DApp Store | Web3 Hub tapahtumille ja peleille

Trendaavat aiheet

HJ | Radius

BD at @radius_xyz

The Ethereum L2 ecosystem is maturing, but stakeholders are still not economically aligned. Blockchain is becoming the new standard for next-gen financial infrastructure, but some parts remain closed, and revenue pipelines are not transparent. Radius is solving the asymmetry and non-transparent MEV issues by building a fairly distributed pipeline.

Amazing to see so many major L2s now at stage 1. The next goal we should shoot for is, in my view, fast (<1h) withdrawal times, enabled by validity (aka ZK) proof systems. I consider this even more important than stage 2. Fast withdrawal times are important because waiting a week to withdraw is simply far too long for people, and even for intent-based bridging (eg. ERC-7683), the cost of capital becomes too high if the liquidity provider has to wait a week. This creates large incentives to instead use solutions with unacceptable trust assumptions (eg. multisigs/MPC) that undermine the whole point of having L2s instead of fully independent L1s. If we can reduce native withdrawal times to under 1h short term, and 12s medium term, then we can further cement the Ethereum L1 as the default place to issue assets, and the economic center of the Ethereum ecosystem. To do this, we need to move away from optimistic proof systems, which inherently require waiting multiple days to withdraw. Historically, ZK proof tech has been immature and expensive, which made optimistic proofs the smart and safe choice. But recently, this is changing rapidly. is an excellent place to track the progress of ZK-EVM proofs, which have been improving rapidly. Formal verification on ZK proofs is also advancing. Earlier this year, I proposed a 2-of-3 ZK + OP + TEE proof system strategy that threads the needle between security, speed and maturity: * 2 of 3 systems (ZK, OP) are trustless, so no single actor (incl TEE manufacturer or side channel attacker) can break the proof system by violating a trust assumption * 2 of 3 systems (ZK, TEE) are instant, so you get fast withdrawals in the normal case * 2 of 3 systems (TEE, OP) have been in production in various contexts for years This is one approach; perhaps people will opt to instead do ZK + ZK + OP tiebreak, or ZK + ZK + security council tiebreak. I have no strong opinions here, I care about the underlying goal, which is to be fast (in the normal case) and secure. With such proof systems, the only remaining bottleneck to fast settlement becomes the gas cost of submitting proofs onchain. This is why short term I say once per hour: if you try to submit a 500k+ gas ZK proof (or a 5m gas STARK) much more often, it adds a high additional cost. In the longer term, we can solve this with aggregation: N proofs from N rollups (plus txs from privacy-protocol users) can be replaced by a single proof that proves the validity of the N proofs. This becomes economical to submit once per slot, enabling the endgame: near-instant native cross-L2 asset movement through the L1. Let's work together to make this happen.

HJ | Radius kirjasi uudelleen

Amazing to see so many major L2s now at stage 1. The next goal we should shoot for is, in my view, fast (<1h) withdrawal times, enabled by validity (aka ZK) proof systems. I consider this even more important than stage 2. Fast withdrawal times are important because waiting a week to withdraw is simply far too long for people, and even for intent-based bridging (eg. ERC-7683), the cost of capital becomes too high if the liquidity provider has to wait a week. This creates large incentives to instead use solutions with unacceptable trust assumptions (eg. multisigs/MPC) that undermine the whole point of having L2s instead of fully independent L1s. If we can reduce native withdrawal times to under 1h short term, and 12s medium term, then we can further cement the Ethereum L1 as the default place to issue assets, and the economic center of the Ethereum ecosystem. To do this, we need to move away from optimistic proof systems, which inherently require waiting multiple days to withdraw. Historically, ZK proof tech has been immature and expensive, which made optimistic proofs the smart and safe choice. But recently, this is changing rapidly. is an excellent place to track the progress of ZK-EVM proofs, which have been improving rapidly. Formal verification on ZK proofs is also advancing. Earlier this year, I proposed a 2-of-3 ZK + OP + TEE proof system strategy that threads the needle between security, speed and maturity: * 2 of 3 systems (ZK, OP) are trustless, so no single actor (incl TEE manufacturer or side channel attacker) can break the proof system by violating a trust assumption * 2 of 3 systems (ZK, TEE) are instant, so you get fast withdrawals in the normal case * 2 of 3 systems (TEE, OP) have been in production in various contexts for years This is one approach; perhaps people will opt to instead do ZK + ZK + OP tiebreak, or ZK + ZK + security council tiebreak. I have no strong opinions here, I care about the underlying goal, which is to be fast (in the normal case) and secure. With such proof systems, the only remaining bottleneck to fast settlement becomes the gas cost of submitting proofs onchain. This is why short term I say once per hour: if you try to submit a 500k+ gas ZK proof (or a 5m gas STARK) much more often, it adds a high additional cost. In the longer term, we can solve this with aggregation: N proofs from N rollups (plus txs from privacy-protocol users) can be replaced by a single proof that proves the validity of the N proofs. This becomes economical to submit once per slot, enabling the endgame: near-instant native cross-L2 asset movement through the L1. Let's work together to make this happen.

