LogFAQs > #975011978

TheMikh posted...

not fond of gatekeeping, but the sector would be well-served by a metaregulatory apparatus, with or without state regulation. basically taking advantage of the verifiability and transparency inherent to the sector to roll out services assisting users in vetting protocols, contracts, addresses for reputability and safety. custodial services should be completely and utterly rebuked except as on/offramps and providers of liquidity towards that ends, with all facets of onchain ux being further refined towards the ends of ending reliance on custodial services. much easier said than done, but important.

Agreed. But I don't see custodial services going away until we get to the point where managing wallets is dummy proof. Well, that's the goal for smart contract wallets I hear.

it seems unlikely that zk chains will be spearheading crosschain since the zkevm is a challenge they've been consumed by for a couple years at this point, but there's a burgeoning subsector of expressive zk communications and data protocols that seem posed to nibble on the oracle market share. if chainlink/ccip consumes less gas relative to traditional communications protocols, zk eliminates that gas completely - or at least sends it offchain to the end user or whoever's generating the proof of computation or data.

To my knowledge CCIP doesn't consume less gas (I suppose not directly directly), it purely allows you to program transactions you want on each blockchain. So the gas reduction would come from you utilizing a low gas costing blockchain for the bulk of your transactions.

But the examples you give definitely prove to be a competitor to CCIP. What I do see as an obstacle in stealing marketshare from Chainlink is Chainlink currently having a strong network effect where they already have tools integrated in everyone's tech stacks already. In addition, banks have their own private blockchains they use that are gas free since they control the network, the nodes and know and permit who's making the transactions on there. They would need a reason to upgrade their private blockchains to ZK chains.

I'm not too arrogant to ignore the threat of ZK chains, it is something to pay attention to in the future.

whitelytning posted...

TC, isnt DOT a bridge that was supposed to allow different chains to communicate? What does this announcement mean for that?

Polkadot honestly is way overengineered. You have parachains and a relay chain, and have to auction chains, and there is the Kusama network and the Polkadot network overall and in the end, everyone is busy working on the chain the creator of Polkadot originally created, Ethereum and its EVM counterparts. I don't understand the chain at all. The thing is, the impression I got from the Polkadot's interoperability functionality is that it's limited to within the Polkadot network. I do recall hearing about some develop work to connect to Ethereum, but that's Polkadot to Ethereum. Not Ethereum to some other chain using Polkadot as an interface.

But since Chainlink announced CCIP from back in 2021, I've seen people clowning on Polkadot with CCIP for doing what Polkadot intended to solve.

Doom_Art posted...

Also, it's very telling that in almost no cases is the goal ever to "stay" in crypto. The goal is to buy it "low" then when the value gets high enough, trade it for real currency.

Refer to my post #34. People who understand the value of smart contracts get the end goal of crypto and stay in crypto because they want to usher in the next evolution of the internet. People who don't understand this (virtually 80% of the participants) are just in it for the profits.

If you want to truly understand the point of this industry and why it has persisted for over a decade you have to understand the value of a smart contract. Read #34 over and/or watch that video I posted.