Why us? And the tradeoff of Layer 2
Recently I was being asked for numerous times what are the advantages to attract applications deploying on ParaState. Herein I’d like to write down this article to sort out pros & cons in details for your reference.
After almost five years development, today Ethereum is still the №1 public blockchain with most applications deploying on it, even it is running with limited performance and unsecured programming languages. There are also new public chain projects who aim to provide highly optimized and industrial standard infrastructure (WebAssembly) in order to solve the problems on Ethereum, like Solana, Near, Avalanche and Polkadot. These projects do implement WebAssembly standards, however they all face same issues which are lack of mature tooling support, and developers need to be educated to learn new programming languages. This takes time and you know Rome cannot be built in one day. That’s why all new public chains want to interact with Ethereum ecosystem closely to activate the onchained applications.
Do we have any approach to minus this gap and relieve the pain for developers?
Yes. One approach is to build a bridge to transfer assets from Ethereum to the new infrastructure chains for higher performance, like Solana (bridge assets via FTX), Near (bridge assets via Rainbow bridge), and Polkadot (bridge assets via Snowfork/Interlay). This approach cannot solve above issues perfectly, since it still requires developers using new programming languages to build applications on the new chains. The second approach is to provide seamless compatibility for existing Ethereum applications. Moonbeam and Plasm are other two projects within Polkadot ecosystem who aim at this goal. This approach really relieves a lot of pains for developers. As developer can use all mature tooling support on Ethereum to build Dapps, and they don’t need to rewrite the whole smart contracts. What’s the core part for the new layer 1 chains to achieve this goal? They just integrate the EVM pallet into its Substrate blockchain with some RPC developments. The EVM pallet is developed by Parity and it’s an EVM runtime modified version in order to deploy in Substrate framework. We see more and more parachain projects like Acala, Clover Finance, and Darwinia etc to integrate the EVM pallet into their parachains in order to interact with Ethereum ecosystem. It seems all parachains won’t have any differentiation in the runtime pallet infra in a foreseeable near future. I do agree it will benefit the whole Polkadot ecosystem to activate the liquidity at the very beginning. Will this approach attract talented developers coming to build new applications? Probably, but not so persuasive. Since if it’s the same smart contract runtime infra like the EVM runtime on Ethereum right now, developers would doubt how good the performance can gain by deploying on it.
Do we have a bit better approach?
Yes. That’s what ParaState is bringing into the industry. While supporting EVM pallet to provide seamless compatibility to all existing Ethereum applications, ParaState also provides developers a next-gen smart contract implementation environment, EWASM (Ethereum favored WebAssembly). These two infrastructure are ensured to talk to each other and sharing the same account system on ParaState. This is the differentiation ParaState provides to the developer community, to enable them surfing in the highly optimized industrial standard infrastructure and exploring brand new possibilities for Ethereum frontier. The EWASM is an Ethereum Foundation roadmap published in early 2019, we just fulfill it with internal development force in advance. Someone may still argue Ethereum has Layer 2 solutions to improve performance. Let’s discuss it in the next paragraph either.
Through a unified developer community by supporting more popular programming languages, ParaState can bridge application and developer ecosystem between Ethereum and Polkadot, boostrapping the cross-chain software portability. If you are interested to dive deep into our EWASM infra, you may read about this article “Diving into Ethereum’s virtue machine: the future of EWASM” written by our developer program head Tim.
The tradeoff of Layer 2 solutions.
“The Bull Case for Ethereum Challengers” This article written by Kyle Samani from Multicoin Capital clearly pointed out the tradeoffs of current Layer 2 solutions. I don’t want to iterate all of them again. But I do want to emphasize no matter the Dapps choose zkRollup or Optimistics (two major Layer2 approaches), their protocols composability are broken. And composability is essential in the DeFi segment as it’s what the network effect lays. To deploy on ParaState, we can provide Dapps Layer 1 security, in the meanwhile maintaining the protocols composability that ensures capital flow fluidity is efficient.
Pros & Cons to deploy on ParaState
1. Dapps can gain Layer 1 security, in the meanwhile maintaining the protocols composability.
2. With limited development efforts, developers can gain a high performance smart contract implementation environment to enable a better user experience.
3. You don’t have to abandon what you are doing on Ethereum, simply immigrate your source code and deploy it on ParaState, interacting with the whole rising Polkadot ecosystem. We call it “Mirror to launch”, and “Credit expansion” on ParaState. IMO, everyone likes credit expansion, especially the FED :).
- Cons: Yeah, let me think about it.
……Well 30 minutes passed, I still haven’t squeezed out a single one.
So, why not just to go for a try after our testnet launches in February? Nothing will lose.
For more information, contact:
Official website: www.parastate.io