Last week I wrote about my predictions regarding the relationship between smart contract platforms such as Ethereum (ETH), Cardano (ADA), and Solana (SOL). Then I wrote that working together in the form of interoperability would be a more logical development than a battlefield between different projects. Despite the fact that these platforms have more or less the same goal, there are a number of key differences that one simply cannot ignore. In this week’s Timo article, I look at one such factor.
Compete but don’t erase
But first I will mention some interesting phrases from Solana founder Anatoly Yakovenko that fit well with my column from last week. This week, he spoke in an interview about the competition between different networks. He himself has stated that his Solana is not at all an “Ethereum killer,” a label that many people (myself included) are happy to print on smaller altcoins every now and then.
Various crypto projects involve large groups of developers and other individuals who have a greater vision of the future of crypto and the world. While the networks are technologically different from one another, they are “extremely resilient to anyone – or things – trying to kill”. According to the founder.
“Many people are enthusiastic about both approaches [Ethereum en Solana] They are good at competition. It makes us both better.”
In the end, it will be the users who decide which networks work best for them. Like I said, I don’t think there is one The winner takes it all will be the situation. However, there are aspects that we cannot ignore when we compare networks to each other. One was well revealed this week by Messari researcher Ryan Watkins.
credibility and impartiality
Blockchain technology is largely about decentralization and neutrality. These are very important factors illustrated by the fact that the creator(s) of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto, is unknown/unknown. As a result, there is no connection point at the origin of Bitcoin, and therefore Bitcoin in principle does not belong to anyone and everyone at the same time.
There are some striking differences with smart contract platforms when it comes to decentralization and neutrality. I love these platforms token sales To achieve the launch of the network through the example Initial Coin Offering (ICO). But the distribution of these tokens varies from project to project. Watkins showed off this tweet this week:
With the smart contract wars intensifying, it is important to keep in mind the distribution of power and wealth on each blockchain.
The initial distribution of the tokens may not be everything, but in the end we may find that these early decisions had lasting effects on the reliable neutrality of these systems. pic.twitter.com/ii3W6yOp52
– Ryan Watkins (@RyanWatkins_) August 31, 2021
Blue indicates the percentage of coins sold during public sale rounds, and which rounds anyone can participate in. Red is the percentage of icons assigned to insiders (people within the project). We see some networks with a nice big blue area, which means that the vast majority of the tokens in these networks were sold during the public rounds. A good sign in light of decentralization and neutrality.
On the other hand, networks such as Solana, Binance Chain, Flow, and Terra have large red areas. Insiders get their hands on a good portion of the icons here. Of course, these distros don’t say everything. However, it is something to keep in mind as we seem to be entering a period when these networks start to compete more aggressively with each other.
Insiders are those who work on the project or otherwise contribute. So it is in their best interest for the network to develop properly. And those with the highest value in their hands had some measure of power. Moreover, one can often vote with tokens on developments within networks. Is this a factor that could have a significant impact on the future of the various smart contract platforms? Real crypto and blockchain that hardness He will say yes.
