XCM

kkye4

Totally fair take—and one a lot of long-time DOT holders are quietly sharing right now. You’re not alone in feeling that Polkadot’s momentum in terms of hype and narrative has cooled off, while Chainlink’s narrative is heating up again, especially around CCIP (Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol). Here’s a breakdown to help you think it through: ⸻ Polkadot vs. Chainlink: Current Sentiment & Traction Polkadot (DOT) • Strengths: • Solid tech (shared security, parachains). • A dedicated dev community (Substrate framework is still used a lot). • Active in Web3 governance and cross-chain communication (XCM). • Weaknesses: • Sluggish adoption of parachains by killer apps. • Governance changes and the move to Polkadot 2.0 confused many holders. • Lack of hype and media buzz—it’s become more of an “infra” project, not a shiny consumer-facing ecosystem. Chainlink (LINK) • Strengths: • CCIP is gaining real traction—big names like SWIFT, DTCC, and tokenized asset platforms are experimenting or integrating it. • Chainlink’s oracle dominance is unmatched. • Maintains strong partnerships and buzz, especially in the real-world asset (RWA) narrative. • Weaknesses: • Centralization concerns (Oracle committees). • Some argue it’s more enterprise-facing than retail-focused. • Still working on fee/value accrual mechanisms for LINK token holders. ⸻ Community & Hype Shift • LINK’s hype is back, especially among DeFi and TradFi crossover folks. • DOT feels like it’s drifting—some of its original backers have shifted attention to other chains like Cosmos, Near, or modular solutions like Celestia. ⸻ If You’re Considering Rotating DOT into LINK • From a narrative momentum perspective, LINK is arguably in a much better position in 2025. • That said, DOT is probably undervalued on a purely tech basis—if Polkadot 2.0 ever clicks or parachains take off, it could be a sleeper. • If you’re more into momentum and growth narratives, LINK might feel more “alive.” • If you’re still a believer in long-term infrastructure bets, keeping some DOT or rotating only part might make sense. ⸻

0ne_too

I'm gonna disagree with you on a couple points. > THE chain for cross-chain interoperability and scalability. XCM, parachains If you used other chains you'd see Dot is barely par for the course on all these. Dot cross chain interop is basic at best. I see a couple non-dot assets on Hydration and Stellaswap but compared to say Osmosis it's pretty far behind the curve. XCM still isn't anywhere as good as IBC. I'm not sure what the main Dot bridge is built with Dot tech? What's the name of it? As far as scalability, everything scales now. We all scale. Pretty sure every chain out there could run a test with fake tx's that would show xxxxxxTPS. > DOT’s ecosystem is on fire. Moonbeam, Acala, Astar Weird you said those. Shoulda said OrginTrail like that one guy who's been bringing it up recently. These you listed, not the cream of the crop. Moonbeam is basic defi, Acala been hacked twice and never recovered, Astar has that Sony deal but that's more to do with the zkevm than Dot tech i'm pretty sure. In the press releases it was hard to find Dot mentioned, just that the Astar lead would be heading it. None of these are really real-world solution projects, just basic 2021/22 defi apps and to say they're on fire is just all kinds of wrong. > TRX and TON can’t even compete. 💪 Tron is asian Eth and Ton is with Telegram, one of the more successful web2 apps to come into web3. > With Polkadot 2.0 around the corner, faster block times, elastic scalability, and developer-friendly upgrades are going to put DOT miles ahead. While others struggle to keep pace Who's going to struggle to keep pace? Tech wise you guys are behind everybody else in most categories and you're getting close to Cardano territory on how long it takes you to ship stuff. The whole reason you have to wait for 2.0 is 1.0 wasn't anything anybody really wanted to use. If people wanted to have interop with you they would have made it happen. That's why i'm not buying the 2.0 thing. I don't think it's going to make any eth, move, sol or cosmos liquidity come over to dot. And i don't think having to pay dot for blockspace, one of the most plentiful things out there, is going to make any above average devs come over to dot. And it's not like nobody gave it a chance, lot of us tried it in the past 4 years and said no thanks and picked a different eco or ecos to invest in and i think those of us who use the tech are happy we did. If dot is the only project you use the tech with, you should really branch out and use some of these other chains, they're better in every way especially UX wise.

ponyo_fromglue

Great question!! Glue Network is designed with these challenges in mind and specifically tackles the blockchain trilemma—balancing scalability, security, and decentralization—head-on: 1. **Scalability:** Glue Network leverages the Substrate framework to create a modular and scalable ecosystem. Our Layer 1 is complemented by use-case optimized Layer 2 solutions, meaning we can handle a massive number of transactions efficiently. Each Layer 2 is tailored for specific applications, ensuring they run at peak performance without overloading the system. This modularity ensures that we can scale effectively without compromising the performance of individual applications. 2. **Interoperability:** We employ Cross-Consensus Messaging (XCM) to ensure seamless communication between different Layer 2 solutions. This eliminates the need for external bridges and allows for instantaneous asset transfers and data exchanges across the ecosystem. With XCM, different parts of the Glue Network can interact effortlessly, providing a unified user experience. 3. **Speed:** By optimizing each Layer 2 for specific use cases, we achieve faster transaction processing times. For example, a financial Layer 2 will have low latency for quick transactions, while a gaming Layer 2 can handle high-frequency interactions smoothly. This targeted optimization ensures that each Layer 2 can deliver the speed required for its particular use case. 4. **Privacy and Security:** Security is baked into our architecture with Layer 1 providing robust security guarantees for all Layer 2s. We offer customizable levels of censorship resistance based on the needs of each application. Additionally, our native multi-signature (multi-sig) functionality adds an extra layer of security, ensuring that users have full control and protection over their assets. By separating security from censorship resistance, we maintain high security standards while allowing flexibility in how censorship resistance is implemented. In essence, Glue Network is all about making blockchain technology practical and accessible while solving the big issues that have held back wider adoption. We’re creating a cohesive, efficient, and secure environment that’s ready for real-world applications, effectively balancing the demands of scalability, security, and decentralization.

CointestMod

#Avalanche Con-Arguments Below is a Avalanche con-argument written by a deleted user. > Avalanche is a relatively-new (only 1.5 years old) multi-blockchain crypto project whose token, AVAX, shot up into the top 10 cryptocurrencies by market cap in just 1 year. It has since fallen a bit. > > I have a separate summary of [Avalanche here](https://np.reddit.com/r/MPlankton/comments/ukjt2e/avalanche_research_summary/) that discusses the platform in more detail. > > This post only lists the CONs > > ##CONs > > **Limits to scalability** > > * The Avalanche C-Chain is a monolithic blockchain with a TPS limit of about 900 TPS. This is an upper limit that depends on how heavily smart contracts are being used. This is way slower than Algorand, which can already do 1000 TPS with with their Layer 1 smart contracts and can theoretically scale to [50K TPS](https://www.algorand.com/120720-Algorand%202021%20Performance.pdf) with higher block sizes and block pipelining. > * In addition, Avalanche does not plan to have Layer 2 scaling, so it can't compete against multi-layer blockchains. Instead, it supports subnets, which are siloed, independent blockchains that require insecure bridges to connect with other subnets. > > **Low adoption and Usage** > > * Ethereum still has an immense lead as a smart contract blockchain. No matter how better-designed and efficient Avalanche is, it may never catch up to Ethereum in terms of adoption. In DeFi, Ethereum has 10x Avalanche's TVL [DeFi Llama](https://defillama.com/chain/Avalanche). > * The X-Chain, designed for non-smart contract transactions, only sees 5000 transactions per **day** despite being technically superior to its biggest UTXO-competitors, Bitcoin and Cardano. That's about 1 transaction every minute. **Avalanche is often quoted as a 4500 TPS network, but this network is an absolute ghost town that doesn't even get 0.001 transaction per second of actual activity.** > > **Weak wallet support** > > * The C-Chain is supported by several wallets and multiple CEXs, but there's very limited external support for the other built-in chains. > * The Avalanche Core wallet is still under development, so most users are stuck with the limited Avalanche Web Wallet. > > **Subnet downsides** > > * **Subnets are moderately expensive.** It's recommended that subnets run at least 5 validators, each of which needs to stake a minimum of 2000 AVAX (over $100K USD as of May 2022). So the minimum-recommended 5 validator setup will cost $500K USD, making it pretty expensive to start a subnet unless you're borrowing existing validators. I suppose larger platforms like DeFi Kingdoms should have no problems with this cost since they have tens of millions in TVL in their subnet. I expect most subnets to end up being extremely centralized. > * **Subnets are independent blockchains that don't inherit security or interoperability** Unlike Ethereum Layer 2 rollups, subnets don't inherit security from Avalanche's built-in network. And unlike Polkadot's XCM and Cosmos Hub's IBC, there are no communications interoperability between Avalache's subnets. They're each on their own island and need insecure bridges to reach each other and the primary network. Why not build on Polkadot or Cosmos Hub, which have way more interoperability? > * **Subnets are mostly pointless**: Aside from inheriting some Avalanche infrastructure and blockchain tools, there's negative economic incentive to build a subnet on Avalanche. If you're developing a subnet, you're paying Avalanche validators to secure their primary network while getting nothing useful in return. > > **Very poor tokenomics for investors over the next several decades** > > * In summary, the network is sustained by high inflation, which is how it keeps transaction fees low. > * **Low circulating supply**: The circulating supply is currently only about 40% of its market cap. The AVAX token has 10% annual inflation and **can dilute its supply by another 150%**. Validators are paid by staking rewards, and those staking rewards account for a HUGE amount of annual inflation. Before the end of the decade, staking rewards will account for over 50% of the total circulating supply. > * **Supply dilution**: The annual inflation isn't that bad, but Messario.io reveals that the [vesting schedule](https://messari.io/asset/avalanche/profile/launch-and-initial-token-distribution) is really bad for public investors. It's looking at a 30% increase in supply from a combination of inflation and vesting in 2022, followed by a 22% increase in 2023. > * **Transaction fees are burned, but the transactions fees are so low that the [burnt amount is unnoticeable](https://burnedavax.com/).** Burns are in the tens of millions of dollars while issuance is 100x greater in the billions of dollars. Compare this to Ethereum's burn, [which currently reduces issuance by nearly 60%](https://watchtheburn.com/). ***** Would you like to learn more? Check out the [Cointest archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Avalanche) to find submissions for other topics.

fan_of_hakiksexydays

Their L1 is really about their L2s. It uses XCM, a cross-consensus system where you no longer need bridging, there's no longer a gap or friction with the L2s. It's an entire interconnected ecosystem with the L2s. The security is all done on L1, but it's no longer bogged down with smart contract and all that on an L1, so the L1 works faster and more efficiently. And they have multiple L2s catering for different needs. Some for speed and scablability, some for higher decentralization. Gabe, this is the future man. If the trilemma can't be solved directly on a single L1, this is how you solve it indirectly.

Mattie_Kadlec

Polkadot has defnitielly made an impact recently. >The active addresses increased both for parachains (+93%) and the Relay chain (+90%), while communications via the XCM grew by 150%. The ecosystem now counts 2,100 developers, ranking second in all of Web3. These are some impressive numbers imo.

3utt5lut

This is why I'm particularly more interested in Polkadot and developers working the bugs out before launching a new bridge. As long as XCM is applied to the network, the tokens will always have a way out (it'll just need to be built), unlike most of these one-way bridged networks that'll probably die off and gank your money.

StrB2x

Why Polkadot is my top investment. -Created by Dr. Gavin Wood, the man who coded ETH in a weekend. -Scalable with TPS to reach a million being the fastest chain out there. Decentralized- Polkadot is one of the top highest rated decentralized chains (isn't that why we should be here) L0- Polkadot is a layer 0, a super computer allowing USBs (L1s) to connect in and receive shared security. XCM - all L1s on DOT can communicate trustlessly. You can send assets between chains instantly through XCM. No more vulnerable bridges. Snowbridge to ETH - the most secure bridge in the space ever made connecting DOT to ETH. Hello liquidity. Open Gov- community driven direction. You have DOT, you can vote. You want to propose something valuable go ahead. Polkadot 2.0 - anyone can now build on DOT without doing the parachain model of the past. Buying blockspace on the open market. Staking- the highest reward vs inflation. Staking pays out around 18 to 20 percent when inflation is only 7.5. Alot of chains you break even Staking. Numerous companies are coming to DOT for Enterprise adoption. I can keep going, but to finish. Look at the recent gas fees. ETH is unscalable, AVAX c-chain going sky high, I like Solana but it is centralized and Polkadot will surpass its speed as well. ADA I haven't looked into much lately but they have started to work with Polkadot. Polkadots tech is superior and lead by the smartest man in the space who actually codes.

CointestMod

#Avalanche Con-Arguments Below is a Avalanche con-argument written by a deleted user. > Avalanche is a relatively-new (only 1.5 years old) multi-blockchain crypto project whose token, AVAX, shot up into the top 10 cryptocurrencies by market cap in just 1 year. It has since fallen a bit. > > I have a separate summary of [Avalanche here](https://np.reddit.com/r/MPlankton/comments/ukjt2e/avalanche_research_summary/) that discusses the platform in more detail. > > This post only lists the CONs > > ##CONs > > **Limits to scalability** > > * The Avalanche C-Chain is a monolithic blockchain with a TPS limit of about 900 TPS. This is an upper limit that depends on how heavily smart contracts are being used. This is way slower than Algorand, which can already do 1000 TPS with with their Layer 1 smart contracts and can theoretically scale to [50K TPS](https://www.algorand.com/120720-Algorand%202021%20Performance.pdf) with higher block sizes and block pipelining. > * In addition, Avalanche does not plan to have Layer 2 scaling, so it can't compete against multi-layer blockchains. Instead, it supports subnets, which are siloed, independent blockchains that require insecure bridges to connect with other subnets. > > **Low adoption and Usage** > > * Ethereum still has an immense lead as a smart contract blockchain. No matter how better-designed and efficient Avalanche is, it may never catch up to Ethereum in terms of adoption. In DeFi, Ethereum has 10x Avalanche's TVL [DeFi Llama](https://defillama.com/chain/Avalanche). > * The X-Chain, designed for non-smart contract transactions, only sees 5000 transactions per **day** despite being technically superior to its biggest UTXO-competitors, Bitcoin and Cardano. That's about 1 transaction every minute. **Avalanche is often quoted as a 4500 TPS network, but this network is an absolute ghost town that doesn't even get 0.001 transaction per second of actual activity.** > > **Weak wallet support** > > * The C-Chain is supported by several wallets and multiple CEXs, but there's very limited external support for the other built-in chains. > * The Avalanche Core wallet is still under development, so most users are stuck with the limited Avalanche Web Wallet. > > **Subnet downsides** > > * **Subnets are moderately expensive.** It's recommended that subnets run at least 5 validators, each of which needs to stake a minimum of 2000 AVAX (over $100K USD as of May 2022). So the minimum-recommended 5 validator setup will cost $500K USD, making it pretty expensive to start a subnet unless you're borrowing existing validators. I suppose larger platforms like DeFi Kingdoms should have no problems with this cost since they have tens of millions in TVL in their subnet. I expect most subnets to end up being extremely centralized. > * **Subnets are independent blockchains that don't inherit security or interoperability** Unlike Ethereum Layer 2 rollups, subnets don't inherit security from Avalanche's built-in network. And unlike Polkadot's XCM and Cosmos Hub's IBC, there are no communications interoperability between Avalache's subnets. They're each on their own island and need insecure bridges to reach each other and the primary network. Why not build on Polkadot or Cosmos Hub, which have way more interoperability? > * **Subnets are mostly pointless**: Aside from inheriting some Avalanche infrastructure and blockchain tools, there's negative economic incentive to build a subnet on Avalanche. If you're developing a subnet, you're paying Avalanche validators to secure their primary network while getting nothing useful in return. > > **Very poor tokenomics for investors over the next several decades** > > * In summary, the network is sustained by high inflation, which is how it keeps transaction fees low. > * **Low circulating supply**: The circulating supply is currently only about 40% of its market cap. The AVAX token has 10% annual inflation and **can dilute its supply by another 150%**. Validators are paid by staking rewards, and those staking rewards account for a HUGE amount of annual inflation. Before the end of the decade, staking rewards will account for over 50% of the total circulating supply. > * **Supply dilution**: The annual inflation isn't that bad, but Messario.io reveals that the [vesting schedule](https://messari.io/asset/avalanche/profile/launch-and-initial-token-distribution) is really bad for public investors. It's looking at a 30% increase in supply from a combination of inflation and vesting in 2022, followed by a 22% increase in 2023. > * **Transaction fees are burned, but the transactions fees are so low that the [burnt amount is unnoticeable](https://burnedavax.com/).** Burns are in the tens of millions of dollars while issuance is 100x greater in the billions of dollars. Compare this to Ethereum's burn, [which currently reduces issuance by nearly 60%](https://watchtheburn.com/). ***** Would you like to learn more? Check out the [Cointest archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Avalanche) to find submissions for other topics.

CointestMod

#Avalanche Con-Arguments Below is a Avalanche con-argument written by a deleted user. > Avalanche is a relatively-new (only 1.5 years old) multi-blockchain crypto project whose token, AVAX, shot up into the top 10 cryptocurrencies by market cap in just 1 year. It has since fallen a bit. > > I have a separate summary of [Avalanche here](https://np.reddit.com/r/MPlankton/comments/ukjt2e/avalanche_research_summary/) that discusses the platform in more detail. > > This post only lists the CONs > > ##CONs > > **Limits to scalability** > > * The Avalanche C-Chain is a monolithic blockchain with a TPS limit of about 900 TPS. This is an upper limit that depends on how heavily smart contracts are being used. This is way slower than Algorand, which can already do 1000 TPS with with their Layer 1 smart contracts and can theoretically scale to [50K TPS](https://www.algorand.com/120720-Algorand%202021%20Performance.pdf) with higher block sizes and block pipelining. > * In addition, Avalanche does not plan to have Layer 2 scaling, so it can't compete against multi-layer blockchains. Instead, it supports subnets, which are siloed, independent blockchains that require insecure bridges to connect with other subnets. > > **Low adoption and Usage** > > * Ethereum still has an immense lead as a smart contract blockchain. No matter how better-designed and efficient Avalanche is, it may never catch up to Ethereum in terms of adoption. In DeFi, Ethereum has 10x Avalanche's TVL [DeFi Llama](https://defillama.com/chain/Avalanche). > * The X-Chain, designed for non-smart contract transactions, only sees 5000 transactions per **day** despite being technically superior to its biggest UTXO-competitors, Bitcoin and Cardano. That's about 1 transaction every minute. **Avalanche is often quoted as a 4500 TPS network, but this network is an absolute ghost town that doesn't even get 0.001 transaction per second of actual activity.** > > **Weak wallet support** > > * The C-Chain is supported by several wallets and multiple CEXs, but there's very limited external support for the other built-in chains. > * The Avalanche Core wallet is still under development, so most users are stuck with the limited Avalanche Web Wallet. > > **Subnet downsides** > > * **Subnets are moderately expensive.** It's recommended that subnets run at least 5 validators, each of which needs to stake a minimum of 2000 AVAX (over $100K USD as of May 2022). So the minimum-recommended 5 validator setup will cost $500K USD, making it pretty expensive to start a subnet unless you're borrowing existing validators. I suppose larger platforms like DeFi Kingdoms should have no problems with this cost since they have tens of millions in TVL in their subnet. I expect most subnets to end up being extremely centralized. > * **Subnets are independent blockchains that don't inherit security or interoperability** Unlike Ethereum Layer 2 rollups, subnets don't inherit security from Avalanche's built-in network. And unlike Polkadot's XCM and Cosmos Hub's IBC, there are no communications interoperability between Avalache's subnets. They're each on their own island and need insecure bridges to reach each other and the primary network. Why not build on Polkadot or Cosmos Hub, which have way more interoperability? > * **Subnets are mostly pointless**: Aside from inheriting some Avalanche infrastructure and blockchain tools, there's negative economic incentive to build a subnet on Avalanche. If you're developing a subnet, you're paying Avalanche validators to secure their primary network while getting nothing useful in return. > > **Very poor tokenomics for investors over the next several decades** > > * In summary, the network is sustained by high inflation, which is how it keeps transaction fees low. > * **Low circulating supply**: The circulating supply is currently only about 40% of its market cap. The AVAX token has 10% annual inflation and **can dilute its supply by another 150%**. Validators are paid by staking rewards, and those staking rewards account for a HUGE amount of annual inflation. Before the end of the decade, staking rewards will account for over 50% of the total circulating supply. > * **Supply dilution**: The annual inflation isn't that bad, but Messario.io reveals that the [vesting schedule](https://messari.io/asset/avalanche/profile/launch-and-initial-token-distribution) is really bad for public investors. It's looking at a 30% increase in supply from a combination of inflation and vesting in 2022, followed by a 22% increase in 2023. > * **Transaction fees are burned, but the transactions fees are so low that the [burnt amount is unnoticeable](https://burnedavax.com/).** Burns are in the tens of millions of dollars while issuance is 100x greater in the billions of dollars. Compare this to Ethereum's burn, [which currently reduces issuance by nearly 60%](https://watchtheburn.com/). ***** Would you like to learn more? Check out the [Cointest archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Avalanche) to find submissions for other topics.