Thoughts on the Word “Narrative” The word “narrative” is something we hear very often in crypto. Personally, I wasn’t all that familiar with the term until I entered the crypto space. We frequently hear expressions like “Narrative is important.” This phrase gets thrown around in various contexts—when choosing what to invest in, when we decide which market to target, and when marketing a product. Even though the word "Narrative" is often used and considered as important, but many people are moving forward with their investments without making a real effort to understand what it actually means. “Narrative,” in its literal sense, refers to storytelling, a plot, or a sequence of events tied together. But dictionary definition is too abstract compared to how we actually use the term in crypto. After giving it some thought, I came to the conclusion that narratives ultimately stem from pain points in the market. @KaitoAI, for example, became the leader of the “InfoFi” narrative by addressing the fatigue that users and projects were feeling with Web3 quest-based marketing platforms. @Celestia tackled scalability limitations of Ethereum by providing a DA Layer, addressing the pain points of chain builders—and in doing so, became a leader in its own narrative. @EigenLayer solved the security issues faced by Ethereum middleware and modular infrastructure projects through a concept called “Shared Security,” identifying a key pain point and taking leadership in that narrative. These projects that have emerged as narrative leaders all started by identifying a real pain point in the market. From there, they gained empathy and resonance and become a leader of market. Of course, some of the narrative leaders still struggle to prove clear use cases of hypotheses they proposed. Historically in crypto, hype was driven more by narrative than by proven use cases. What matters is that the pain points they defined earned the market’s empathy and resonance. Right now, stablecoins, RWA, and institutional adoption dominate the prevailing narratives. If you want to truly understand these narratives, you need to understand: — What pain points stablecoins, RWA, and tokenization are trying to solve, — And how much market empathy they are likely to generate. It’s not easy. But being able to identify real market problems and pain points is key to surviving long-term in the crypto space. (And I’m still learning too—so I hope to meet others on CT who want to grow this skill with me.)

네러티브(Narrative)란 단어에 대한 단상. 네러티브란 단어는 크립토에서 굉장히 자주 쓰이고 익숙하죠. 사실 저는 네러티브라는 단어에 크립토에 들어오기 전에는 그렇게 익숙하지는 않았습니다. "네러티브가 중요하다" 이 말 굉장히 여러가지 맥락에서 사용되곤 합니다. 어떤 투자 종목을 찾을 때, 또 빌더로써 시장을 선택할때, 프로덕트를 마케팅 할 때 모두 네러티브라는 단어를 빈번하게 사용하곤 합니다. 그런데 이렇게 많이 쓰이고 중요한 단어에 대해서 과연 그 의미를 진짜로 파악해보려고 노력했는가하면, 많은 사람들이 그런 시도가 배재 된 채로 투자를 진행하고 있다고 생각이 듭니다. 네러티브(Narrative)는 단어 그대로는 스토리 텔링, 서사, 사건을 이은 이야기를 뜻합니다. 이렇게 뜻만 놓고 보면 사실 저희가 늘상 쓰는 네러티브라는 단어에 비해 너무 추상적으로 느껴지는 게 사실이죠. 그래서 생각해본 결과 네러티브는 결국 시장의 Pain Point로 부터 출발한다는 결론을 내렸습니다. @KaitoAI 는 기존에 존했던 웹3 퀘스트 플랫폼의 마케팅 방식에 지쳐가고, 질력가던 프로젝트와 유저의 페인포인트를 해결하여 InfoFi라는 네러티브의 리더가 되었습니다. @celestia는 이더리움이 가지고 있는 확장성의 측면에서의 한계를 DA Layer라는 솔루션을 제공하면서 체인 빌더 페인포인트를 해결하고 네러티브의 리더가 되었습니다. @eigenlayer는 이더리움 미들웨어 및 모듈러 인프라들 겪는 보안성 문제를 Shared Security 라는 솔루션을 통해 페인포인트를 해결하고 네러티브의 리더가 되었습니다. 이처럼 새로운 네러티브의 리더가 된 프로젝트들은 시장에 존재하는 페인 포인트를 파악하고, 그것으로부터 공감을 얻으며 리더 반열에 올랐습니다. 물론 그들 중에는 그들이 제시한 가설에 비해 확실한 유즈케이스를 증명하지 못하는 경우도 있지요. 크립토에서 프로젝트의 hype 은 유즈케이스가 분명해서 발생했다고 말하기 어려운 경우가 지금까지는 대부분이었으니까요. 그러나 중요한 것은 이들이 정의한 페인 포인트가 시장의 공감을 얻었다는 것 입니다. 지금은 스테이블 코인, RWA 및 기관 채택이 네러티브의 큰 축을 차지하고 있죠. 이 네러티브를 이해하고 싶다면, 스테이블 코인, RWA, Tokenization 등이 시장의 어떤 페인포인트를 해결하고자 하는 것이고, 그것이 얼마만큼 시장의 공감을 얻을 것인지를 이해야합니다. 어려운 일이긴 하지만 시장의 문제를 정의하고 페인포인트를 찾아내는 능력을 기르는 것, 그것이 장기적으로 크립토 시장에서 살아남는 법이 아닐까요? (그리고 저도 쪼랩이라 같이 능력을 키워갈 사람들을 CT에서 만나고 싶습니다.)

Johtavat

Rankkaus

Suosikit

Ketjussa trendaava

Trendaa X:ssä

Viimeisimmät suosituimmat rahoitukset

Merkittävin