Community Trust ScoreVerified
Emin Gun Sirer shared: Ethereum only has 14M blocks. Avalanche is doing 85% of Ethereum’s daily load right now, caught up to 70% of its chain length, and still maintains low fees. Wishing you all a great week.
Community Response: So does BSC tho’. Let’s not try to stir up too much us vs them, please. Avalanche is great, but highlighting *one* aspect – which is a literal clone of Ethereum’s code – and saying it somehow does it better leads you down in the wrong alley. Subnets are sweet, emphasize that.
I didn’t read anything against Ethereum on his tweet. Maybe you are too sensitive.
It’s the intent. He is not dumb. He very purposely skews the retail perception of the technology. This is how $AVAX became a Ponzi. To each of his own, but 1) hate it, and 2) Honestly, think this just means everyone is going to have a bad time eventually.
Why do you care in the first place? Ethereum is by far bigger in market cap and network TVL compared to Avalanche. Just keep with your lovely building and stuff. The sensitivity of ETH guys is incredible and funny IMO.
I think it’s just the fact that we are being “nice”.
Emin is delivering loads of pure FUD.
In particular: He is the reason you have no idea what is achieved with e.g. StarkNet. I don’t (normally) express it like this at all, because I know it just creates toxicity.
The burden of conveying a certain product/success/etc to the end-user/customer/community – whoever you target is on the shoulders of the producer/developer/owner. You better evaluate your performance in doing it, instead of blaming others. That’s what I think.
The open ecosystem won’t choose AVA. So, AVA is building its ecosystem centered around itself. This is fine. But the ETH roadmap is NOT coupled this way. That you think there is some trouble with the performance of this ecosystem, that’s born purely out of FUD.
What does “caught up to 70% of its chain length” imply? Equivocating block height across blockchains seems like a meaningless metric.
We plan to use magic pixie dust. Before you say “Hey, we tried that for ETH2 and got bubkis,” we used it on our consensus protocol and got <1s finality. Then tried it on subnets and got sharding for free.
More seriously, we have the most innovative team in blockchains working on super pruning.
This is Awesome. However, about the low fess thing. I’m not so sure, if 1 AVAX were $2000 (As I wish it was) would we still have low fees? This is an honest question, I hope I’m missing something really obvious here.
Not necessarily an answer to your question but as larger projects move to subnets I would expect them to denominate fees in their tokens. The projects will then need to work out on their own how they will incentivize participation from the existing validator set.
Why are people still asking this? Ava Labs has reduced fees 3 times, they can do it again. The issue is to balance bandwidth consumption together with data storage needs to ensure long-term sustainability. And the subnets. Not fud, but how is this a meaningful metric?
Because all the ETH maxis are like “ya,” but if you were as big as we are you would have the same problems” We will, maybe not.
Ethereum had LOWER fees at the same activity level on the chain. And that was years ago. The Length of the chain is irrelevant (actually it’s bad that it’s growing so fast because of bloat). Can AVA do the same number of transactions as Eth and maintain low fees without centralization?
But we are almost at equal use? How does that work? What do you mean “at equal use”? Several DApps? People? Transactions? Volume? Value transfer? Locked value? Ethereum dwarfs all other chains, combined, on all the metrics of activity. Even new developers and users per day. What is it that is “almost equal”? Genuine question.