CointestMod

#Avalanche Con-Arguments Below is a Avalanche con-argument written by a deleted user. > Avalanche is a relatively-new (only 1.5 years old) multi-blockchain crypto project whose token, AVAX, shot up into the top 10 cryptocurrencies by market cap in just 1 year. It has since fallen a bit. > > I have a separate summary of [Avalanche here](https://np.reddit.com/r/MPlankton/comments/ukjt2e/avalanche_research_summary/) that discusses the platform in more detail. > > This post only lists the CONs > > ##CONs > > **Limits to scalability** > > * The Avalanche C-Chain is a monolithic blockchain with a TPS limit of about 900 TPS. This is an upper limit that depends on how heavily smart contracts are being used. This is way slower than Algorand, which can already do 1000 TPS with with their Layer 1 smart contracts and can theoretically scale to [50K TPS](https://www.algorand.com/120720-Algorand%202021%20Performance.pdf) with higher block sizes and block pipelining. > * In addition, Avalanche does not plan to have Layer 2 scaling, so it can't compete against multi-layer blockchains. Instead, it supports subnets, which are siloed, independent blockchains that require insecure bridges to connect with other subnets. > > **Low adoption and Usage** > > * Ethereum still has an immense lead as a smart contract blockchain. No matter how better-designed and efficient Avalanche is, it may never catch up to Ethereum in terms of adoption. In DeFi, Ethereum has 10x Avalanche's TVL [DeFi Llama](https://defillama.com/chain/Avalanche). > * The X-Chain, designed for non-smart contract transactions, only sees 5000 transactions per **day** despite being technically superior to its biggest UTXO-competitors, Bitcoin and Cardano. That's about 1 transaction every minute. **Avalanche is often quoted as a 4500 TPS network, but this network is an absolute ghost town that doesn't even get 0.001 transaction per second of actual activity.** > > **Weak wallet support** > > * The C-Chain is supported by several wallets and multiple CEXs, but there's very limited external support for the other built-in chains. > * The Avalanche Core wallet is still under development, so most users are stuck with the limited Avalanche Web Wallet. > > **Subnet downsides** > > * **Subnets are moderately expensive.** It's recommended that subnets run at least 5 validators, each of which needs to stake a minimum of 2000 AVAX (over $100K USD as of May 2022). So the minimum-recommended 5 validator setup will cost $500K USD, making it pretty expensive to start a subnet unless you're borrowing existing validators. I suppose larger platforms like DeFi Kingdoms should have no problems with this cost since they have tens of millions in TVL in their subnet. I expect most subnets to end up being extremely centralized. > * **Subnets are independent blockchains that don't inherit security or interoperability** Unlike Ethereum Layer 2 rollups, subnets don't inherit security from Avalanche's built-in network. And unlike Polkadot's XCM and Cosmos Hub's IBC, there are no communications interoperability between Avalache's subnets. They're each on their own island and need insecure bridges to reach each other and the primary network. Why not build on Polkadot or Cosmos Hub, which have way more interoperability? > * **Subnets are mostly pointless**: Aside from inheriting some Avalanche infrastructure and blockchain tools, there's negative economic incentive to build a subnet on Avalanche. If you're developing a subnet, you're paying Avalanche validators to secure their primary network while getting nothing useful in return. > > **Very poor tokenomics for investors over the next several decades** > > * In summary, the network is sustained by high inflation, which is how it keeps transaction fees low. > * **Low circulating supply**: The circulating supply is currently only about 40% of its market cap. The AVAX token has 10% annual inflation and **can dilute its supply by another 150%**. Validators are paid by staking rewards, and those staking rewards account for a HUGE amount of annual inflation. Before the end of the decade, staking rewards will account for over 50% of the total circulating supply. > * **Supply dilution**: The annual inflation isn't that bad, but Messario.io reveals that the [vesting schedule](https://messari.io/asset/avalanche/profile/launch-and-initial-token-distribution) is really bad for public investors. It's looking at a 30% increase in supply from a combination of inflation and vesting in 2022, followed by a 22% increase in 2023. > * **Transaction fees are burned, but the transactions fees are so low that the [burnt amount is unnoticeable](https://burnedavax.com/).** Burns are in the tens of millions of dollars while issuance is 100x greater in the billions of dollars. Compare this to Ethereum's burn, [which currently reduces issuance by nearly 60%](https://watchtheburn.com/). ***** Would you like to learn more? Check out the [Cointest archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Avalanche) to find submissions for other topics.

Soil_Electronic

I like that it’s fully EVM and can talk through XCM with DOT and it’s parachains no bridge risk

CointestMod

#Avalanche Con-Arguments Below is a Avalanche con-argument written by Maleficent_Plankton. > Avalanche is a relatively-new (only 1.5 years old) multi-blockchain crypto project whose token, AVAX, shot up into the top 10 cryptocurrencies by market cap in just 1 year. It has since fallen a bit. > > I have a separate summary of [Avalanche here](https://np.reddit.com/r/MPlankton/comments/ukjt2e/avalanche_research_summary/) that discusses the platform in more detail. > > This post only lists the CONs > > ##CONs > > **Limits to scalability** > > * The Avalanche C-Chain is a monolithic blockchain with a TPS limit of about 900 TPS. This is an upper limit that depends on how heavily smart contracts are being used. This is way slower than Algorand, which can already do 1000 TPS with with their Layer 1 smart contracts and can theoretically scale to [50K TPS](https://www.algorand.com/120720-Algorand%202021%20Performance.pdf) with higher block sizes and block pipelining. > * In addition, Avalanche does not plan to have Layer 2 scaling, so it can't compete against multi-layer blockchains. Instead, it supports subnets, which are siloed, independent blockchains that require insecure bridges to connect with other subnets. > > **Low adoption and Usage** > > * Ethereum still has an immense lead as a smart contract blockchain. No matter how better-designed and efficient Avalanche is, it may never catch up to Ethereum in terms of adoption. In DeFi, Ethereum has 10x Avalanche's TVL [DeFi Llama](https://defillama.com/chain/Avalanche). > * The X-Chain, designed for non-smart contract transactions, only sees 5000 transactions per **day** despite being technically superior to its biggest UTXO-competitors, Bitcoin and Cardano. That's about 1 transaction every minute. **Avalanche is often quoted as a 4500 TPS network, but this network is an absolute ghost town that doesn't even get 0.001 transaction per second of actual activity.** > > **Weak wallet support** > > * The C-Chain is supported by several wallets and multiple CEXs, but there's very limited external support for the other built-in chains. > * The Avalanche Core wallet is still under development, so most users are stuck with the limited Avalanche Web Wallet. > > **Subnet downsides** > > * **Subnets are moderately expensive.** It's recommended that subnets run at least 5 validators, each of which needs to stake a minimum of 2000 AVAX (over $100K USD as of May 2022). So the minimum-recommended 5 validator setup will cost $500K USD, making it pretty expensive to start a subnet unless you're borrowing existing validators. I suppose larger platforms like DeFi Kingdoms should have no problems with this cost since they have tens of millions in TVL in their subnet. I expect most subnets to end up being extremely centralized. > * **Subnets are independent blockchains that don't inherit security or interoperability** Unlike Ethereum Layer 2 rollups, subnets don't inherit security from Avalanche's built-in network. And unlike Polkadot's XCM and Cosmos Hub's IBC, there are no communications interoperability between Avalache's subnets. They're each on their own island and need insecure bridges to reach each other and the primary network. Why not build on Polkadot or Cosmos Hub, which have way more interoperability? > * **Subnets are mostly pointless**: Aside from inheriting some Avalanche infrastructure and blockchain tools, there's negative economic incentive to build a subnet on Avalanche. If you're developing a subnet, you're paying Avalanche validators to secure their primary network while getting nothing useful in return. > > **Very poor tokenomics for investors over the next several decades** > > * In summary, the network is sustained by high inflation, which is how it keeps transaction fees low. > * **Low circulating supply**: The circulating supply is currently only about 40% of its market cap. The AVAX token has 10% annual inflation and **can dilute its supply by another 150%**. Validators are paid by staking rewards, and those staking rewards account for a HUGE amount of annual inflation. Before the end of the decade, staking rewards will account for over 50% of the total circulating supply. > * **Supply dilution**: The annual inflation isn't that bad, but Messario.io reveals that the [vesting schedule](https://messari.io/asset/avalanche/profile/launch-and-initial-token-distribution) is really bad for public investors. It's looking at a 30% increase in supply from a combination of inflation and vesting in 2022, followed by a 22% increase in 2023. > * **Transaction fees are burned, but the transactions fees are so low that the [burnt amount is unnoticeable](https://burnedavax.com/).** Burns are in the tens of millions of dollars while issuance is 100x greater in the billions of dollars. Compare this to Ethereum's burn, [which currently reduces issuance by nearly 60%](https://watchtheburn.com/). ***** Would you like to learn more? Check out the [Cointest archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Avalanche) to find submissions for other topics.

CointestMod

#Avalanche Con-Arguments Below is a Avalanche con-argument written by Maleficent_Plankton. > Avalanche is a relatively-new (only 1.5 years old) multi-blockchain crypto project whose token, AVAX, shot up into the top 10 cryptocurrencies by market cap in just 1 year. It has since fallen a bit. > > I have a separate summary of [Avalanche here](https://np.reddit.com/r/MPlankton/comments/ukjt2e/avalanche_research_summary/) that discusses the platform in more detail. > > This post only lists the CONs > > ##CONs > > **Limits to scalability** > > * The Avalanche C-Chain is a monolithic blockchain with a TPS limit of about 900 TPS. This is an upper limit that depends on how heavily smart contracts are being used. This is way slower than Algorand, which can already do 1000 TPS with with their Layer 1 smart contracts and can theoretically scale to [50K TPS](https://www.algorand.com/120720-Algorand%202021%20Performance.pdf) with higher block sizes and block pipelining. > * In addition, Avalanche does not plan to have Layer 2 scaling, so it can't compete against multi-layer blockchains. Instead, it supports subnets, which are siloed, independent blockchains that require insecure bridges to connect with other subnets. > > **Low adoption and Usage** > > * Ethereum still has an immense lead as a smart contract blockchain. No matter how better-designed and efficient Avalanche is, it may never catch up to Ethereum in terms of adoption. In DeFi, Ethereum has 10x Avalanche's TVL [DeFi Llama](https://defillama.com/chain/Avalanche). > * The X-Chain, designed for non-smart contract transactions, only sees 5000 transactions per **day** despite being technically superior to its biggest UTXO-competitors, Bitcoin and Cardano. That's about 1 transaction every minute. **Avalanche is often quoted as a 4500 TPS network, but this network is an absolute ghost town that doesn't even get 0.001 transaction per second of actual activity.** > > **Weak wallet support** > > * The C-Chain is supported by several wallets and multiple CEXs, but there's very limited external support for the other built-in chains. > * The Avalanche Core wallet is still under development, so most users are stuck with the limited Avalanche Web Wallet. > > **Subnet downsides** > > * **Subnets are moderately expensive.** It's recommended that subnets run at least 5 validators, each of which needs to stake a minimum of 2000 AVAX (over $100K USD as of May 2022). So the minimum-recommended 5 validator setup will cost $500K USD, making it pretty expensive to start a subnet unless you're borrowing existing validators. I suppose larger platforms like DeFi Kingdoms should have no problems with this cost since they have tens of millions in TVL in their subnet. I expect most subnets to end up being extremely centralized. > * **Subnets are independent blockchains that don't inherit security or interoperability** Unlike Ethereum Layer 2 rollups, subnets don't inherit security from Avalanche's built-in network. And unlike Polkadot's XCM and Cosmos Hub's IBC, there are no communications interoperability between Avalache's subnets. They're each on their own island and need insecure bridges to reach each other and the primary network. Why not build on Polkadot or Cosmos Hub, which have way more interoperability? > * **Subnets are mostly pointless**: Aside from inheriting some Avalanche infrastructure and blockchain tools, there's negative economic incentive to build a subnet on Avalanche. If you're developing a subnet, you're paying Avalanche validators to secure their primary network while getting nothing useful in return. > > **Very poor tokenomics for investors over the next several decades** > > * In summary, the network is sustained by high inflation, which is how it keeps transaction fees low. > * **Low circulating supply**: The circulating supply is currently only about 40% of its market cap. The AVAX token has 10% annual inflation and **can dilute its supply by another 150%**. Validators are paid by staking rewards, and those staking rewards account for a HUGE amount of annual inflation. Before the end of the decade, staking rewards will account for over 50% of the total circulating supply. > * **Supply dilution**: The annual inflation isn't that bad, but Messario.io reveals that the [vesting schedule](https://messari.io/asset/avalanche/profile/launch-and-initial-token-distribution) is really bad for public investors. It's looking at a 30% increase in supply from a combination of inflation and vesting in 2022, followed by a 22% increase in 2023. > * **Transaction fees are burned, but the transactions fees are so low that the [burnt amount is unnoticeable](https://burnedavax.com/).** Burns are in the tens of millions of dollars while issuance is 100x greater in the billions of dollars. Compare this to Ethereum's burn, [which currently reduces issuance by nearly 60%](https://watchtheburn.com/). ***** Would you like to learn more? Check out the [Cointest archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Avalanche) to find submissions for other topics.

MaximumStudent1839

>I’m not sure why you think this is an ETH thing Chainlink focuses on EVM ecosystems. Other ecosystems have their own oracles. The largest EVM ecosystem is ETH. And ETH is what makes EVM relevant anyway. Many programmers will tell you programming in Solidity is like "eating lead" - Gavin Wood and his team had to produce a rushed product to launch ETH. Without ETH's liquidity, people would default to more familiar Web 2 languages like Rust, Python, etc. >Swift is absolutely using Chainlink CCIP and there are numerous blog posts interviews and presentations confirming exactly that. Read what I said. >It is laughable to think SWIFT will exclusively use CCIP. So where did I say they won't use CCIP? SWIFT will use whatever generates more volume and fees for their clients. Stablecoin volume in crypto is likely very large in future adoption. That is why crypto lobbyists are pushing to regulata stablecoins first above anything else. You are arguing SWIFT would ignore Circle's USDC volume just to adopt the niche CCIP - a laughable argument. > ANY proprietary blockchain to support any of their business. Cosmos SDK isn't proprietary lol. You are just a clueless "link marine" shill. >Banks are going to make their own chain in the way that works for them. And they can do that with either Cosmos SDK/Polkadot SDK. >What will connect them all? CCIP Both XCM/IBC network effects are larger than this nascent CCIP. Yet, both ecosystems will adopt CCTP. Lol if you think banks will ignore CCTP's volume just to save your "link marine" bags.

MaximumStudent1839

CCTP is going to facilitate USDC transfer between, Cosmos, Polkadot, Solana, Avax, ETH, Polygon, etc. Its volume will dwarf whatever gimmick Chainlink puts up. CCIP is laughably unimportant compared to CCTP. Both Cosmos’ IBC and Polkadot’s XCM are more advanced form of intercommunication and has more chain adoption than CCIP. Even then, they will still be using CCTP for USDC stable coin liquidity. You “link marines” can go interjecting your niche CCIP elsewhere.

MarcusStoic

# Here are some major news in Crypto from yesterday. ​ \- Japan's Nomura bank, with $500B in assets, launches the #Bitcoin Adoption Fund for institutional investors, emphasizing long-term BTC exposure. \- Circle introduces USDC stablecoin on Polkadot Asset Hub, expanding its reach across blockchains. Users warned against non-Hub XCM transfers. \- Aptos Labs integrates Coinbase Pay with its Petra crypto wallet, simplifying fiat-to-crypto conversions for Coinbase users. \- FTX sues Sam Bankman-Fried's parents for receiving $16.8M in stolen funds and $16.4M in Bahamian property. Allegations of manipulation arise. \- Starting 2024, Thailand will tax overseas income, including crypto, for anyone residing in the country over 180 days. \- CoinEx's compromised private keys led to a $70M hack. The exchange aims to compensate affected users and restore operations. \- UK's bill to seize illicit crypto nears final approval, empowering authorities to confiscate crypto linked to crime more efficiently. \- ERC-7512 proposes standardizing on-chain verification of Ethereum contract audits, backed by top developers. \- Tether authorizes $1B USDT for Tron network liquidity. CTO Ardoino clarifies it's for TRON issuance & chain swaps, not direct issuance \- Canto blockchain partners with Polygon to migrate to Ethereum, emphasizing real-world assets using Polygon's CDK.

MarcusStoic

# Here are some major news in Crypto today - Japan's Nomura bank, with $500B in assets, launches the #Bitcoin Adoption Fund for institutional investors, emphasizing long-term BTC exposure. - Circle introduces USDC stablecoin on Polkadot Asset Hub, expanding its reach across blockchains. Users warned against non-Hub XCM transfers. - Aptos Labs integrates Coinbase Pay with its Petra crypto wallet, simplifying fiat-to-crypto conversions for Coinbase users. - FTX sues Sam Bankman-Fried's parents for receiving $16.8M in stolen funds and $16.4M in Bahamian property. Allegations of manipulation arise. - Starting 2024, Thailand will tax overseas income, including crypto, for anyone residing in the country over 180 days. - CoinEx's compromised private keys led to a $70M hack. The exchange aims to compensate affected users and restore operations. - UK's bill to seize illicit crypto nears final approval, empowering authorities to confiscate crypto linked to crime more efficiently. - ERC-7512 proposes standardizing on-chain verification of Ethereum contract audits, backed by top developers. - Tether authorizes $1B USDT for Tron network liquidity. CTO Ardoino clarifies it's for TRON issuance & chain swaps, not direct issuance - Canto blockchain partners with Polygon to migrate to Ethereum, emphasizing real-world assets using Polygon's CDK.

