lower bound on worst-case RTP latency is 10s.

Johtavat

Rankkaus

Suosikit

Ketjussa trendaava

Trendaa X:ssä

Viimeisimmät suosituimmat rahoitukset

Merkittävin