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; Stablecoin issuer Circle has launched the native version of USDC on the Polkadot ecosystem of parachains. This expands the availability of the dollar-backed stablecoin to new blockchains. Polkadot-based projects such as Centrifuge, HydraDX, and Moonbeam have integrated USDC as their flagship stablecoin. The stablecoin can be transferred to parachains via the XCM protocol, allowing all interconnected parachains in the Polkadot ecosystem and their users to access the stablecoin. USDC is now available on multiple blockchains, including Ethereum, Solana, Arbitrum, Polygon PoS, Base, Optimism, and Tron. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

Soil_Electronic

Aside of piss poor price action DOT as I like it’s interoperability and how it works without bridge through XCM

CointestMod

#Avalanche Con-Arguments Below is a Avalanche con-argument written by Maleficent_Plankton. > Avalanche is a relatively-new (only 1.5 years old) multi-blockchain crypto project whose token, AVAX, shot up into the top 10 cryptocurrencies by market cap in just 1 year. It has since fallen a bit. > > I have a separate summary of [Avalanche here](https://np.reddit.com/r/MPlankton/comments/ukjt2e/avalanche_research_summary/) that discusses the platform in more detail. > > This post only lists the CONs > > ##CONs > > **Limits to scalability** > > * The Avalanche C-Chain is a monolithic blockchain with a TPS limit of about 900 TPS. This is an upper limit that depends on how heavily smart contracts are being used. This is way slower than Algorand, which can already do 1000 TPS with with their Layer 1 smart contracts and can theoretically scale to [50K TPS](https://www.algorand.com/120720-Algorand%202021%20Performance.pdf) with higher block sizes and block pipelining. > * In addition, Avalanche does not plan to have Layer 2 scaling, so it can't compete against multi-layer blockchains. Instead, it supports subnets, which are siloed, independent blockchains that require insecure bridges to connect with other subnets. > > **Low adoption and Usage** > > * Ethereum still has an immense lead as a smart contract blockchain. No matter how better-designed and efficient Avalanche is, it may never catch up to Ethereum in terms of adoption. In DeFi, Ethereum has 10x Avalanche's TVL [DeFi Llama](https://defillama.com/chain/Avalanche). > * The X-Chain, designed for non-smart contract transactions, only sees 5000 transactions per **day** despite being technically superior to its biggest UTXO-competitors, Bitcoin and Cardano. That's about 1 transaction every minute. **Avalanche is often quoted as a 4500 TPS network, but this network is an absolute ghost town that doesn't even get 0.001 transaction per second of actual activity.** > > **Weak wallet support** > > * The C-Chain is supported by several wallets and multiple CEXs, but there's very limited external support for the other built-in chains. > * The Avalanche Core wallet is still under development, so most users are stuck with the limited Avalanche Web Wallet. > > **Subnet downsides** > > * **Subnets are moderately expensive.** It's recommended that subnets run at least 5 validators, each of which needs to stake a minimum of 2000 AVAX (over $100K USD as of May 2022). So the minimum-recommended 5 validator setup will cost $500K USD, making it pretty expensive to start a subnet unless you're borrowing existing validators. I suppose larger platforms like DeFi Kingdoms should have no problems with this cost since they have tens of millions in TVL in their subnet. I expect most subnets to end up being extremely centralized. > * **Subnets are independent blockchains that don't inherit security or interoperability** Unlike Ethereum Layer 2 rollups, subnets don't inherit security from Avalanche's built-in network. And unlike Polkadot's XCM and Cosmos Hub's IBC, there are no communications interoperability between Avalache's subnets. They're each on their own island and need insecure bridges to reach each other and the primary network. Why not build on Polkadot or Cosmos Hub, which have way more interoperability? > * **Subnets are mostly pointless**: Aside from inheriting some Avalanche infrastructure and blockchain tools, there's negative economic incentive to build a subnet on Avalanche. If you're developing a subnet, you're paying Avalanche validators to secure their primary network while getting nothing useful in return. > > **Very poor tokenomics for investors over the next several decades** > > * In summary, the network is sustained by high inflation, which is how it keeps transaction fees low. > * **Low circulating supply**: The circulating supply is currently only about 40% of its market cap. The AVAX token has 10% annual inflation and **can dilute its supply by another 150%**. Validators are paid by staking rewards, and those staking rewards account for a HUGE amount of annual inflation. Before the end of the decade, staking rewards will account for over 50% of the total circulating supply. > * **Supply dilution**: The annual inflation isn't that bad, but Messario.io reveals that the [vesting schedule](https://messari.io/asset/avalanche/profile/launch-and-initial-token-distribution) is really bad for public investors. It's looking at a 30% increase in supply from a combination of inflation and vesting in 2022, followed by a 22% increase in 2023. > * **Transaction fees are burned, but the transactions fees are so low that the [burnt amount is unnoticeable](https://burnedavax.com/).** Burns are in the tens of millions of dollars while issuance is 100x greater in the billions of dollars. Compare this to Ethereum's burn, [which currently reduces issuance by nearly 60%](https://watchtheburn.com/). ***** Would you like to learn more? Check out the [Cointest archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Avalanche) to find submissions for other topics.

IceWallow97

BTC, ETH and DOT BTC and ETH are just here to stay Polkadot, so much going on in the dot ecosystem. Opengov has been successful, they've delivered on XCM, Nova wallet and Talisman wallet are great if you have dot, staking still great if you're able, giving you double the profit compared to the inflation of dot, parachains not as relevant as we'd wish for now but some of them look really promising and have been working hard (hopefully we see them next bull market), and their new roadmap is looking really slick. The latest messari report on dot is really bullish. Parathreads and asynchronous backing are to come out too. Lots of bullish news on dot to come out, rarely see fud on it, most of the fud is always from cosmos shillers anyway.

3utt5lut

XCM/XCVM and IBC/CosmosWASM are pretty significant breakthroughs in merging computer languages (that were once not compatible with each other), to be able to seamlessly interact and trade assets with one another, despite having previously incompatible operating systems. I'm very particularly interested in how this plays out in the future?

MakeItRelevant

DOT will succeed in boosting community involvement in its Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO). Its parachains are very powerful. I'm a fan of some Substrate-based projects in Polkadot like Moonbeam and Astar. I'm close to AstridDAO (built on Astar) after its partnership with Diadata. Lido Finance and Injective Protocol are also great options on Moonbeam. Polkadot's partnership with XCM is essential to support DeFi projects.

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; Polkadot has launched the OpenGov protocol to enhance community relevance and participation in its Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO). OpenGov will usher in a new era of full autonomy, transparent and efficient decision-making for the DOT community, empowering community members to take full control of the entire decision-making process relating to its DAO. With OpenGov, holders of its native token, DOT, can submit new proposals to the DAO without restriction. Polkadot is seeking to aid DeFi projects running in its ecosystem and collaborated with XCM, a popular cross-consensus messaging firm in April. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.*

TerraceTower

What makes it tough is that any DeFi bridge is centralized when you're going cross-chain. Completely decentralized cross-chain bridges don't exist. The closest you can get to decentralized cross-chain bridges is if they're using Cosmos Interchain Security or Polkadot XCM. This won't exist for Monero, especially since it doesn't even support smart contracts. Your best bet is to use an optional-privacy coin like Litecoin whose privacy module can enabled/disabled on-demand.

CointestMod

#Avalanche Con-Arguments Below is a Avalanche con-argument written by Maleficent_Plankton. > Avalanche is a relatively-new (only 1.5 years old) multi-blockchain crypto project whose token, AVAX, shot up into the top 10 cryptocurrencies by market cap in just 1 year. It has since fallen a bit. > > I have a separate summary of [Avalanche here](https://np.reddit.com/r/MPlankton/comments/ukjt2e/avalanche_research_summary/) that discusses the platform in more detail. > > This post only lists the CONs > > ##CONs > > **Limits to scalability** > > * The Avalanche C-Chain is a monolithic blockchain with a TPS limit of about 900 TPS. This is an upper limit that depends on how heavily smart contracts are being used. This is way slower than Algorand, which can already do 1000 TPS with with their Layer 1 smart contracts and can theoretically scale to [50K TPS](https://www.algorand.com/120720-Algorand%202021%20Performance.pdf) with higher block sizes and block pipelining. > * In addition, Avalanche does not plan to have Layer 2 scaling, so it can't compete against multi-layer blockchains. Instead, it supports subnets, which are siloed, independent blockchains that require insecure bridges to connect with other subnets. > > **Low adoption and Usage** > > * Ethereum still has an immense lead as a smart contract blockchain. No matter how better-designed and efficient Avalanche is, it may never catch up to Ethereum in terms of adoption. In DeFi, Ethereum has 10x Avalanche's TVL [DeFi Llama](https://defillama.com/chain/Avalanche). > * The X-Chain, designed for non-smart contract transactions, only sees 5000 transactions per **day** despite being technically superior to its biggest UTXO-competitors, Bitcoin and Cardano. That's about 1 transaction every minute. **Avalanche is often quoted as a 4500 TPS network, but this network is an absolute ghost town that doesn't even get 0.001 transaction per second of actual activity.** > > **Weak wallet support** > > * The C-Chain is supported by several wallets and multiple CEXs, but there's very limited external support for the other built-in chains. > * The Avalanche Core wallet is still under development, so most users are stuck with the limited Avalanche Web Wallet. > > **Subnet downsides** > > * **Subnets are moderately expensive.** It's recommended that subnets run at least 5 validators, each of which needs to stake a minimum of 2000 AVAX (over $100K USD as of May 2022). So the minimum-recommended 5 validator setup will cost $500K USD, making it pretty expensive to start a subnet unless you're borrowing existing validators. I suppose larger platforms like DeFi Kingdoms should have no problems with this cost since they have tens of millions in TVL in their subnet. I expect most subnets to end up being extremely centralized. > * **Subnets are independent blockchains that don't inherit security or interoperability** Unlike Ethereum Layer 2 rollups, subnets don't inherit security from Avalanche's built-in network. And unlike Polkadot's XCM and Cosmos Hub's IBC, there are no communications interoperability between Avalache's subnets. They're each on their own island and need insecure bridges to reach each other and the primary network. Why not build on Polkadot or Cosmos Hub, which have way more interoperability? > * **Subnets are mostly pointless**: Aside from inheriting some Avalanche infrastructure and blockchain tools, there's negative economic incentive to build a subnet on Avalanche. If you're developing a subnet, you're paying Avalanche validators to secure their primary network while getting nothing useful in return. > > **Very poor tokenomics for investors over the next several decades** > > * In summary, the network is sustained by high inflation, which is how it keeps transaction fees low. > * **Low circulating supply**: The circulating supply is currently only about 40% of its market cap. The AVAX token has 10% annual inflation and **can dilute its supply by another 150%**. Validators are paid by staking rewards, and those staking rewards account for a HUGE amount of annual inflation. Before the end of the decade, staking rewards will account for over 50% of the total circulating supply. > * **Supply dilution**: The annual inflation isn't that bad, but Messario.io reveals that the [vesting schedule](https://messari.io/asset/avalanche/profile/launch-and-initial-token-distribution) is really bad for public investors. It's looking at a 30% increase in supply from a combination of inflation and vesting in 2022, followed by a 22% increase in 2023. > * **Transaction fees are burned, but the transactions fees are so low that the [burnt amount is unnoticeable](https://burnedavax.com/).** Burns are in the tens of millions of dollars while issuance is 100x greater in the billions of dollars. Compare this to Ethereum's burn, [which currently reduces issuance by nearly 60%](https://watchtheburn.com/). ***** Would you like to learn more? Check out the [Cointest archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Avalanche) to find submissions for other topics.

3utt5lut

XCM (XCVM) v3 completed, audited, and implemented, no pump in DOT value. You'd think that being able to seamlessly communicate and share assets through the relay chain would be massive news? I think stuff like IBC and CosmoWASM is out of the mainstream understanding. You're not in it for the tech if you have no idea what I'm talking about? 🤣

Deltron2040

DOT is a layer 0 relay chain that appears to be as centralized as any other non-BTC coin. If Vitalik wants something in ETH, does he get it? How about Charles Hopkinson? Or the XRP corporation? Or CZ? Look behind any chain and there is some small group running it. The Web3 foundation is using this pseudo-centralization to market DOT as a software to the SEC. Time will tell on whether this approach will work. The parachains are the blockchains. If layer 0 goes down, they can still detach themselves and operate as normal. That is where ecosystem becomes more decentralized. DOT is working on XCM transfers which, if my understanding is correct, will allow any supporting parachain to interact with another without the use of a bridge, and further, to pay gas fees with any token you choose. Regarding parachains, most of them are garbage. This is no different that any other L0 or L1 ecosystem including ETH. Like other ecosystems there are some bright spots, most recent ones of note is the Deloitte announcement to use Kiln and the Mythical games announcing that they are moving to DOT from ETH. Astar appears to be another bright spot with their unique project funding methods, Moonbeam has Stellaswap which is bringing Defi and EVM compatibility to the DOT ecosystem. Interlay allows users to swap DOT for wrapped BTC that can be transferred directly to BTC the BTC blockchain. Regarding inflation, it's at 6.5% right now, where staking is yielding 19 to 20%. The adjusted rate of returnThere will always be a demand for DOT from parachains needing to buy and lock-up DOT in order to secure their spot in the ecosystem. Although it's not necessarily marketed as such, DOT does act like a currency as well. There are currently 763 full-time developers working on DOT. 2,000 developers if you consider part-time devs. The treasury is well-funded and developers have a very large roadmap to work on. TLDR: DOT is no more centralized than any other non-BTC blockchain. It's ecosystem is expanding with some notable bright spots. It has tremendous developer support. The inflation is almost always overstated (currently at 6.5%).

3utt5lut

XCM is probably the best use-case on-chain because every chain connected, is on-chain. It's not just the ability to communicate, but also the ability to share protocols, dapps, and aspects without unnecessary time/risks spent on bridges. A good example would be connecting two completely different operating systems, with minimal difficulty. I like to refer to it as The Borg.

GotTheYips35

I'm pretty into it, just think XCM is fantastic, I think it may be the backdrop for web3. Depends on how you see the future implementation of crypto play out.

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; Pastel Network has announced that it will be working with Astar, a layer1 platform in the Polkadot ecosystem. Astar provides the infrastructure for building dApps with EVM and WASM smart contracts with cross-consensus messaging (XCM) and a cross-virtual machine (XVM). Pastel’s near-duplicate detection system, Sense, is a deep-learning based system that assesses the relative rareness between NFTs. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR. Get more of today's trending news [here](https://coinfeeds.substack.com).*

3utt5lut

So is it up like XCM is up? (Dot/Cosmos are very similar but different)

CointestMod

#Avalanche Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by Maleficent_Plankton which won 1st place in the Avalanche Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > Avalanche is a relatively-new (only 1.5 years old) multi-blockchain crypto project whose token, AVAX, shot up into the top 10 cryptocurrencies by market cap in just 1 year. It has since fallen a bit. > > I have a separate summary of [Avalanche here](https://np.reddit.com/r/MPlankton/comments/ukjt2e/avalanche_research_summary/) that discusses the platform in more detail. > > This post only lists the CONs > > ##CONs > > **Limits to scalability** > > * The Avalanche C-Chain is a monolithic blockchain with a TPS limit of about 900 TPS. This is an upper limit that depends on how heavily smart contracts are being used. This is way slower than Algorand, which can already do 1000 TPS with with their Layer 1 smart contracts and can theoretically scale to [50K TPS](https://www.algorand.com/120720-Algorand%202021%20Performance.pdf) with higher block sizes and block pipelining. > * In addition, Avalanche does not plan to have Layer 2 scaling, so it can't compete against multi-layer blockchains. Instead, it supports subnets, which are siloed, independent blockchains that require insecure bridges to connect with other subnets. > > **Low adoption and Usage** > > * Ethereum still has an immense lead as a smart contract blockchain. No matter how better-designed and efficient Avalanche is, it may never catch up to Ethereum in terms of adoption. In DeFi, Ethereum has 10x Avalanche's TVL [DeFi Llama](https://defillama.com/chain/Avalanche). > * The X-Chain, designed for non-smart contract transactions, only sees 5000 transactions per **day** despite being technically superior to its biggest UTXO-competitors, Bitcoin and Cardano. That's about 1 transaction every minute. **Avalanche is often quoted as a 4500 TPS network, but this network is an absolute ghost town that doesn't even get 0.001 transaction per second of actual activity.** > > **Weak wallet support** > > * The C-Chain is supported by several wallets and multiple CEXs, but there's very limited external support for the other built-in chains. > * The Avalanche Core wallet is still under development, so most users are stuck with the limited Avalanche Web Wallet. > > **Subnet downsides** > > * **Subnets are moderately expensive.** It's recommended that subnets run at least 5 validators, each of which needs to stake a minimum of 2000 AVAX (over $100K USD as of May 2022). So the minimum-recommended 5 validator setup will cost $500K USD, making it pretty expensive to start a subnet unless you're borrowing existing validators. I suppose larger platforms like DeFi Kingdoms should have no problems with this cost since they have tens of millions in TVL in their subnet. I expect most subnets to end up being extremely centralized. > * **Subnets are independent blockchains that don't inherit security or interoperability** Unlike Ethereum Layer 2 rollups, subnets don't inherit security from Avalanche's built-in network. And unlike Polkadot's XCM and Cosmos Hub's IBC, there are no communications interoperability between Avalache's subnets. They're each on their own island and need insecure bridges to reach each other and the primary network. Why not build on Polkadot or Cosmos Hub, which have way more interoperability? > * **Subnets are mostly pointless**: Aside from inheriting some Avalanche infrastructure and blockchain tools, there's negative economic incentive to build a subnet on Avalanche. If you're developing a subnet, you're paying Avalanche validators to secure their primary network while getting nothing useful in return. > > **Very poor tokenomics for investors over the next several decades** > > * In summary, the network is sustained by high inflation, which is how it keeps transaction fees low. > * **Low circulating supply**: The circulating supply is currently only about 40% of its market cap. The AVAX token has 10% annual inflation and **can dilute its supply by another 150%**. Validators are paid by staking rewards, and those staking rewards account for a HUGE amount of annual inflation. Before the end of the decade, staking rewards will account for over 50% of the total circulating supply. > * **Supply dilution**: The annual inflation isn't that bad, but Messario.io reveals that the [vesting schedule](https://messari.io/asset/avalanche/profile/launch-and-initial-token-distribution) is really bad for public investors. It's looking at a 30% increase in supply from a combination of inflation and vesting in 2022, followed by a 22% increase in 2023. > * **Transaction fees are burned, but the transactions fees are so low that the [burnt amount is unnoticeable](https://burnedavax.com/).** Burns are in the tens of millions of dollars while issuance is 100x greater in the billions of dollars. Compare this to Ethereum's burn, [which currently reduces issuance by nearly 60%](https://watchtheburn.com/). ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CointestOfficial/comments/tuwtxl/top_coins_avalanche_conarguments_april_2022/) to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the [Cointest Archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Avalanche) to find arguments on this topic in other rounds. Since this is a con-argument, what could be a better time to promote the Skeptics Discussion thread? You can find the latest thread [here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/1151l7p/daily_general_discussion_february_18_2023_gmt0/).

MakeItRelevant

I focus on what the project is doing and the level of innovation. It's also important to ask if it can benefit the crypto space somehow. I find some infrastructure projects to be very innovative (Fantom, Polygon, Ethereum) and also Web3 (Nest, Band, and Dia). I recently was researching Polkadot and their last roadmap upgrading the XCM format. Of course, community and team quality are also very important.

CointestMod

#Avalanche Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by Maleficent_Plankton which won 1st place in the Avalanche Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > Avalanche is a relatively-new (only 1.5 years old) multi-blockchain crypto project whose token, AVAX, shot up into the top 10 cryptocurrencies by market cap in just 1 year. It has since fallen a bit. > > I have a separate summary of [Avalanche here](https://np.reddit.com/r/MPlankton/comments/ukjt2e/avalanche_research_summary/) that discusses the platform in more detail. > > This post only lists the CONs > > ##CONs > > **Limits to scalability** > > * The Avalanche C-Chain is a monolithic blockchain with a TPS limit of about 900 TPS. This is an upper limit that depends on how heavily smart contracts are being used. This is way slower than Algorand, which can already do 1000 TPS with with their Layer 1 smart contracts and can theoretically scale to [50K TPS](https://www.algorand.com/120720-Algorand%202021%20Performance.pdf) with higher block sizes and block pipelining. > * In addition, Avalanche does not plan to have Layer 2 scaling, so it can't compete against multi-layer blockchains. Instead, it supports subnets, which are siloed, independent blockchains that require insecure bridges to connect with other subnets. > > **Low adoption and Usage** > > * Ethereum still has an immense lead as a smart contract blockchain. No matter how better-designed and efficient Avalanche is, it may never catch up to Ethereum in terms of adoption. In DeFi, Ethereum has 10x Avalanche's TVL [DeFi Llama](https://defillama.com/chain/Avalanche). > * The X-Chain, designed for non-smart contract transactions, only sees 5000 transactions per **day** despite being technically superior to its biggest UTXO-competitors, Bitcoin and Cardano. That's about 1 transaction every minute. **Avalanche is often quoted as a 4500 TPS network, but this network is an absolute ghost town that doesn't even get 0.001 transaction per second of actual activity.** > > **Weak wallet support** > > * The C-Chain is supported by several wallets and multiple CEXs, but there's very limited external support for the other built-in chains. > * The Avalanche Core wallet is still under development, so most users are stuck with the limited Avalanche Web Wallet. > > **Subnet downsides** > > * **Subnets are moderately expensive.** It's recommended that subnets run at least 5 validators, each of which needs to stake a minimum of 2000 AVAX (over $100K USD as of May 2022). So the minimum-recommended 5 validator setup will cost $500K USD, making it pretty expensive to start a subnet unless you're borrowing existing validators. I suppose larger platforms like DeFi Kingdoms should have no problems with this cost since they have tens of millions in TVL in their subnet. I expect most subnets to end up being extremely centralized. > * **Subnets are independent blockchains that don't inherit security or interoperability** Unlike Ethereum Layer 2 rollups, subnets don't inherit security from Avalanche's built-in network. And unlike Polkadot's XCM and Cosmos Hub's IBC, there are no communications interoperability between Avalache's subnets. They're each on their own island and need insecure bridges to reach each other and the primary network. Why not build on Polkadot or Cosmos Hub, which have way more interoperability? > * **Subnets are mostly pointless**: Aside from inheriting some Avalanche infrastructure and blockchain tools, there's negative economic incentive to build a subnet on Avalanche. If you're developing a subnet, you're paying Avalanche validators to secure their primary network while getting nothing useful in return. > > **Very poor tokenomics for investors over the next several decades** > > * In summary, the network is sustained by high inflation, which is how it keeps transaction fees low. > * **Low circulating supply**: The circulating supply is currently only about 40% of its market cap. The AVAX token has 10% annual inflation and **can dilute its supply by another 150%**. Validators are paid by staking rewards, and those staking rewards account for a HUGE amount of annual inflation. Before the end of the decade, staking rewards will account for over 50% of the total circulating supply. > * **Supply dilution**: The annual inflation isn't that bad, but Messario.io reveals that the [vesting schedule](https://messari.io/asset/avalanche/profile/launch-and-initial-token-distribution) is really bad for public investors. It's looking at a 30% increase in supply from a combination of inflation and vesting in 2022, followed by a 22% increase in 2023. > * **Transaction fees are burned, but the transactions fees are so low that the [burnt amount is unnoticeable](https://burnedavax.com/).** Burns are in the tens of millions of dollars while issuance is 100x greater in the billions of dollars. Compare this to Ethereum's burn, [which currently reduces issuance by nearly 60%](https://watchtheburn.com/). ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CointestOfficial/comments/tuwtxl/top_coins_avalanche_conarguments_april_2022/) to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the [Cointest Archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Avalanche) to find arguments on this topic in other rounds. Since this is a con-argument, what could be a better time to promote the Skeptics Discussion thread? You can find the latest thread [here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/10qprda/monthly_optimists_discussion_february_2023/).

kippelization

https://twitter.com/orientusprime/status/1541160566898704384 btw, endgame parachains is today. Endgame roll-ups is two more weeks. XCM is today. Communication between roll-ups is two more weeks.

StrB2x

Ethereum was coded in a month by Dr. Gavin Wood as more of a tech demo mainly by himself. Gavin left ETH and has been working on Polkadot with a huge team for I believe 5 years now. Polkadot is the only crypto with shared security for the whole ecosystem. Polkadot is what we call a layer 0. So imagine a super computer at the center (Polkadot). USBs (Parachains) Moonbeam, Astar, Bifrost, Bittensor, Phala, etc can all connect into this super computer and focus all their resources on development and not have to worry about security. All the parachains can now communicate to eachother trustlessly and utilize eachothers development. These parachains communicate via (XCM). What is the main cause of most hacks and funds being lost? Bridges. XCM eliminates this for the Polkadot ecosystem. I can keep going but phone is about to die. Check out white board crypto on youtube for Polkadot and if you use DOT download talisman wallet. It's the best wallet in the game and I have used many.

CointestMod

#Avalanche Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by Maleficent_Plankton which won 1st place in the Avalanche Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > Avalanche is a relatively-new (only 1.5 years old) multi-blockchain crypto project whose token, AVAX, shot up into the top 10 cryptocurrencies by market cap in just 1 year. It has since fallen a bit. > > I have a separate summary of [Avalanche here](https://np.reddit.com/r/MPlankton/comments/ukjt2e/avalanche_research_summary/) that discusses the platform in more detail. > > This post only lists the CONs > > ##CONs > > **Limits to scalability** > > * The Avalanche C-Chain is a monolithic blockchain with a TPS limit of about 900 TPS. This is an upper limit that depends on how heavily smart contracts are being used. This is way slower than Algorand, which can already do 1000 TPS with with their Layer 1 smart contracts and can theoretically scale to [50K TPS](https://www.algorand.com/120720-Algorand%202021%20Performance.pdf) with higher block sizes and block pipelining. > * In addition, Avalanche does not plan to have Layer 2 scaling, so it can't compete against multi-layer blockchains. Instead, it supports subnets, which are siloed, independent blockchains that require insecure bridges to connect with other subnets. > > **Low adoption and Usage** > > * Ethereum still has an immense lead as a smart contract blockchain. No matter how better-designed and efficient Avalanche is, it may never catch up to Ethereum in terms of adoption. In DeFi, Ethereum has 10x Avalanche's TVL [DeFi Llama](https://defillama.com/chain/Avalanche). > * The X-Chain, designed for non-smart contract transactions, only sees 5000 transactions per **day** despite being technically superior to its biggest UTXO-competitors, Bitcoin and Cardano. That's about 1 transaction every minute. **Avalanche is often quoted as a 4500 TPS network, but this network is an absolute ghost town that doesn't even get 0.001 transaction per second of actual activity.** > > **Weak wallet support** > > * The C-Chain is supported by several wallets and multiple CEXs, but there's very limited external support for the other built-in chains. > * The Avalanche Core wallet is still under development, so most users are stuck with the limited Avalanche Web Wallet. > > **Subnet downsides** > > * **Subnets are moderately expensive.** It's recommended that subnets run at least 5 validators, each of which needs to stake a minimum of 2000 AVAX (over $100K USD as of May 2022). So the minimum-recommended 5 validator setup will cost $500K USD, making it pretty expensive to start a subnet unless you're borrowing existing validators. I suppose larger platforms like DeFi Kingdoms should have no problems with this cost since they have tens of millions in TVL in their subnet. I expect most subnets to end up being extremely centralized. > * **Subnets are independent blockchains that don't inherit security or interoperability** Unlike Ethereum Layer 2 rollups, subnets don't inherit security from Avalanche's built-in network. And unlike Polkadot's XCM and Cosmos Hub's IBC, there are no communications interoperability between Avalache's subnets. They're each on their own island and need insecure bridges to reach each other and the primary network. Why not build on Polkadot or Cosmos Hub, which have way more interoperability? > * **Subnets are mostly pointless**: Aside from inheriting some Avalanche infrastructure and blockchain tools, there's negative economic incentive to build a subnet on Avalanche. If you're developing a subnet, you're paying Avalanche validators to secure their primary network while getting nothing useful in return. > > **Very poor tokenomics for investors over the next several decades** > > * In summary, the network is sustained by high inflation, which is how it keeps transaction fees low. > * **Low circulating supply**: The circulating supply is currently only about 40% of its market cap. The AVAX token has 10% annual inflation and **can dilute its supply by another 150%**. Validators are paid by staking rewards, and those staking rewards account for a HUGE amount of annual inflation. Before the end of the decade, staking rewards will account for over 50% of the total circulating supply. > * **Supply dilution**: The annual inflation isn't that bad, but Messario.io reveals that the [vesting schedule](https://messari.io/asset/avalanche/profile/launch-and-initial-token-distribution) is really bad for public investors. It's looking at a 30% increase in supply from a combination of inflation and vesting in 2022, followed by a 22% increase in 2023. > * **Transaction fees are burned, but the transactions fees are so low that the [burnt amount is unnoticeable](https://burnedavax.com/).** Burns are in the tens of millions of dollars while issuance is 100x greater in the billions of dollars. Compare this to Ethereum's burn, [which currently reduces issuance by nearly 60%](https://watchtheburn.com/). ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CointestOfficial/comments/tuwtxl/top_coins_avalanche_conarguments_april_2022/) to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the [Cointest Archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Avalanche) to find arguments on this topic in other rounds. Since this is a con-argument, what could be a better time to promote the Skeptics Discussion thread? You can find the latest thread [here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/10ntjbo/daily_general_discussion_january_29_2023_gmt0/).

CointestMod

#Avalanche Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by Maleficent_Plankton which won 1st place in the Avalanche Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > Avalanche is a relatively-new (only 1.5 years old) multi-blockchain crypto project whose token, AVAX, shot up into the top 10 cryptocurrencies by market cap in just 1 year. It has since fallen a bit. > > I have a separate summary of [Avalanche here](https://np.reddit.com/r/MPlankton/comments/ukjt2e/avalanche_research_summary/) that discusses the platform in more detail. > > This post only lists the CONs > > ##CONs > > **Limits to scalability** > > * The Avalanche C-Chain is a monolithic blockchain with a TPS limit of about 900 TPS. This is an upper limit that depends on how heavily smart contracts are being used. This is way slower than Algorand, which can already do 1000 TPS with with their Layer 1 smart contracts and can theoretically scale to [50K TPS](https://www.algorand.com/120720-Algorand%202021%20Performance.pdf) with higher block sizes and block pipelining. > * In addition, Avalanche does not plan to have Layer 2 scaling, so it can't compete against multi-layer blockchains. Instead, it supports subnets, which are siloed, independent blockchains that require insecure bridges to connect with other subnets. > > **Low adoption and Usage** > > * Ethereum still has an immense lead as a smart contract blockchain. No matter how better-designed and efficient Avalanche is, it may never catch up to Ethereum in terms of adoption. In DeFi, Ethereum has 10x Avalanche's TVL [DeFi Llama](https://defillama.com/chain/Avalanche). > * The X-Chain, designed for non-smart contract transactions, only sees 5000 transactions per **day** despite being technically superior to its biggest UTXO-competitors, Bitcoin and Cardano. That's about 1 transaction every minute. **Avalanche is often quoted as a 4500 TPS network, but this network is an absolute ghost town that doesn't even get 0.001 transaction per second of actual activity.** > > **Weak wallet support** > > * The C-Chain is supported by several wallets and multiple CEXs, but there's very limited external support for the other built-in chains. > * The Avalanche Core wallet is still under development, so most users are stuck with the limited Avalanche Web Wallet. > > **Subnet downsides** > > * **Subnets are moderately expensive.** It's recommended that subnets run at least 5 validators, each of which needs to stake a minimum of 2000 AVAX (over $100K USD as of May 2022). So the minimum-recommended 5 validator setup will cost $500K USD, making it pretty expensive to start a subnet unless you're borrowing existing validators. I suppose larger platforms like DeFi Kingdoms should have no problems with this cost since they have tens of millions in TVL in their subnet. I expect most subnets to end up being extremely centralized. > * **Subnets are independent blockchains that don't inherit security or interoperability** Unlike Ethereum Layer 2 rollups, subnets don't inherit security from Avalanche's built-in network. And unlike Polkadot's XCM and Cosmos Hub's IBC, there are no communications interoperability between Avalache's subnets. They're each on their own island and need insecure bridges to reach each other and the primary network. Why not build on Polkadot or Cosmos Hub, which have way more interoperability? > * **Subnets are mostly pointless**: Aside from inheriting some Avalanche infrastructure and blockchain tools, there's negative economic incentive to build a subnet on Avalanche. If you're developing a subnet, you're paying Avalanche validators to secure their primary network while getting nothing useful in return. > > **Very poor tokenomics for investors over the next several decades** > > * In summary, the network is sustained by high inflation, which is how it keeps transaction fees low. > * **Low circulating supply**: The circulating supply is currently only about 40% of its market cap. The AVAX token has 10% annual inflation and **can dilute its supply by another 150%**. Validators are paid by staking rewards, and those staking rewards account for a HUGE amount of annual inflation. Before the end of the decade, staking rewards will account for over 50% of the total circulating supply. > * **Supply dilution**: The annual inflation isn't that bad, but Messario.io reveals that the [vesting schedule](https://messari.io/asset/avalanche/profile/launch-and-initial-token-distribution) is really bad for public investors. It's looking at a 30% increase in supply from a combination of inflation and vesting in 2022, followed by a 22% increase in 2023. > * **Transaction fees are burned, but the transactions fees are so low that the [burnt amount is unnoticeable](https://burnedavax.com/).** Burns are in the tens of millions of dollars while issuance is 100x greater in the billions of dollars. Compare this to Ethereum's burn, [which currently reduces issuance by nearly 60%](https://watchtheburn.com/). ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CointestOfficial/comments/tuwtxl/top_coins_avalanche_conarguments_april_2022/) to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the [Cointest Archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Avalanche) to find arguments on this topic in other rounds. Since this is a con-argument, what could be a better time to promote the Skeptics Discussion thread? You can find the latest thread [here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/10ntjbo/daily_general_discussion_january_29_2023_gmt0/).

seb7mad

DOT The technology behind it is topnotch. Not just because it has higher developer activity than every other major network, but because it has a very solid design from the start. This allows the network to be scalable, secure in a trustless way, and to receive major updates and additions with low development efforts (i.e. the implementation of staking pools) On top of that, Polkadot has a very high level of decentralisation. This usually is not a ver important factor for most users, but it indeed is for third parties at the time of choosing a network to build in. Decentralisation often comes with a cost, for example high fees or poor performance when the network is busy. This is not the case in Polkadot. It would be fool to compare the level of decentralisation of Polkadot with Ethereum's or Bitcoin's, but it has the highest Nakamoto coefficient of every network outside these 2, and this is just the beginning. Polkadot is also winning the race of interoperability, with XCM being superior to every other bridging or hub solution out there, while maintaining demand for the DOT token since it's not just needed to secure the network and therefore parachains, but also paying for fees since Polkadot is usually the entry point of the whole ecosystem. Lastly, every DOT holder can easily contribute to secure the network with a minimum of 2 DOTs (1 for staking and 1 for existential deposit). The APR for staking doubles the inflation rate of the token, allowing stakers to generate wealth and increase their relative portion of the total supply. I'm very bullish for Polkadot and can't wait to see how it performs in the upcoming years

StrB2x

Bifrost (Liquid staking parachain), Stella Swap (Moonbeam Dex), XCM transferring between parachains. Polkadot Staking Dashboard, Astar Dashboard (1# Japanese chain that is working with the government of japan. The coolest thing I am watching now is Bittensor (Open AI with the tokenomics of bitcoin parachain and Subsocial which is decentralized social Media.

boxOsox4

Well XCM V3 and OpenGov for starters.

StrB2x

Polkadot easily now with Talisman wallet and XCM. Talisman wallet is the best wallet in the game by a long shot.

kippelization

How is Cosmos ahead when its interchain security couldn't never be like Polkadot's shared security as you can see explained here: [https://forum.polkadot.network/t/what-are-some-differences-between-substrate-and-cosmos-sdk/1354/8?u=mister\_cole](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/what-are-some-differences-between-substrate-and-cosmos-sdk/1354/8?u=mister_cole) You just can't design these things on the go. There's nothing like Substrate and XCM.

OppenheimersGuilt

From a developer point-of-view I find substrate and polkadot pretty damn nice! Parachains and XCM are a very interesting concept and I think parity tech is getting a lot of things right.

CointestMod

#Avalanche Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by Maleficent_Plankton which won 1st place in the Avalanche Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > Avalanche is a relatively-new (only 1.5 years old) multi-blockchain crypto project whose token, AVAX, shot up into the top 10 cryptocurrencies by market cap in just 1 year. It has since fallen a bit. > > I have a separate summary of [Avalanche here](https://np.reddit.com/r/MPlankton/comments/ukjt2e/avalanche_research_summary/) that discusses the platform in more detail. > > This post only lists the CONs > > ##CONs > > **Limits to scalability** > > * The Avalanche C-Chain is a monolithic blockchain with a TPS limit of about 900 TPS. This is an upper limit that depends on how heavily smart contracts are being used. This is way slower than Algorand, which can already do 1000 TPS with with their Layer 1 smart contracts and can theoretically scale to [50K TPS](https://www.algorand.com/120720-Algorand%202021%20Performance.pdf) with higher block sizes and block pipelining. > * In addition, Avalanche does not plan to have Layer 2 scaling, so it can't compete against multi-layer blockchains. Instead, it supports subnets, which are siloed, independent blockchains that require insecure bridges to connect with other subnets. > > **Low adoption and Usage** > > * Ethereum still has an immense lead as a smart contract blockchain. No matter how better-designed and efficient Avalanche is, it may never catch up to Ethereum in terms of adoption. In DeFi, Ethereum has 10x Avalanche's TVL [DeFi Llama](https://defillama.com/chain/Avalanche). > * The X-Chain, designed for non-smart contract transactions, only sees 5000 transactions per **day** despite being technically superior to its biggest UTXO-competitors, Bitcoin and Cardano. That's about 1 transaction every minute. **Avalanche is often quoted as a 4500 TPS network, but this network is an absolute ghost town that doesn't even get 0.001 transaction per second of actual activity.** > > **Weak wallet support** > > * The C-Chain is supported by several wallets and multiple CEXs, but there's very limited external support for the other built-in chains. > * The Avalanche Core wallet is still under development, so most users are stuck with the limited Avalanche Web Wallet. > > **Subnet downsides** > > * **Subnets are moderately expensive.** It's recommended that subnets run at least 5 validators, each of which needs to stake a minimum of 2000 AVAX (over $100K USD as of May 2022). So the minimum-recommended 5 validator setup will cost $500K USD, making it pretty expensive to start a subnet unless you're borrowing existing validators. I suppose larger platforms like DeFi Kingdoms should have no problems with this cost since they have tens of millions in TVL in their subnet. I expect most subnets to end up being extremely centralized. > * **Subnets are independent blockchains that don't inherit security or interoperability** Unlike Ethereum Layer 2 rollups, subnets don't inherit security from Avalanche's built-in network. And unlike Polkadot's XCM and Cosmos Hub's IBC, there are no communications interoperability between Avalache's subnets. They're each on their own island and need insecure bridges to reach each other and the primary network. Why not build on Polkadot or Cosmos Hub, which have way more interoperability? > * **Subnets are mostly pointless**: Aside from inheriting some Avalanche infrastructure and blockchain tools, there's negative economic incentive to build a subnet on Avalanche. If you're developing a subnet, you're paying Avalanche validators to secure their primary network while getting nothing useful in return. > > **Very poor tokenomics for investors over the next several decades** > > * In summary, the network is sustained by high inflation, which is how it keeps transaction fees low. > * **Low circulating supply**: The circulating supply is currently only about 40% of its market cap. The AVAX token has 10% annual inflation and **can dilute its supply by another 150%**. Validators are paid by staking rewards, and those staking rewards account for a HUGE amount of annual inflation. Before the end of the decade, staking rewards will account for over 50% of the total circulating supply. > * **Supply dilution**: The annual inflation isn't that bad, but Messario.io reveals that the [vesting schedule](https://messari.io/asset/avalanche/profile/launch-and-initial-token-distribution) is really bad for public investors. It's looking at a 30% increase in supply from a combination of inflation and vesting in 2022, followed by a 22% increase in 2023. > * **Transaction fees are burned, but the transactions fees are so low that the [burnt amount is unnoticeable](https://burnedavax.com/).** Burns are in the tens of millions of dollars while issuance is 100x greater in the billions of dollars. Compare this to Ethereum's burn, [which currently reduces issuance by nearly 60%](https://watchtheburn.com/). ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CointestOfficial/comments/tuwtxl/top_coins_avalanche_conarguments_april_2022/) to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the [Cointest Archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Avalanche) to find arguments on this topic in other rounds. Since this is a con-argument, what could be a better time to promote the Skeptics Discussion thread? You can find the latest thread [here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/10iydf2/daily_general_discussion_january_23_2023_gmt0/).

Rough_Data_6015

What should excite me about Polkadot tech? As far as I can tell it's just a sharded blockchain with a fancy bridge between shards, any sharded chain will eventually build something like XCM.

3utt5lut

I'd say XCM is highly underrated. Just wait for cross-chain staking.

CointestMod

#Avalanche Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by Maleficent_Plankton which won 1st place in the Avalanche Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > Avalanche is a relatively-new (only 1.5 years old) multi-blockchain crypto project whose token, AVAX, shot up into the top 10 cryptocurrencies by market cap in just 1 year. It has since fallen a bit. > > I have a separate summary of [Avalanche here](https://np.reddit.com/r/MPlankton/comments/ukjt2e/avalanche_research_summary/) that discusses the platform in more detail. > > This post only lists the CONs > > ##CONs > > **Limits to scalability** > > * The Avalanche C-Chain is a monolithic blockchain with a TPS limit of about 900 TPS. This is an upper limit that depends on how heavily smart contracts are being used. This is way slower than Algorand, which can already do 1000 TPS with with their Layer 1 smart contracts and can theoretically scale to [50K TPS](https://www.algorand.com/120720-Algorand%202021%20Performance.pdf) with higher block sizes and block pipelining. > * In addition, Avalanche does not plan to have Layer 2 scaling, so it can't compete against multi-layer blockchains. Instead, it supports subnets, which are siloed, independent blockchains that require insecure bridges to connect with other subnets. > > **Low adoption and Usage** > > * Ethereum still has an immense lead as a smart contract blockchain. No matter how better-designed and efficient Avalanche is, it may never catch up to Ethereum in terms of adoption. In DeFi, Ethereum has 10x Avalanche's TVL [DeFi Llama](https://defillama.com/chain/Avalanche). > * The X-Chain, designed for non-smart contract transactions, only sees 5000 transactions per **day** despite being technically superior to its biggest UTXO-competitors, Bitcoin and Cardano. That's about 1 transaction every minute. **Avalanche is often quoted as a 4500 TPS network, but this network is an absolute ghost town that doesn't even get 0.001 transaction per second of actual activity.** > > **Weak wallet support** > > * The C-Chain is supported by several wallets and multiple CEXs, but there's very limited external support for the other built-in chains. > * The Avalanche Core wallet is still under development, so most users are stuck with the limited Avalanche Web Wallet. > > **Subnet downsides** > > * **Subnets are moderately expensive.** It's recommended that subnets run at least 5 validators, each of which needs to stake a minimum of 2000 AVAX (over $100K USD as of May 2022). So the minimum-recommended 5 validator setup will cost $500K USD, making it pretty expensive to start a subnet unless you're borrowing existing validators. I suppose larger platforms like DeFi Kingdoms should have no problems with this cost since they have tens of millions in TVL in their subnet. I expect most subnets to end up being extremely centralized. > * **Subnets are independent blockchains that don't inherit security or interoperability** Unlike Ethereum Layer 2 rollups, subnets don't inherit security from Avalanche's built-in network. And unlike Polkadot's XCM and Cosmos Hub's IBC, there are no communications interoperability between Avalache's subnets. They're each on their own island and need insecure bridges to reach each other and the primary network. Why not build on Polkadot or Cosmos Hub, which have way more interoperability? > * **Subnets are mostly pointless**: Aside from inheriting some Avalanche infrastructure and blockchain tools, there's negative economic incentive to build a subnet on Avalanche. If you're developing a subnet, you're paying Avalanche validators to secure their primary network while getting nothing useful in return. > > **Very poor tokenomics for investors over the next several decades** > > * In summary, the network is sustained by high inflation, which is how it keeps transaction fees low. > * **Low circulating supply**: The circulating supply is currently only about 40% of its market cap. The AVAX token has 10% annual inflation and **can dilute its supply by another 150%**. Validators are paid by staking rewards, and those staking rewards account for a HUGE amount of annual inflation. Before the end of the decade, staking rewards will account for over 50% of the total circulating supply. > * **Supply dilution**: The annual inflation isn't that bad, but Messario.io reveals that the [vesting schedule](https://messari.io/asset/avalanche/profile/launch-and-initial-token-distribution) is really bad for public investors. It's looking at a 30% increase in supply from a combination of inflation and vesting in 2022, followed by a 22% increase in 2023. > * **Transaction fees are burned, but the transactions fees are so low that the [burnt amount is unnoticeable](https://burnedavax.com/).** Burns are in the tens of millions of dollars while issuance is 100x greater in the billions of dollars. Compare this to Ethereum's burn, [which currently reduces issuance by nearly 60%](https://watchtheburn.com/). ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CointestOfficial/comments/tuwtxl/top_coins_avalanche_conarguments_april_2022/) to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the [Cointest Archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Avalanche) to find arguments on this topic in other rounds. Since this is a con-argument, what could be a better time to promote the Skeptics Discussion thread? You can find the latest thread [here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/10hdaqg/daily_general_discussion_january_21_2023_gmt0/).

Soil_Electronic

Could i split that 50K? Id go for ATOM and DOT as I see web 3 the future and both are working on it one is through IBC (ATOM) XCM (DOT) where each blockchain can talk to each other. I would lean more into DOT as it’s the 2nd most secure blockchain by nakamoto coefficient. Both have great future ahead both will go up in value but it’s the question which one will pump harder

SnooRecipes1908

With XCM version 3 in place, the ability to move assets across different blockchains within Polkadot has been enhanced, the Polkadot team said

Maleficent_Plankton

The update allows for cross-chain assets within the Polkadot ecosystem using what is effectively on-chain bridges and remote-locking. **Bridges, but without the security risks.** > With XCM version 3 in place, the ability to move assets across different blockchains within Polkadot has been enhanced, the Polkadot team said. This will apply for both regular tokens and NFTs.

IceWallow97

So XCM 3 has been released and working?

Maleficent_Plankton

> With XCM version 3 in place, the ability to move assets across different blockchains within Polkadot has been enhanced, the Polkadot team said. This will apply for both regular tokens and NFTs. Cross-chain assets within the same ecosystem using what is effectively on-chain bridges. Bridges, but without the security risks.

CointestMod

#Avalanche Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by Maleficent_Plankton which won 1st place in the Avalanche Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > Avalanche is a relatively-new (only 1.5 years old) multi-blockchain crypto project whose token, AVAX, shot up into the top 10 cryptocurrencies by market cap in just 1 year. It has since fallen a bit. > > I have a separate summary of [Avalanche here](https://np.reddit.com/r/MPlankton/comments/ukjt2e/avalanche_research_summary/) that discusses the platform in more detail. > > This post only lists the CONs > > ##CONs > > **Limits to scalability** > > * The Avalanche C-Chain is a monolithic blockchain with a TPS limit of about 900 TPS. This is an upper limit that depends on how heavily smart contracts are being used. This is way slower than Algorand, which can already do 1000 TPS with with their Layer 1 smart contracts and can theoretically scale to [50K TPS](https://www.algorand.com/120720-Algorand%202021%20Performance.pdf) with higher block sizes and block pipelining. > * In addition, Avalanche does not plan to have Layer 2 scaling, so it can't compete against multi-layer blockchains. Instead, it supports subnets, which are siloed, independent blockchains that require insecure bridges to connect with other subnets. > > **Low adoption and Usage** > > * Ethereum still has an immense lead as a smart contract blockchain. No matter how better-designed and efficient Avalanche is, it may never catch up to Ethereum in terms of adoption. In DeFi, Ethereum has 10x Avalanche's TVL [DeFi Llama](https://defillama.com/chain/Avalanche). > * The X-Chain, designed for non-smart contract transactions, only sees 5000 transactions per **day** despite being technically superior to its biggest UTXO-competitors, Bitcoin and Cardano. That's about 1 transaction every minute. **Avalanche is often quoted as a 4500 TPS network, but this network is an absolute ghost town that doesn't even get 0.001 transaction per second of actual activity.** > > **Weak wallet support** > > * The C-Chain is supported by several wallets and multiple CEXs, but there's very limited external support for the other built-in chains. > * The Avalanche Core wallet is still under development, so most users are stuck with the limited Avalanche Web Wallet. > > **Subnet downsides** > > * **Subnets are moderately expensive.** It's recommended that subnets run at least 5 validators, each of which needs to stake a minimum of 2000 AVAX (over $100K USD as of May 2022). So the minimum-recommended 5 validator setup will cost $500K USD, making it pretty expensive to start a subnet unless you're borrowing existing validators. I suppose larger platforms like DeFi Kingdoms should have no problems with this cost since they have tens of millions in TVL in their subnet. I expect most subnets to end up being extremely centralized. > * **Subnets are independent blockchains that don't inherit security or interoperability** Unlike Ethereum Layer 2 rollups, subnets don't inherit security from Avalanche's built-in network. And unlike Polkadot's XCM and Cosmos Hub's IBC, there are no communications interoperability between Avalache's subnets. They're each on their own island and need insecure bridges to reach each other and the primary network. Why not build on Polkadot or Cosmos Hub, which have way more interoperability? > * **Subnets are mostly pointless**: Aside from inheriting some Avalanche infrastructure and blockchain tools, there's negative economic incentive to build a subnet on Avalanche. If you're developing a subnet, you're paying Avalanche validators to secure their primary network while getting nothing useful in return. > > **Very poor tokenomics for investors over the next several decades** > > * In summary, the network is sustained by high inflation, which is how it keeps transaction fees low. > * **Low circulating supply**: The circulating supply is currently only about 40% of its market cap. The AVAX token has 10% annual inflation and **can dilute its supply by another 150%**. Validators are paid by staking rewards, and those staking rewards account for a HUGE amount of annual inflation. Before the end of the decade, staking rewards will account for over 50% of the total circulating supply. > * **Supply dilution**: The annual inflation isn't that bad, but Messario.io reveals that the [vesting schedule](https://messari.io/asset/avalanche/profile/launch-and-initial-token-distribution) is really bad for public investors. It's looking at a 30% increase in supply from a combination of inflation and vesting in 2022, followed by a 22% increase in 2023. > * **Transaction fees are burned, but the transactions fees are so low that the [burnt amount is unnoticeable](https://burnedavax.com/).** Burns are in the tens of millions of dollars while issuance is 100x greater in the billions of dollars. Compare this to Ethereum's burn, [which currently reduces issuance by nearly 60%](https://watchtheburn.com/). ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CointestOfficial/comments/tuwtxl/top_coins_avalanche_conarguments_april_2022/) to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the [Cointest Archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Avalanche) to find arguments on this topic in other rounds. Since this is a con-argument, what could be a better time to promote the Skeptics Discussion thread? You can find the latest thread [here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/109k9wk/daily_general_discussion_january_12_2023_gmt0/).

CointestMod

#Avalanche Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by Maleficent_Plankton which won 1st place in the Avalanche Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > Avalanche is a relatively-new (only 1.5 years old) multi-blockchain crypto project whose token, AVAX, shot up into the top 10 cryptocurrencies by market cap in just 1 year. It has since fallen a bit. > > I have a separate summary of [Avalanche here](https://np.reddit.com/r/MPlankton/comments/ukjt2e/avalanche_research_summary/) that discusses the platform in more detail. > > This post only lists the CONs > > ##CONs > > **Limits to scalability** > > * The Avalanche C-Chain is a monolithic blockchain with a TPS limit of about 900 TPS. This is an upper limit that depends on how heavily smart contracts are being used. This is way slower than Algorand, which can already do 1000 TPS with with their Layer 1 smart contracts and can theoretically scale to [50K TPS](https://www.algorand.com/120720-Algorand%202021%20Performance.pdf) with higher block sizes and block pipelining. > * In addition, Avalanche does not plan to have Layer 2 scaling, so it can't compete against multi-layer blockchains. Instead, it supports subnets, which are siloed, independent blockchains that require insecure bridges to connect with other subnets. > > **Low adoption and Usage** > > * Ethereum still has an immense lead as a smart contract blockchain. No matter how better-designed and efficient Avalanche is, it may never catch up to Ethereum in terms of adoption. In DeFi, Ethereum has 10x Avalanche's TVL [DeFi Llama](https://defillama.com/chain/Avalanche). > * The X-Chain, designed for non-smart contract transactions, only sees 5000 transactions per **day** despite being technically superior to its biggest UTXO-competitors, Bitcoin and Cardano. That's about 1 transaction every minute. **Avalanche is often quoted as a 4500 TPS network, but this network is an absolute ghost town that doesn't even get 0.001 transaction per second of actual activity.** > > **Weak wallet support** > > * The C-Chain is supported by several wallets and multiple CEXs, but there's very limited external support for the other built-in chains. > * The Avalanche Core wallet is still under development, so most users are stuck with the limited Avalanche Web Wallet. > > **Subnet downsides** > > * **Subnets are moderately expensive.** It's recommended that subnets run at least 5 validators, each of which needs to stake a minimum of 2000 AVAX (over $100K USD as of May 2022). So the minimum-recommended 5 validator setup will cost $500K USD, making it pretty expensive to start a subnet unless you're borrowing existing validators. I suppose larger platforms like DeFi Kingdoms should have no problems with this cost since they have tens of millions in TVL in their subnet. I expect most subnets to end up being extremely centralized. > * **Subnets are independent blockchains that don't inherit security or interoperability** Unlike Ethereum Layer 2 rollups, subnets don't inherit security from Avalanche's built-in network. And unlike Polkadot's XCM and Cosmos Hub's IBC, there are no communications interoperability between Avalache's subnets. They're each on their own island and need insecure bridges to reach each other and the primary network. Why not build on Polkadot or Cosmos Hub, which have way more interoperability? > * **Subnets are mostly pointless**: Aside from inheriting some Avalanche infrastructure and blockchain tools, there's negative economic incentive to build a subnet on Avalanche. If you're developing a subnet, you're paying Avalanche validators to secure their primary network while getting nothing useful in return. > > **Very poor tokenomics for investors over the next several decades** > > * In summary, the network is sustained by high inflation, which is how it keeps transaction fees low. > * **Low circulating supply**: The circulating supply is currently only about 40% of its market cap. The AVAX token has 10% annual inflation and **can dilute its supply by another 150%**. Validators are paid by staking rewards, and those staking rewards account for a HUGE amount of annual inflation. Before the end of the decade, staking rewards will account for over 50% of the total circulating supply. > * **Supply dilution**: The annual inflation isn't that bad, but Messario.io reveals that the [vesting schedule](https://messari.io/asset/avalanche/profile/launch-and-initial-token-distribution) is really bad for public investors. It's looking at a 30% increase in supply from a combination of inflation and vesting in 2022, followed by a 22% increase in 2023. > * **Transaction fees are burned, but the transactions fees are so low that the [burnt amount is unnoticeable](https://burnedavax.com/).** Burns are in the tens of millions of dollars while issuance is 100x greater in the billions of dollars. Compare this to Ethereum's burn, [which currently reduces issuance by nearly 60%](https://watchtheburn.com/). ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CointestOfficial/comments/tuwtxl/top_coins_avalanche_conarguments_april_2022/) to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the [Cointest Archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Avalanche) to find arguments on this topic in other rounds. Since this is a con-argument, what could be a better time to promote the Skeptics Discussion thread? You can find the latest thread [here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/108phjk/daily_general_discussion_january_11_2023_gmt0/).

CointestMod

#Avalanche Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by Maleficent_Plankton which won 1st place in the Avalanche Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > Avalanche is a relatively-new (only 1.5 years old) multi-blockchain crypto project whose token, AVAX, shot up into the top 10 cryptocurrencies by market cap in just 1 year. It has since fallen a bit. > > I have a separate summary of [Avalanche here](https://np.reddit.com/r/MPlankton/comments/ukjt2e/avalanche_research_summary/) that discusses the platform in more detail. > > This post only lists the CONs > > ##CONs > > **Limits to scalability** > > * The Avalanche C-Chain is a monolithic blockchain with a TPS limit of about 900 TPS. This is an upper limit that depends on how heavily smart contracts are being used. This is way slower than Algorand, which can already do 1000 TPS with with their Layer 1 smart contracts and can theoretically scale to [50K TPS](https://www.algorand.com/120720-Algorand%202021%20Performance.pdf) with higher block sizes and block pipelining. > * In addition, Avalanche does not plan to have Layer 2 scaling, so it can't compete against multi-layer blockchains. Instead, it supports subnets, which are siloed, independent blockchains that require insecure bridges to connect with other subnets. > > **Low adoption and Usage** > > * Ethereum still has an immense lead as a smart contract blockchain. No matter how better-designed and efficient Avalanche is, it may never catch up to Ethereum in terms of adoption. In DeFi, Ethereum has 10x Avalanche's TVL [DeFi Llama](https://defillama.com/chain/Avalanche). > * The X-Chain, designed for non-smart contract transactions, only sees 5000 transactions per **day** despite being technically superior to its biggest UTXO-competitors, Bitcoin and Cardano. That's about 1 transaction every minute. **Avalanche is often quoted as a 4500 TPS network, but this network is an absolute ghost town that doesn't even get 0.001 transaction per second of actual activity.** > > **Weak wallet support** > > * The C-Chain is supported by several wallets and multiple CEXs, but there's very limited external support for the other built-in chains. > * The Avalanche Core wallet is still under development, so most users are stuck with the limited Avalanche Web Wallet. > > **Subnet downsides** > > * **Subnets are moderately expensive.** It's recommended that subnets run at least 5 validators, each of which needs to stake a minimum of 2000 AVAX (over $100K USD as of May 2022). So the minimum-recommended 5 validator setup will cost $500K USD, making it pretty expensive to start a subnet unless you're borrowing existing validators. I suppose larger platforms like DeFi Kingdoms should have no problems with this cost since they have tens of millions in TVL in their subnet. I expect most subnets to end up being extremely centralized. > * **Subnets are independent blockchains that don't inherit security or interoperability** Unlike Ethereum Layer 2 rollups, subnets don't inherit security from Avalanche's built-in network. And unlike Polkadot's XCM and Cosmos Hub's IBC, there are no communications interoperability between Avalache's subnets. They're each on their own island and need insecure bridges to reach each other and the primary network. Why not build on Polkadot or Cosmos Hub, which have way more interoperability? > * **Subnets are mostly pointless**: Aside from inheriting some Avalanche infrastructure and blockchain tools, there's negative economic incentive to build a subnet on Avalanche. If you're developing a subnet, you're paying Avalanche validators to secure their primary network while getting nothing useful in return. > > **Very poor tokenomics for investors over the next several decades** > > * In summary, the network is sustained by high inflation, which is how it keeps transaction fees low. > * **Low circulating supply**: The circulating supply is currently only about 40% of its market cap. The AVAX token has 10% annual inflation and **can dilute its supply by another 150%**. Validators are paid by staking rewards, and those staking rewards account for a HUGE amount of annual inflation. Before the end of the decade, staking rewards will account for over 50% of the total circulating supply. > * **Supply dilution**: The annual inflation isn't that bad, but Messario.io reveals that the [vesting schedule](https://messari.io/asset/avalanche/profile/launch-and-initial-token-distribution) is really bad for public investors. It's looking at a 30% increase in supply from a combination of inflation and vesting in 2022, followed by a 22% increase in 2023. > * **Transaction fees are burned, but the transactions fees are so low that the [burnt amount is unnoticeable](https://burnedavax.com/).** Burns are in the tens of millions of dollars while issuance is 100x greater in the billions of dollars. Compare this to Ethereum's burn, [which currently reduces issuance by nearly 60%](https://watchtheburn.com/). ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CointestOfficial/comments/tuwtxl/top_coins_avalanche_conarguments_april_2022/) to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the [Cointest Archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Avalanche) to find arguments on this topic in other rounds. Since this is a con-argument, what could be a better time to promote the Skeptics Discussion thread? You can find the latest thread [here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/108phjk/daily_general_discussion_january_11_2023_gmt0/).

CointestMod

#Avalanche Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by Maleficent_Plankton which won 1st place in the Avalanche Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > Avalanche is a relatively-new (only 1.5 years old) multi-blockchain crypto project whose token, AVAX, shot up into the top 10 cryptocurrencies by market cap in just 1 year. It has since fallen a bit. > > I have a separate summary of [Avalanche here](https://np.reddit.com/r/MPlankton/comments/ukjt2e/avalanche_research_summary/) that discusses the platform in more detail. > > This post only lists the CONs > > ##CONs > > **Limits to scalability** > > * The Avalanche C-Chain is a monolithic blockchain with a TPS limit of about 900 TPS. This is an upper limit that depends on how heavily smart contracts are being used. This is way slower than Algorand, which can already do 1000 TPS with with their Layer 1 smart contracts and can theoretically scale to [50K TPS](https://www.algorand.com/120720-Algorand%202021%20Performance.pdf) with higher block sizes and block pipelining. > * In addition, Avalanche does not plan to have Layer 2 scaling, so it can't compete against multi-layer blockchains. Instead, it supports subnets, which are siloed, independent blockchains that require insecure bridges to connect with other subnets. > > **Low adoption and Usage** > > * Ethereum still has an immense lead as a smart contract blockchain. No matter how better-designed and efficient Avalanche is, it may never catch up to Ethereum in terms of adoption. In DeFi, Ethereum has 10x Avalanche's TVL [DeFi Llama](https://defillama.com/chain/Avalanche). > * The X-Chain, designed for non-smart contract transactions, only sees 5000 transactions per **day** despite being technically superior to its biggest UTXO-competitors, Bitcoin and Cardano. That's about 1 transaction every minute. **Avalanche is often quoted as a 4500 TPS network, but this network is an absolute ghost town that doesn't even get 0.001 transaction per second of actual activity.** > > **Weak wallet support** > > * The C-Chain is supported by several wallets and multiple CEXs, but there's very limited external support for the other built-in chains. > * The Avalanche Core wallet is still under development, so most users are stuck with the limited Avalanche Web Wallet. > > **Subnet downsides** > > * **Subnets are moderately expensive.** It's recommended that subnets run at least 5 validators, each of which needs to stake a minimum of 2000 AVAX (over $100K USD as of May 2022). So the minimum-recommended 5 validator setup will cost $500K USD, making it pretty expensive to start a subnet unless you're borrowing existing validators. I suppose larger platforms like DeFi Kingdoms should have no problems with this cost since they have tens of millions in TVL in their subnet. I expect most subnets to end up being extremely centralized. > * **Subnets are independent blockchains that don't inherit security or interoperability** Unlike Ethereum Layer 2 rollups, subnets don't inherit security from Avalanche's built-in network. And unlike Polkadot's XCM and Cosmos Hub's IBC, there are no communications interoperability between Avalache's subnets. They're each on their own island and need insecure bridges to reach each other and the primary network. Why not build on Polkadot or Cosmos Hub, which have way more interoperability? > * **Subnets are mostly pointless**: Aside from inheriting some Avalanche infrastructure and blockchain tools, there's negative economic incentive to build a subnet on Avalanche. If you're developing a subnet, you're paying Avalanche validators to secure their primary network while getting nothing useful in return. > > **Very poor tokenomics for investors over the next several decades** > > * In summary, the network is sustained by high inflation, which is how it keeps transaction fees low. > * **Low circulating supply**: The circulating supply is currently only about 40% of its market cap. The AVAX token has 10% annual inflation and **can dilute its supply by another 150%**. Validators are paid by staking rewards, and those staking rewards account for a HUGE amount of annual inflation. Before the end of the decade, staking rewards will account for over 50% of the total circulating supply. > * **Supply dilution**: The annual inflation isn't that bad, but Messario.io reveals that the [vesting schedule](https://messari.io/asset/avalanche/profile/launch-and-initial-token-distribution) is really bad for public investors. It's looking at a 30% increase in supply from a combination of inflation and vesting in 2022, followed by a 22% increase in 2023. > * **Transaction fees are burned, but the transactions fees are so low that the [burnt amount is unnoticeable](https://burnedavax.com/).** Burns are in the tens of millions of dollars while issuance is 100x greater in the billions of dollars. Compare this to Ethereum's burn, [which currently reduces issuance by nearly 60%](https://watchtheburn.com/). ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CointestOfficial/comments/tuwtxl/top_coins_avalanche_conarguments_april_2022/) to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the [Cointest Archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Avalanche) to find arguments on this topic in other rounds. Since this is a con-argument, what could be a better time to promote the Skeptics Discussion thread? You can find the latest thread [here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/108phjk/daily_general_discussion_january_11_2023_gmt0/).

CointestMod

#Avalanche Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by Maleficent_Plankton which won 1st place in the Avalanche Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > Avalanche is a relatively-new (only 1.5 years old) multi-blockchain crypto project whose token, AVAX, shot up into the top 10 cryptocurrencies by market cap in just 1 year. It has since fallen a bit. > > I have a separate summary of [Avalanche here](https://np.reddit.com/r/MPlankton/comments/ukjt2e/avalanche_research_summary/) that discusses the platform in more detail. > > This post only lists the CONs > > ##CONs > > **Limits to scalability** > > * The Avalanche C-Chain is a monolithic blockchain with a TPS limit of about 900 TPS. This is an upper limit that depends on how heavily smart contracts are being used. This is way slower than Algorand, which can already do 1000 TPS with with their Layer 1 smart contracts and can theoretically scale to [50K TPS](https://www.algorand.com/120720-Algorand%202021%20Performance.pdf) with higher block sizes and block pipelining. > * In addition, Avalanche does not plan to have Layer 2 scaling, so it can't compete against multi-layer blockchains. Instead, it supports subnets, which are siloed, independent blockchains that require insecure bridges to connect with other subnets. > > **Low adoption and Usage** > > * Ethereum still has an immense lead as a smart contract blockchain. No matter how better-designed and efficient Avalanche is, it may never catch up to Ethereum in terms of adoption. In DeFi, Ethereum has 10x Avalanche's TVL [DeFi Llama](https://defillama.com/chain/Avalanche). > * The X-Chain, designed for non-smart contract transactions, only sees 5000 transactions per **day** despite being technically superior to its biggest UTXO-competitors, Bitcoin and Cardano. That's about 1 transaction every minute. **Avalanche is often quoted as a 4500 TPS network, but this network is an absolute ghost town that doesn't even get 0.001 transaction per second of actual activity.** > > **Weak wallet support** > > * The C-Chain is supported by several wallets and multiple CEXs, but there's very limited external support for the other built-in chains. > * The Avalanche Core wallet is still under development, so most users are stuck with the limited Avalanche Web Wallet. > > **Subnet downsides** > > * **Subnets are moderately expensive.** It's recommended that subnets run at least 5 validators, each of which needs to stake a minimum of 2000 AVAX (over $100K USD as of May 2022). So the minimum-recommended 5 validator setup will cost $500K USD, making it pretty expensive to start a subnet unless you're borrowing existing validators. I suppose larger platforms like DeFi Kingdoms should have no problems with this cost since they have tens of millions in TVL in their subnet. I expect most subnets to end up being extremely centralized. > * **Subnets are independent blockchains that don't inherit security or interoperability** Unlike Ethereum Layer 2 rollups, subnets don't inherit security from Avalanche's built-in network. And unlike Polkadot's XCM and Cosmos Hub's IBC, there are no communications interoperability between Avalache's subnets. They're each on their own island and need insecure bridges to reach each other and the primary network. Why not build on Polkadot or Cosmos Hub, which have way more interoperability? > * **Subnets are mostly pointless**: Aside from inheriting some Avalanche infrastructure and blockchain tools, there's negative economic incentive to build a subnet on Avalanche. If you're developing a subnet, you're paying Avalanche validators to secure their primary network while getting nothing useful in return. > > **Very poor tokenomics for investors over the next several decades** > > * In summary, the network is sustained by high inflation, which is how it keeps transaction fees low. > * **Low circulating supply**: The circulating supply is currently only about 40% of its market cap. The AVAX token has 10% annual inflation and **can dilute its supply by another 150%**. Validators are paid by staking rewards, and those staking rewards account for a HUGE amount of annual inflation. Before the end of the decade, staking rewards will account for over 50% of the total circulating supply. > * **Supply dilution**: The annual inflation isn't that bad, but Messario.io reveals that the [vesting schedule](https://messari.io/asset/avalanche/profile/launch-and-initial-token-distribution) is really bad for public investors. It's looking at a 30% increase in supply from a combination of inflation and vesting in 2022, followed by a 22% increase in 2023. > * **Transaction fees are burned, but the transactions fees are so low that the [burnt amount is unnoticeable](https://burnedavax.com/).** Burns are in the tens of millions of dollars while issuance is 100x greater in the billions of dollars. Compare this to Ethereum's burn, [which currently reduces issuance by nearly 60%](https://watchtheburn.com/). ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CointestOfficial/comments/tuwtxl/top_coins_avalanche_conarguments_april_2022/) to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the [Cointest Archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Avalanche) to find arguments on this topic in other rounds. Since this is a con-argument, what could be a better time to promote the Skeptics Discussion thread? You can find the latest thread [here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/108phjk/daily_general_discussion_january_11_2023_gmt0/).

Captainchow

Another one? I recall this same person found an exploit with XCM a couple months ago. Love to see it.

CointestMod

#Avalanche Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by Maleficent_Plankton which won 1st place in the Avalanche Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > Avalanche is a relatively-new (only 1.5 years old) multi-blockchain crypto project whose token, AVAX, shot up into the top 10 cryptocurrencies by market cap in just 1 year. It has since fallen a bit. > > I have a separate summary of [Avalanche here](https://np.reddit.com/r/MPlankton/comments/ukjt2e/avalanche_research_summary/) that discusses the platform in more detail. > > This post only lists the CONs > > ##CONs > > **Limits to scalability** > > * The Avalanche C-Chain is a monolithic blockchain with a TPS limit of about 900 TPS. This is an upper limit that depends on how heavily smart contracts are being used. This is way slower than Algorand, which can already do 1000 TPS with with their Layer 1 smart contracts and can theoretically scale to [50K TPS](https://www.algorand.com/120720-Algorand%202021%20Performance.pdf) with higher block sizes and block pipelining. > * In addition, Avalanche does not plan to have Layer 2 scaling, so it can't compete against multi-layer blockchains. Instead, it supports subnets, which are siloed, independent blockchains that require insecure bridges to connect with other subnets. > > **Low adoption and Usage** > > * Ethereum still has an immense lead as a smart contract blockchain. No matter how better-designed and efficient Avalanche is, it may never catch up to Ethereum in terms of adoption. In DeFi, Ethereum has 10x Avalanche's TVL [DeFi Llama](https://defillama.com/chain/Avalanche). > * The X-Chain, designed for non-smart contract transactions, only sees 5000 transactions per **day** despite being technically superior to its biggest UTXO-competitors, Bitcoin and Cardano. That's about 1 transaction every minute. **Avalanche is often quoted as a 4500 TPS network, but this network is an absolute ghost town that doesn't even get 0.001 transaction per second of actual activity.** > > **Weak wallet support** > > * The C-Chain is supported by several wallets and multiple CEXs, but there's very limited external support for the other built-in chains. > * The Avalanche Core wallet is still under development, so most users are stuck with the limited Avalanche Web Wallet. > > **Subnet downsides** > > * **Subnets are moderately expensive.** It's recommended that subnets run at least 5 validators, each of which needs to stake a minimum of 2000 AVAX (over $100K USD as of May 2022). So the minimum-recommended 5 validator setup will cost $500K USD, making it pretty expensive to start a subnet unless you're borrowing existing validators. I suppose larger platforms like DeFi Kingdoms should have no problems with this cost since they have tens of millions in TVL in their subnet. I expect most subnets to end up being extremely centralized. > * **Subnets are independent blockchains that don't inherit security or interoperability** Unlike Ethereum Layer 2 rollups, subnets don't inherit security from Avalanche's built-in network. And unlike Polkadot's XCM and Cosmos Hub's IBC, there are no communications interoperability between Avalache's subnets. They're each on their own island and need insecure bridges to reach each other and the primary network. Why not build on Polkadot or Cosmos Hub, which have way more interoperability? > * **Subnets are mostly pointless**: Aside from inheriting some Avalanche infrastructure and blockchain tools, there's negative economic incentive to build a subnet on Avalanche. If you're developing a subnet, you're paying Avalanche validators to secure their primary network while getting nothing useful in return. > > **Very poor tokenomics for investors over the next several decades** > > * In summary, the network is sustained by high inflation, which is how it keeps transaction fees low. > * **Low circulating supply**: The circulating supply is currently only about 40% of its market cap. The AVAX token has 10% annual inflation and **can dilute its supply by another 150%**. Validators are paid by staking rewards, and those staking rewards account for a HUGE amount of annual inflation. Before the end of the decade, staking rewards will account for over 50% of the total circulating supply. > * **Supply dilution**: The annual inflation isn't that bad, but Messario.io reveals that the [vesting schedule](https://messari.io/asset/avalanche/profile/launch-and-initial-token-distribution) is really bad for public investors. It's looking at a 30% increase in supply from a combination of inflation and vesting in 2022, followed by a 22% increase in 2023. > * **Transaction fees are burned, but the transactions fees are so low that the [burnt amount is unnoticeable](https://burnedavax.com/).** Burns are in the tens of millions of dollars while issuance is 100x greater in the billions of dollars. Compare this to Ethereum's burn, [which currently reduces issuance by nearly 60%](https://watchtheburn.com/). ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CointestOfficial/comments/tuwtxl/top_coins_avalanche_conarguments_april_2022/) to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the [Cointest Archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Avalanche) to find arguments on this topic in other rounds. Since this is a con-argument, what could be a better time to promote the Skeptics Discussion thread? You can find the latest thread [here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/104enw6/daily_general_discussion_january_6_2023_gmt0/).

CointestMod

#Avalanche Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by Maleficent_Plankton which won 1st place in the Avalanche Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > Avalanche is a relatively-new (only 1.5 years old) multi-blockchain crypto project whose token, AVAX, shot up into the top 10 cryptocurrencies by market cap in just 1 year. It has since fallen a bit. > > I have a separate summary of [Avalanche here](https://np.reddit.com/r/MPlankton/comments/ukjt2e/avalanche_research_summary/) that discusses the platform in more detail. > > This post only lists the CONs > > ##CONs > > **Limits to scalability** > > * The Avalanche C-Chain is a monolithic blockchain with a TPS limit of about 900 TPS. This is an upper limit that depends on how heavily smart contracts are being used. This is way slower than Algorand, which can already do 1000 TPS with with their Layer 1 smart contracts and can theoretically scale to [50K TPS](https://www.algorand.com/120720-Algorand%202021%20Performance.pdf) with higher block sizes and block pipelining. > * In addition, Avalanche does not plan to have Layer 2 scaling, so it can't compete against multi-layer blockchains. Instead, it supports subnets, which are siloed, independent blockchains that require insecure bridges to connect with other subnets. > > **Low adoption and Usage** > > * Ethereum still has an immense lead as a smart contract blockchain. No matter how better-designed and efficient Avalanche is, it may never catch up to Ethereum in terms of adoption. In DeFi, Ethereum has 10x Avalanche's TVL [DeFi Llama](https://defillama.com/chain/Avalanche). > * The X-Chain, designed for non-smart contract transactions, only sees 5000 transactions per **day** despite being technically superior to its biggest UTXO-competitors, Bitcoin and Cardano. That's about 1 transaction every minute. **Avalanche is often quoted as a 4500 TPS network, but this network is an absolute ghost town that doesn't even get 0.001 transaction per second of actual activity.** > > **Weak wallet support** > > * The C-Chain is supported by several wallets and multiple CEXs, but there's very limited external support for the other built-in chains. > * The Avalanche Core wallet is still under development, so most users are stuck with the limited Avalanche Web Wallet. > > **Subnet downsides** > > * **Subnets are moderately expensive.** It's recommended that subnets run at least 5 validators, each of which needs to stake a minimum of 2000 AVAX (over $100K USD as of May 2022). So the minimum-recommended 5 validator setup will cost $500K USD, making it pretty expensive to start a subnet unless you're borrowing existing validators. I suppose larger platforms like DeFi Kingdoms should have no problems with this cost since they have tens of millions in TVL in their subnet. I expect most subnets to end up being extremely centralized. > * **Subnets are independent blockchains that don't inherit security or interoperability** Unlike Ethereum Layer 2 rollups, subnets don't inherit security from Avalanche's built-in network. And unlike Polkadot's XCM and Cosmos Hub's IBC, there are no communications interoperability between Avalache's subnets. They're each on their own island and need insecure bridges to reach each other and the primary network. Why not build on Polkadot or Cosmos Hub, which have way more interoperability? > * **Subnets are mostly pointless**: Aside from inheriting some Avalanche infrastructure and blockchain tools, there's negative economic incentive to build a subnet on Avalanche. If you're developing a subnet, you're paying Avalanche validators to secure their primary network while getting nothing useful in return. > > **Very poor tokenomics for investors over the next several decades** > > * In summary, the network is sustained by high inflation, which is how it keeps transaction fees low. > * **Low circulating supply**: The circulating supply is currently only about 40% of its market cap. The AVAX token has 10% annual inflation and **can dilute its supply by another 150%**. Validators are paid by staking rewards, and those staking rewards account for a HUGE amount of annual inflation. Before the end of the decade, staking rewards will account for over 50% of the total circulating supply. > * **Supply dilution**: The annual inflation isn't that bad, but Messario.io reveals that the [vesting schedule](https://messari.io/asset/avalanche/profile/launch-and-initial-token-distribution) is really bad for public investors. It's looking at a 30% increase in supply from a combination of inflation and vesting in 2022, followed by a 22% increase in 2023. > * **Transaction fees are burned, but the transactions fees are so low that the [burnt amount is unnoticeable](https://burnedavax.com/).** Burns are in the tens of millions of dollars while issuance is 100x greater in the billions of dollars. Compare this to Ethereum's burn, [which currently reduces issuance by nearly 60%](https://watchtheburn.com/). ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CointestOfficial/comments/tuwtxl/top_coins_avalanche_conarguments_april_2022/) to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the [Cointest Archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Avalanche) to find arguments on this topic in other rounds. Since this is a con-argument, what could be a better time to promote the Skeptics Discussion thread? You can find the latest thread [here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/103jihw/daily_general_discussion_january_5_2023_gmt0/).

CointestMod

#Avalanche Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by Maleficent_Plankton which won 1st place in the Avalanche Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > Avalanche is a relatively-new (only 1.5 years old) multi-blockchain crypto project whose token, AVAX, shot up into the top 10 cryptocurrencies by market cap in just 1 year. It has since fallen a bit. > > I have a separate summary of [Avalanche here](https://np.reddit.com/r/MPlankton/comments/ukjt2e/avalanche_research_summary/) that discusses the platform in more detail. > > This post only lists the CONs > > ##CONs > > **Limits to scalability** > > * The Avalanche C-Chain is a monolithic blockchain with a TPS limit of about 900 TPS. This is an upper limit that depends on how heavily smart contracts are being used. This is way slower than Algorand, which can already do 1000 TPS with with their Layer 1 smart contracts and can theoretically scale to [50K TPS](https://www.algorand.com/120720-Algorand%202021%20Performance.pdf) with higher block sizes and block pipelining. > * In addition, Avalanche does not plan to have Layer 2 scaling, so it can't compete against multi-layer blockchains. Instead, it supports subnets, which are siloed, independent blockchains that require insecure bridges to connect with other subnets. > > **Low adoption and Usage** > > * Ethereum still has an immense lead as a smart contract blockchain. No matter how better-designed and efficient Avalanche is, it may never catch up to Ethereum in terms of adoption. In DeFi, Ethereum has 10x Avalanche's TVL [DeFi Llama](https://defillama.com/chain/Avalanche). > * The X-Chain, designed for non-smart contract transactions, only sees 5000 transactions per **day** despite being technically superior to its biggest UTXO-competitors, Bitcoin and Cardano. That's about 1 transaction every minute. **Avalanche is often quoted as a 4500 TPS network, but this network is an absolute ghost town that doesn't even get 0.001 transaction per second of actual activity.** > > **Weak wallet support** > > * The C-Chain is supported by several wallets and multiple CEXs, but there's very limited external support for the other built-in chains. > * The Avalanche Core wallet is still under development, so most users are stuck with the limited Avalanche Web Wallet. > > **Subnet downsides** > > * **Subnets are moderately expensive.** It's recommended that subnets run at least 5 validators, each of which needs to stake a minimum of 2000 AVAX (over $100K USD as of May 2022). So the minimum-recommended 5 validator setup will cost $500K USD, making it pretty expensive to start a subnet unless you're borrowing existing validators. I suppose larger platforms like DeFi Kingdoms should have no problems with this cost since they have tens of millions in TVL in their subnet. I expect most subnets to end up being extremely centralized. > * **Subnets are independent blockchains that don't inherit security or interoperability** Unlike Ethereum Layer 2 rollups, subnets don't inherit security from Avalanche's built-in network. And unlike Polkadot's XCM and Cosmos Hub's IBC, there are no communications interoperability between Avalache's subnets. They're each on their own island and need insecure bridges to reach each other and the primary network. Why not build on Polkadot or Cosmos Hub, which have way more interoperability? > * **Subnets are mostly pointless**: Aside from inheriting some Avalanche infrastructure and blockchain tools, there's negative economic incentive to build a subnet on Avalanche. If you're developing a subnet, you're paying Avalanche validators to secure their primary network while getting nothing useful in return. > > **Very poor tokenomics for investors over the next several decades** > > * In summary, the network is sustained by high inflation, which is how it keeps transaction fees low. > * **Low circulating supply**: The circulating supply is currently only about 40% of its market cap. The AVAX token has 10% annual inflation and **can dilute its supply by another 150%**. Validators are paid by staking rewards, and those staking rewards account for a HUGE amount of annual inflation. Before the end of the decade, staking rewards will account for over 50% of the total circulating supply. > * **Supply dilution**: The annual inflation isn't that bad, but Messario.io reveals that the [vesting schedule](https://messari.io/asset/avalanche/profile/launch-and-initial-token-distribution) is really bad for public investors. It's looking at a 30% increase in supply from a combination of inflation and vesting in 2022, followed by a 22% increase in 2023. > * **Transaction fees are burned, but the transactions fees are so low that the [burnt amount is unnoticeable](https://burnedavax.com/).** Burns are in the tens of millions of dollars while issuance is 100x greater in the billions of dollars. Compare this to Ethereum's burn, [which currently reduces issuance by nearly 60%](https://watchtheburn.com/). ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CointestOfficial/comments/tuwtxl/top_coins_avalanche_conarguments_april_2022/) to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the [Cointest Archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Avalanche) to find arguments on this topic in other rounds. Since this is a con-argument, what could be a better time to promote the Skeptics Discussion thread? You can find the latest thread [here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/103jihw/daily_general_discussion_january_5_2023_gmt0/).

CointestMod

#Avalanche Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by Maleficent_Plankton which won 1st place in the Avalanche Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > Avalanche is a relatively-new (only 1.5 years old) multi-blockchain crypto project whose token, AVAX, shot up into the top 10 cryptocurrencies by market cap in just 1 year. It has since fallen a bit. > > I have a separate summary of [Avalanche here](https://np.reddit.com/r/MPlankton/comments/ukjt2e/avalanche_research_summary/) that discusses the platform in more detail. > > This post only lists the CONs > > ##CONs > > **Limits to scalability** > > * The Avalanche C-Chain is a monolithic blockchain with a TPS limit of about 900 TPS. This is an upper limit that depends on how heavily smart contracts are being used. This is way slower than Algorand, which can already do 1000 TPS with with their Layer 1 smart contracts and can theoretically scale to [50K TPS](https://www.algorand.com/120720-Algorand%202021%20Performance.pdf) with higher block sizes and block pipelining. > * In addition, Avalanche does not plan to have Layer 2 scaling, so it can't compete against multi-layer blockchains. Instead, it supports subnets, which are siloed, independent blockchains that require insecure bridges to connect with other subnets. > > **Low adoption and Usage** > > * Ethereum still has an immense lead as a smart contract blockchain. No matter how better-designed and efficient Avalanche is, it may never catch up to Ethereum in terms of adoption. In DeFi, Ethereum has 10x Avalanche's TVL [DeFi Llama](https://defillama.com/chain/Avalanche). > * The X-Chain, designed for non-smart contract transactions, only sees 5000 transactions per **day** despite being technically superior to its biggest UTXO-competitors, Bitcoin and Cardano. That's about 1 transaction every minute. **Avalanche is often quoted as a 4500 TPS network, but this network is an absolute ghost town that doesn't even get 0.001 transaction per second of actual activity.** > > **Weak wallet support** > > * The C-Chain is supported by several wallets and multiple CEXs, but there's very limited external support for the other built-in chains. > * The Avalanche Core wallet is still under development, so most users are stuck with the limited Avalanche Web Wallet. > > **Subnet downsides** > > * **Subnets are moderately expensive.** It's recommended that subnets run at least 5 validators, each of which needs to stake a minimum of 2000 AVAX (over $100K USD as of May 2022). So the minimum-recommended 5 validator setup will cost $500K USD, making it pretty expensive to start a subnet unless you're borrowing existing validators. I suppose larger platforms like DeFi Kingdoms should have no problems with this cost since they have tens of millions in TVL in their subnet. I expect most subnets to end up being extremely centralized. > * **Subnets are independent blockchains that don't inherit security or interoperability** Unlike Ethereum Layer 2 rollups, subnets don't inherit security from Avalanche's built-in network. And unlike Polkadot's XCM and Cosmos Hub's IBC, there are no communications interoperability between Avalache's subnets. They're each on their own island and need insecure bridges to reach each other and the primary network. Why not build on Polkadot or Cosmos Hub, which have way more interoperability? > * **Subnets are mostly pointless**: Aside from inheriting some Avalanche infrastructure and blockchain tools, there's negative economic incentive to build a subnet on Avalanche. If you're developing a subnet, you're paying Avalanche validators to secure their primary network while getting nothing useful in return. > > **Very poor tokenomics for investors over the next several decades** > > * In summary, the network is sustained by high inflation, which is how it keeps transaction fees low. > * **Low circulating supply**: The circulating supply is currently only about 40% of its market cap. The AVAX token has 10% annual inflation and **can dilute its supply by another 150%**. Validators are paid by staking rewards, and those staking rewards account for a HUGE amount of annual inflation. Before the end of the decade, staking rewards will account for over 50% of the total circulating supply. > * **Supply dilution**: The annual inflation isn't that bad, but Messario.io reveals that the [vesting schedule](https://messari.io/asset/avalanche/profile/launch-and-initial-token-distribution) is really bad for public investors. It's looking at a 30% increase in supply from a combination of inflation and vesting in 2022, followed by a 22% increase in 2023. > * **Transaction fees are burned, but the transactions fees are so low that the [burnt amount is unnoticeable](https://burnedavax.com/).** Burns are in the tens of millions of dollars while issuance is 100x greater in the billions of dollars. Compare this to Ethereum's burn, [which currently reduces issuance by nearly 60%](https://watchtheburn.com/). ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CointestOfficial/comments/tuwtxl/top_coins_avalanche_conarguments_april_2022/) to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the [Cointest Archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Avalanche) to find arguments on this topic in other rounds. Since this is a con-argument, what could be a better time to promote the Skeptics Discussion thread? You can find the latest thread [here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/zxpgqq/daily_general_discussion_december_29_2022_gmt0/).

CointestMod

#Avalanche Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by Maleficent_Plankton which won 1st place in the Avalanche Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > Avalanche is a relatively-new (only 1.5 years old) multi-blockchain crypto project whose token, AVAX, shot up into the top 10 cryptocurrencies by market cap in just 1 year. It has since fallen a bit. > > I have a separate summary of [Avalanche here](https://np.reddit.com/r/MPlankton/comments/ukjt2e/avalanche_research_summary/) that discusses the platform in more detail. > > This post only lists the CONs > > ##CONs > > **Limits to scalability** > > * The Avalanche C-Chain is a monolithic blockchain with a TPS limit of about 900 TPS. This is an upper limit that depends on how heavily smart contracts are being used. This is way slower than Algorand, which can already do 1000 TPS with with their Layer 1 smart contracts and can theoretically scale to [50K TPS](https://www.algorand.com/120720-Algorand%202021%20Performance.pdf) with higher block sizes and block pipelining. > * In addition, Avalanche does not plan to have Layer 2 scaling, so it can't compete against multi-layer blockchains. Instead, it supports subnets, which are siloed, independent blockchains that require insecure bridges to connect with other subnets. > > **Low adoption and Usage** > > * Ethereum still has an immense lead as a smart contract blockchain. No matter how better-designed and efficient Avalanche is, it may never catch up to Ethereum in terms of adoption. In DeFi, Ethereum has 10x Avalanche's TVL [DeFi Llama](https://defillama.com/chain/Avalanche). > * The X-Chain, designed for non-smart contract transactions, only sees 5000 transactions per **day** despite being technically superior to its biggest UTXO-competitors, Bitcoin and Cardano. That's about 1 transaction every minute. **Avalanche is often quoted as a 4500 TPS network, but this network is an absolute ghost town that doesn't even get 0.001 transaction per second of actual activity.** > > **Weak wallet support** > > * The C-Chain is supported by several wallets and multiple CEXs, but there's very limited external support for the other built-in chains. > * The Avalanche Core wallet is still under development, so most users are stuck with the limited Avalanche Web Wallet. > > **Subnet downsides** > > * **Subnets are moderately expensive.** It's recommended that subnets run at least 5 validators, each of which needs to stake a minimum of 2000 AVAX (over $100K USD as of May 2022). So the minimum-recommended 5 validator setup will cost $500K USD, making it pretty expensive to start a subnet unless you're borrowing existing validators. I suppose larger platforms like DeFi Kingdoms should have no problems with this cost since they have tens of millions in TVL in their subnet. I expect most subnets to end up being extremely centralized. > * **Subnets are independent blockchains that don't inherit security or interoperability** Unlike Ethereum Layer 2 rollups, subnets don't inherit security from Avalanche's built-in network. And unlike Polkadot's XCM and Cosmos Hub's IBC, there are no communications interoperability between Avalache's subnets. They're each on their own island and need insecure bridges to reach each other and the primary network. Why not build on Polkadot or Cosmos Hub, which have way more interoperability? > * **Subnets are mostly pointless**: Aside from inheriting some Avalanche infrastructure and blockchain tools, there's negative economic incentive to build a subnet on Avalanche. If you're developing a subnet, you're paying Avalanche validators to secure their primary network while getting nothing useful in return. > > **Very poor tokenomics for investors over the next several decades** > > * In summary, the network is sustained by high inflation, which is how it keeps transaction fees low. > * **Low circulating supply**: The circulating supply is currently only about 40% of its market cap. The AVAX token has 10% annual inflation and **can dilute its supply by another 150%**. Validators are paid by staking rewards, and those staking rewards account for a HUGE amount of annual inflation. Before the end of the decade, staking rewards will account for over 50% of the total circulating supply. > * **Supply dilution**: The annual inflation isn't that bad, but Messario.io reveals that the [vesting schedule](https://messari.io/asset/avalanche/profile/launch-and-initial-token-distribution) is really bad for public investors. It's looking at a 30% increase in supply from a combination of inflation and vesting in 2022, followed by a 22% increase in 2023. > * **Transaction fees are burned, but the transactions fees are so low that the [burnt amount is unnoticeable](https://burnedavax.com/).** Burns are in the tens of millions of dollars while issuance is 100x greater in the billions of dollars. Compare this to Ethereum's burn, [which currently reduces issuance by nearly 60%](https://watchtheburn.com/). ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CointestOfficial/comments/tuwtxl/top_coins_avalanche_conarguments_april_2022/) to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the [Cointest Archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Avalanche) to find arguments on this topic in other rounds. Since this is a con-argument, what could be a better time to promote the Skeptics Discussion thread? You can find the latest thread [here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/zbuu80/daily_general_discussion_december_4_2022_gmt0/).

CointestMod

#Avalanche Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by Maleficent_Plankton which won 1st place in the Avalanche Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > Avalanche is a relatively-new (only 1.5 years old) multi-blockchain crypto project whose token, AVAX, shot up into the top 10 cryptocurrencies by market cap in just 1 year. It has since fallen a bit. > > I have a separate summary of [Avalanche here](https://np.reddit.com/r/MPlankton/comments/ukjt2e/avalanche_research_summary/) that discusses the platform in more detail. > > This post only lists the CONs > > ##CONs > > **Limits to scalability** > > * The Avalanche C-Chain is a monolithic blockchain with a TPS limit of about 900 TPS. This is an upper limit that depends on how heavily smart contracts are being used. This is way slower than Algorand, which can already do 1000 TPS with with their Layer 1 smart contracts and can theoretically scale to [50K TPS](https://www.algorand.com/120720-Algorand%202021%20Performance.pdf) with higher block sizes and block pipelining. > * In addition, Avalanche does not plan to have Layer 2 scaling, so it can't compete against multi-layer blockchains. Instead, it supports subnets, which are siloed, independent blockchains that require insecure bridges to connect with other subnets. > > **Low adoption and Usage** > > * Ethereum still has an immense lead as a smart contract blockchain. No matter how better-designed and efficient Avalanche is, it may never catch up to Ethereum in terms of adoption. In DeFi, Ethereum has 10x Avalanche's TVL [DeFi Llama](https://defillama.com/chain/Avalanche). > * The X-Chain, designed for non-smart contract transactions, only sees 5000 transactions per **day** despite being technically superior to its biggest UTXO-competitors, Bitcoin and Cardano. That's about 1 transaction every minute. **Avalanche is often quoted as a 4500 TPS network, but this network is an absolute ghost town that doesn't even get 0.001 transaction per second of actual activity.** > > **Weak wallet support** > > * The C-Chain is supported by several wallets and multiple CEXs, but there's very limited external support for the other built-in chains. > * The Avalanche Core wallet is still under development, so most users are stuck with the limited Avalanche Web Wallet. > > **Subnet downsides** > > * **Subnets are moderately expensive.** It's recommended that subnets run at least 5 validators, each of which needs to stake a minimum of 2000 AVAX (over $100K USD as of May 2022). So the minimum-recommended 5 validator setup will cost $500K USD, making it pretty expensive to start a subnet unless you're borrowing existing validators. I suppose larger platforms like DeFi Kingdoms should have no problems with this cost since they have tens of millions in TVL in their subnet. I expect most subnets to end up being extremely centralized. > * **Subnets are independent blockchains that don't inherit security or interoperability** Unlike Ethereum Layer 2 rollups, subnets don't inherit security from Avalanche's built-in network. And unlike Polkadot's XCM and Cosmos Hub's IBC, there are no communications interoperability between Avalache's subnets. They're each on their own island and need insecure bridges to reach each other and the primary network. Why not build on Polkadot or Cosmos Hub, which have way more interoperability? > * **Subnets are mostly pointless**: Aside from inheriting some Avalanche infrastructure and blockchain tools, there's negative economic incentive to build a subnet on Avalanche. If you're developing a subnet, you're paying Avalanche validators to secure their primary network while getting nothing useful in return. > > **Very poor tokenomics for investors over the next several decades** > > * In summary, the network is sustained by high inflation, which is how it keeps transaction fees low. > * **Low circulating supply**: The circulating supply is currently only about 40% of its market cap. The AVAX token has 10% annual inflation and **can dilute its supply by another 150%**. Validators are paid by staking rewards, and those staking rewards account for a HUGE amount of annual inflation. Before the end of the decade, staking rewards will account for over 50% of the total circulating supply. > * **Supply dilution**: The annual inflation isn't that bad, but Messario.io reveals that the [vesting schedule](https://messari.io/asset/avalanche/profile/launch-and-initial-token-distribution) is really bad for public investors. It's looking at a 30% increase in supply from a combination of inflation and vesting in 2022, followed by a 22% increase in 2023. > * **Transaction fees are burned, but the transactions fees are so low that the [burnt amount is unnoticeable](https://burnedavax.com/).** Burns are in the tens of millions of dollars while issuance is 100x greater in the billions of dollars. Compare this to Ethereum's burn, [which currently reduces issuance by nearly 60%](https://watchtheburn.com/). ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CointestOfficial/comments/tuwtxl/top_coins_avalanche_conarguments_april_2022/) to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the [Cointest Archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Avalanche) to find arguments on this topic in other rounds. Since this is a con-argument, what could be a better time to promote the Skeptics Discussion thread? You can find the latest thread [here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/zb26w4/daily_general_discussion_december_3_2022_gmt0/).

CointestMod

#Avalanche Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by Maleficent_Plankton which won 1st place in the Avalanche Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > Avalanche is a relatively-new (only 1.5 years old) multi-blockchain crypto project whose token, AVAX, shot up into the top 10 cryptocurrencies by market cap in just 1 year. It has since fallen a bit. > > I have a separate summary of [Avalanche here](https://np.reddit.com/r/MPlankton/comments/ukjt2e/avalanche_research_summary/) that discusses the platform in more detail. > > This post only lists the CONs > > ##CONs > > **Limits to scalability** > > * The Avalanche C-Chain is a monolithic blockchain with a TPS limit of about 900 TPS. This is an upper limit that depends on how heavily smart contracts are being used. This is way slower than Algorand, which can already do 1000 TPS with with their Layer 1 smart contracts and can theoretically scale to [50K TPS](https://www.algorand.com/120720-Algorand%202021%20Performance.pdf) with higher block sizes and block pipelining. > * In addition, Avalanche does not plan to have Layer 2 scaling, so it can't compete against multi-layer blockchains. Instead, it supports subnets, which are siloed, independent blockchains that require insecure bridges to connect with other subnets. > > **Low adoption and Usage** > > * Ethereum still has an immense lead as a smart contract blockchain. No matter how better-designed and efficient Avalanche is, it may never catch up to Ethereum in terms of adoption. In DeFi, Ethereum has 10x Avalanche's TVL [DeFi Llama](https://defillama.com/chain/Avalanche). > * The X-Chain, designed for non-smart contract transactions, only sees 5000 transactions per **day** despite being technically superior to its biggest UTXO-competitors, Bitcoin and Cardano. That's about 1 transaction every minute. **Avalanche is often quoted as a 4500 TPS network, but this network is an absolute ghost town that doesn't even get 0.001 transaction per second of actual activity.** > > **Weak wallet support** > > * The C-Chain is supported by several wallets and multiple CEXs, but there's very limited external support for the other built-in chains. > * The Avalanche Core wallet is still under development, so most users are stuck with the limited Avalanche Web Wallet. > > **Subnet downsides** > > * **Subnets are moderately expensive.** It's recommended that subnets run at least 5 validators, each of which needs to stake a minimum of 2000 AVAX (over $100K USD as of May 2022). So the minimum-recommended 5 validator setup will cost $500K USD, making it pretty expensive to start a subnet unless you're borrowing existing validators. I suppose larger platforms like DeFi Kingdoms should have no problems with this cost since they have tens of millions in TVL in their subnet. I expect most subnets to end up being extremely centralized. > * **Subnets are independent blockchains that don't inherit security or interoperability** Unlike Ethereum Layer 2 rollups, subnets don't inherit security from Avalanche's built-in network. And unlike Polkadot's XCM and Cosmos Hub's IBC, there are no communications interoperability between Avalache's subnets. They're each on their own island and need insecure bridges to reach each other and the primary network. Why not build on Polkadot or Cosmos Hub, which have way more interoperability? > * **Subnets are mostly pointless**: Aside from inheriting some Avalanche infrastructure and blockchain tools, there's negative economic incentive to build a subnet on Avalanche. If you're developing a subnet, you're paying Avalanche validators to secure their primary network while getting nothing useful in return. > > **Very poor tokenomics for investors over the next several decades** > > * In summary, the network is sustained by high inflation, which is how it keeps transaction fees low. > * **Low circulating supply**: The circulating supply is currently only about 40% of its market cap. The AVAX token has 10% annual inflation and **can dilute its supply by another 150%**. Validators are paid by staking rewards, and those staking rewards account for a HUGE amount of annual inflation. Before the end of the decade, staking rewards will account for over 50% of the total circulating supply. > * **Supply dilution**: The annual inflation isn't that bad, but Messario.io reveals that the [vesting schedule](https://messari.io/asset/avalanche/profile/launch-and-initial-token-distribution) is really bad for public investors. It's looking at a 30% increase in supply from a combination of inflation and vesting in 2022, followed by a 22% increase in 2023. > * **Transaction fees are burned, but the transactions fees are so low that the [burnt amount is unnoticeable](https://burnedavax.com/).** Burns are in the tens of millions of dollars while issuance is 100x greater in the billions of dollars. Compare this to Ethereum's burn, [which currently reduces issuance by nearly 60%](https://watchtheburn.com/). ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CointestOfficial/comments/tuwtxl/top_coins_avalanche_conarguments_april_2022/) to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the [Cointest Archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Avalanche) to find arguments on this topic in other rounds. Since this is a con-argument, what could be a better time to promote the Skeptics Discussion thread? You can find the latest thread [here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/za4nf2/daily_general_discussion_december_2_2022_gmt0/).

One_King_4900

XCM on Conmetro. Not only do you receive the native XCM at 5%APR you also receive KDA, ADA, LTO, THT and servers others. The project is solid. Check it out

PeacefullyFighting

The idea really was far ahead of it's time. If the tech ends up being an important aspect of what projects make it and which flop I KNOW polkadot will be a great long term investment. On the flip side the tech is one of many aspects that make a coin successful. I hope to see more marketing, even better if it's individual parachains doing it, once XCM becomes bigger and bullet proof. Then we can start calling out bridges and how polkadot has the solution.

antiwrappingpaper

*"Not a fan of Jae myself. POS and BFT may have been his ideas"* I don't know where you're getting this from, probably this is some Cosmonauts myth and legend that was spread around. POS was first invented and implemented by Peercoin (Sunny King and Scott Nadal) in 2012... not this fraud JaeKwon. DPoS (what Cosmos is using) was invented by Daniel Larimer in 2013 for Steemit (STEEM) and then applied to EOS. I'm sorry to burst your bubble. "*It would have been another couple years if they waited to add ICS to the tech stack.*" How come other chains can do it in less time, release shared state security and communication protocols? "*Cosmos is exploding with development. It's almost too much to keep up with.*" Cosmos has been between 3-5 ranked as development acitivty for the last 12 months (always behind Ethereum and Polkadot, with a way smaller dev community than both). You can easily google this ... "*Infra takes time. UX is the difference between people staying or leaving.*" This is what's wrong with the industry now, and why chains like Solana are still at the top. Heavy UX marketed for dummies without infrastructure & security (which should be #1) is what keeps us from moving forward (but VCs love this, easy to have exit liquidity on multiple fronts) "*From what i saw Dot needs us more than we need them. Not sure if it was Parallel or the other one advertising Cosmos at the top of their site.*" You clearly don't know what you're talking about. That's Composable Finance, bringing Cosmos to Polkadot, not the other way around. Look at their XCVM tech and what it does (summary: it bakes in IBC alongside other protocols, using substrate XCM as foundation, to increase interoporability ranges and use-cases.) IBC messaging format is just being baked in by Substrate tech, alongside other messaging protocols. This is simply a superior tech being able to ingest and digest variances in complexity, you're confused on the technical side of things. "*I disagree with most of your points here"* Sure, you can disagree with technical facts, if that is your prerogative. "*IBC is great*" I can agree with this, if looked at in a vacuum, which is what I hinted to as well. "*cosmos is great, it's being developed smarter and better than anything out there.*" I mean... LOL sure, if you think that.. it's just not supported by facts, under technical scrutiny. Pretty simple, but yeah, consumers/end-users can choose to close their eyes, since the goal most of the time is short term gains rather than advancing the industry.

IESUwaOmodesu

yeah I think parachains will be mature at the next bull market (Moonbeam, Astar, Parallel and maybe Acala), then DOT will be brought to the spotlight once again, as people will try to sponsor the next big parachains. Also, all Parachains need to renew their leases, so more DOT to be used there. DOT is also finally being used for loans/collateral and XCM fees, so more usage as well.

Famous_Condition_442

I search for the highest real yield( that means what gets me the highest $ APY, not straight APY) It is kinda hard to do sadly, BNB and XCM is pretty alright on that I would say, KDX is doing really good with it too as well but not many DeFi to choose from unfortunately

nomorebonks

>Solutions such as Algorand's upcoming State Proofs, Ethereum's future Verkle Trees/thin clients, Polkadot's XCM, and Cosmos Hub's IBC are all meant to provide secure cross-chain communications to alleviate trust issues with off-chain information. Doesn't SP's require both chains to be running a SP for the communication? Also left out Dfinity's Threshold ECDSA in this comparison - reading of other blockchain's states directly without anything in between and does not require anything from the other chain. Also this enables communication between the chains without bridges, and transactions on the other chain can be triggered from the IC. Direct integration with BTC in testnet is working and final touches for going live are being done for a truly bridgeless environment.

StrB2x

GLMR and MOVR. Polkadot and XCM are going to become the standard and moonbeam will make it easy for evm dapps to migrate to the DOT ecosystem.

gonzaloetjo

That’s understandable, it’s a complex project. But if you get Algorand I’m sure you can get Polkadot. Sometimes audio is better, here’s GW recently presenting and explaining a bit further XCM3 in New York in a relaxed setting, I feel it was way easier to understand with his words: https://youtu.be/K2c6xrCoQOU

gonzaloetjo

Polkadot XCM is already working.

Maleficent_Plankton

The absolute irony that Polkadot with XCM and Cosmos with ICB, both protocols which are designed to avoid insecure bridges with their cross-chain communications, still ends up getting exploited by a bridge. They work fine within their own ecosystems but still need bridges between them. You're only as strong as your weakest link.

defyTheAbsurd

> Polkadot with XCM is today what Ethereum 2.0 was supposed to be. in what sense do you mean that?

IESUwaOmodesu

DOT released its XCM on schedule....

IESUwaOmodesu

I see. Well the off chain orderbook node and the possibility for any parachain to submit orders through XCM are also cool features for scalability and liquidity. Yep filled a bag while prices are at ATL, to me seems like the most solid 10M mcap project I've come across.

gonzaloetjo

FYI it's being considered to add a layer of minimalstic Webassambly smart contracts to Polkadots runtime. Apparently it's in discussion for when XCM is finished. It will be a new level of abstraction, as it will be smart contracts of blockchains, instead of within a blockchain. I'm honestly not grasping all the complexity of it as Polkadot is already complex as it is. It was discussed in one of the confs of the last decoded I believe.

Punterios

XCM

KalSereousz

I’m not a die hard fan but from what I can tell things are still in development. aUSD launching was a big deal for DOT. Last big news I saw was the completion of XCM which will enable cross-consensus communications. The Parachain auctions probably didn’t go as planned. Then the bear market hit which has obviously affected every project. But there’s been loads of talks at the Decoded event. There should be a wealth of information coming out of there soon, if the info Isn’t out already!

CryptoNewsAccountKeK

LoL, this question is so...flawed Crypto is not one thing, it is just the basked of bunch of blockchain coins and tokens Bitcoin is a commodity, 100%, almost no reason to assume it is a security Ethereum can be argued that it is a security but again it most likely is a commodity Angelblock nfts, built on etherem, are most likely security, as they were used for fund raising and was built upon a commodity BNB, FTT,XCM are most likely securities, and they are kinda used as so

No-Pea-1616

Not sure if flare protocol is similar to IBC or XCM but it is built on consensus protocol through state connector attestation providers. Can have a read here [https://medium.com/flarenetwork/the-state-connector-is-live-on-songbird-b0e45edfbcbb](https://medium.com/flarenetwork/the-state-connector-is-live-on-songbird-b0e45edfbcbb) Then, at the moment I read their F-Assets will be supporting the blockchains I mentioned earlier. Further developments will be expected in future as they roll out.

abmurusan

Do they allow transfer of native assets b/w blockchains? Or do they only enable wrapped assets. Also, do they have a protocol similar to IBC or XCM?

Maleficent_Plankton

Better interoperability protocols so that we don't need bridges, which are all too often insecure. Cosmos IBC, Polkadot XCM, Algorand State Proofs, Ethereum Verkle Trees and thin clients, etc.

CryptoNewsAccountKeK

I think anything with "reward" tokens is just a way to light up quickly then die, a leveraged pump, unlike Kaddex or Uniswap which have governance and basically provide some value, the reward points base everything on ponzi I am not sure i heard about Voyager nor know what exactly it is besides it being a CEX, but if it has a reward token you best get out, the only other one I can think of is XCM which is cool and does good

AESTHTK

This is just a data standard “XCM cannot actually send messages between systems. It is a format for how message transfer should be performed”. Ethereum L2 will actually have shared sovereign security, which is much more powerful. Polkadot is working towards this too. Ethereum has dropped computational sharding from the roadmap in 2020 in favour of scaling via roll-ups instead.

tosser_0

You should definitely research Algorand, there's a reason it's talked about so much. As for Polkadot, it's really not the same. They have XCM so parachains can natively communicate with each other: https://wiki.polkadot.network/docs/learn-crosschain Also, asI mentioned Polkadot is upgradeable without the need to fork. Is the merge going to allow for that with ETH? I think they're far from it. They aren't even implementing sharding yet with this change. I'm still confident in next-gen tech. Not so much on ETH.

Maleficent_Plankton

Algorand's State Proofs. Ethereum's Verkle Trees. Thin clients. Cosmos Hub's IBC. Polkadot's XCM. All these protocols have the same purpose: to reduce reliance on untrustworthy bridges. Many developing chains are moving towards this path.

SalaciousSunTzu

XCM keeping my portfolio above water. Got to love that 60c price floor

molebat

Cosmos' IBC is the communication protocol, the Polkadot equivalent is XCM (cross chain messaging). Cosmos SDK would be analogous to Substrate. IBC is a general protocol, so while it works with Cosmos SDK chains out of the box, it can connect to any chain with fast finality (though it might be harder for some). XCM, on the other hand is meant for communication only between substrate chains. But soon this won't be a huge factor for projects choosing where to build their chain because there is an IBC client being built for Polkadot (so both the IBC and XCM ecosystems can interoperate. +IBC client being built for Near, maybe Avax in the future, and some sort of IBC infrastructure for Ethereum and Solana.) If you want to compare them further, you could compare execution environments: Cosmos' CosmWasm with Polkadot's EVM+. Consensus wise, I think Polkadot's consensus mechanism is really interesting with the weighted rewards and rotating subsets, Cosmos' tendermint is pretty straightforward. For governance, I'm not familiar with how Polkadot does it. Governance on Cosmos chains has been ideal so far (in-protocol delegation and governance is important imo, and works really well together). Philosophically, I prefer the freedom that Cosmos gives. Overall, I always like to frame Cosmos and Polkadot as collaborators rather than competitors.

Trans-on-trans

I'm leaning more towards Polkadot because of how easier it is to use Substrate (I can use it and I'm not even versed in computer languages nor programming) and with XCM/XCVM V3 working on its way into full production, interacting with other networks already connected to the relay chain, including Ethereum, just seems like a no-brainer. Polkadot Parachains are doing all the hard work, so most developers on chain don't have to. Once all the parachain slots have been filled, the bridge between Kusama-Polkadot is completed, all the networks are up and running, it's going to be a haven for developers.

Sorry_Attitude_

Last crash also did not have a recession coming, a war going on that affects hundreds of millions, a food shortage close, and a lot of different stuff which affects the economy in ways we don't even know If you want something a bit more properly, Get things with cash flow or floor prices like XCM or Angelblock, obviously nothing is safe in a recession or "depression" but these usually fare a bit better and if they have cashflow they will resist alright The fear of a recession creates the recession itself tbh but thats another story for another time

SalaciousSunTzu

After 1000% growth in most metrics a new XCM price floor has been introduced. Previous price floor was maintained

IESUwaOmodesu

Well in contrast with Cardano that keeps promising, Polkadot has delivered already - Parachains are being launched since late last year, going full speed ahead, and XCM works as intended. The more the environment matures, the more DOT becomes valuable, as more projects will want to deploy on Polkadot, and the current projects will also have to pay to keep their slots. Each chain has its own coin tho, so it's not like ETH that's used for every tx. Polkadot today is what the original Eth 2.0 wants to be.

KongLongDong77

I always thought XCM is the coinmetro currency...

Maleficent_Plankton

You're still talking about adoption and price instead of technology. If you want to talk about adoption, all of crypto is a **Keynesian Beauty Contest**. Investors do not buy what has the best technology and design; they buy what they think others will buy. That means: Bitcoin, Ethereum, and possibly Dogecoin. The retail crypto community does not care about or understand technology at a deeper level. When I say technology, **I mean giving everyone an equal starting point**. Bitcoin could not compete against Litecoin, Ripple, or even Bitcoin Cash if they all started at the same time. Why am I using a lot of weird Jargon like DLT, DDOS, EVM, deterministic finality, etc.? Because it would take me a paragraph to explain each of them. And because if you read a ton of documentation, they all use technical terms and theirs explanations much more complicated than this. I'm already ELI5'ing their documentation. Good luck reading Cosmos or Polkadot documentation. Those platforms are built for developers, and I think it's so silly there are so many retail users buying their utility tokens without understanding their purpose. This is why so many users could not tell Terra was house of cards. If they sound marketing terms to you, it's because you don't understand them. If you ever read posts by Vitalik, he goes way beyond these simple concepts all the time, and they're all meaningful, not marketing BS. ---- **Blockchain Purpose** **Every platform has strengths and weaknesses, and they have different purposes**. Litecoin is not competing against Ethereum Layer 1. Polkadot is not competing against StarkNet/ImmutableX. They serve different purposes. Avalanche ecosystem, Polkadot ecosystem, Cosmos SDK/Cosmos Hub, Ethereum ecosystem, Algorand, Litecoin, are all excellent, but they excel at different things. A monolithic blockchain like Avalanche's X-Chain will never beat Ethereum's ecosystem at multi-layer applications, and vice versa. **Algorand's strengths** In the category of **decentralized monolithic smart contract blockchains**, Algorand and Avalanche's C-Chain are king. Both can do 100+ TPS with smart contracts with 2-5 second deterministic finality. Thus, they can do swaps and DeFi transactions in the typical time of traditional Point-of-Sales merchant transactions. Once you get closer to the 8-10 second range, it's no longer good for point of sales. Other EVM-compatible blockchains like Cosmos SDK and Tendermint ones are all have 6+ second finality, and it's even slower for smart contract transactions. Algorand's biggest selling point is that **every transaction is 0.001 Algo**. There is no gas. Sometimes smart contracts get to 0.002 Algo, but that's pretty rare. It can already do 1000 TPS (tested), all smart contracts, and the transactions would still be 0.001 Algo. Not even Avalanche's C-Chain is that fast/efficient. EVM-based smart contracts will never be this efficient because EVM smart contracts use a turing-complete VM. To do a simple swap, Ethereum has to use a hashed time-lock contract, which is computational expensive. Whereas for Algorand, it's just a simple transfer. It's practically immune to MEV attacks. More complex smart contracts (Layer 2 smart contracts) are completed out-of-band with a randomized validator set, and broken down into simple Layer 1 smart contracts. Thus, a 3-way swap only costs 2x 0.001 Algo transactions. If Algo's price rises 1000x, it's a simple governance change to reduce transactions costs back to reasonable fees. Theoretically, Algorand could scale to 50K TPS with larger blocks and block pipelining (similar to what Solana is already doing and what Cardano is researching). But that's not now, and that's not tested. So I'm only quoting it as 1000 TPS because we know that's possible. --------------- Comparing to other smart contract ecosystems: **Cosmos ecosystem** - Strength: Good for devs. It has 1 main selling: Cosmos IBC allows cross-chain communications within its ecosystem without relying on insecure bridges. - Weakness: It's a platform meant to benefit Cosmos SDK developers; it's not meant for retail users. You have to use IBC within the Cosmos Hub in order to take advantage of it. Your blockchain has to be IBC-compatible, so Proof of Work blockchains like Bitcoin and Ethereum PoW will never be able to connect to it without a bridge. Not natively as fast as Algorand. **Polkadot** - Strength: Great for devs of small blockchains who want to get cheap PoS validators. You can interact with other Polkadot Parachains via XCM cross-chain communications without needing insecure bridges. - Weaknesses: It's a platform meant to benefit Parachain devs; it's not meant for retail users. Most Polkadot Parachains aren't anywhere as efficient as Algorand. Moonriver on the Kusama experimental testnet has only ever achieved 50 TPS. Smart contract parachains and parachains that need their own consensus protocol need to provide their own validators for security. **Ethereum multi-layer ecosystem** - Strengths: It's multi-layered. Rollups automatically inherit security of lower layers, which makes them more secure than Cosmos Hub' and Polkadot's Layer 1 blockchains, and Avalanche's subnets. Upcoming Roadmap looks awesome. I'm very excited about Verkle Trees, but that could be years away. - Weaknesses: Layer 1 is slow as molasses and gas-expensive. Other faster Layer 1 DLTs could also do rollups in the future, making them much faster than Ethereum. Moving funds back to Layer 1 requires interacting with Layer 1. Limited cross-chain Layer 2 interoperability and split liquidity. Still requires bridges outside of the same Layer 2 ecosystem. I think most of these issues will eventually be mitigated over the next 5 years. Very vulnerable to MEV attacks. **Avalanche X-Chain** - Strengths: 7000 real TPS - Weaknesses: No smart contracts. A 0.001 TPS ghost town. It's really sad that Avalanche has this perfect non-smart contract blockchain that's better than every other non-smart contract PoW blockchain, and no one's using it. **Avalanche C-Chain** - Strengths: 100 real TPS. Up to 1000 max TPS (but not with EVM smart contracts) - Weaknesses: Monolithic. Can't scale further without sharding or multi-layered solution. Pretty much the same issue as Algorand, except that Algorand is already much faster. **Avalanche Subnets** - Strengths: Fast. Almost as fast as the current Algorand - Weaknesses: Does not natively inherit security. Pretty much pointless to join as an Avalanche subnet except that you're sharing its framework and infrastructure. I want to see someone successfully build a rollup on a subnet as a Layer 2 for Avalanche. That would make it better than Ethereum's multi-layer solution. **Polygon PoS** - Strengths: It can process real 1K TPS with a 2-second block time, so it's very fast. - Weaknesses: Is a sidechain; does not inherit Ethereum's security. High gas fees. More centralized than Solana. **Polygon rollup solutions** - Strengths: Unknown. Polygon Zero is likely faster than all other known ZK rollup solutions - Weaknesses: Possibly Vaporware. Polygon's team is following Google's playbook of starting multiple competing projects (6+) and seeing what sticks. StarkNet and Loopring can just copy its technology. **Solana** - Strengths: 1000 real TPS. Fast finality. (I haven't researched this deeply) - Weaknesses: So many outages. This is a deal-breaker considering its business/enterprise target audience.