androidsixteen on Warpcast

Content pfp

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

androidsixteen pfp

@androidsixteen.eth

As someone who was pretty anti-Solana from an architecture standpoint, I find myself on the pro-Solana side when it comes to GTM Super weird to find myself here, and sometimes I can't effectively articulate why I have conviction that Solana is here to stay (in addition to believing & investing in the EVM world)

10 replies

1 recast

41 reactions

avi pfp

what’s wrong with the architecture?

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

androidsixteen pfp

@androidsixteen.eth

I never vibed with the "Forget full nodes, lean into the Nakamoto coefficient" approach to decentralization But given Ethereum is only able to keep up with Solana fee markets with centralized rollups, it reduces the bar collectively to what is "good enough" I have lowered my standards significantly

1 reply

0 recast

6 reactions

shazow pfp

The failure modes are very different. Very real experience: I wanted to move Ethereum Classic ETH a few years back and all of the public endpoints were dead. It took 1 hour to get a node up and running, and my very own RPC. No API keys, no permission. What happens when all public endpoints of an L2 are gone and I need to exit my tokens? What about Solana? Is it the same as Ethereum mainnet? While centralization is on a continuum, rollups and Solana are not centralized in the same ways (and certainly won't continue to be).

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

androidsixteen pfp

@androidsixteen.eth

100% That extends to even more basic non-black swan pain points like how hard it is to index data or run a simple block explorer My point was more that it is hard to watch rollups act holier than thou when they also made (significant) compromises Whereas Solana stated very clearly what it was and went after users. I respect that, even if I dislike the architecture for exactly the reason you outlined. Verifiability is a cornerstone of permissionless access IMO

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

shazow pfp

So there's a concept I've been thinking about how to express, maybe you can help. Something along the lines of "credible momentum" or something? The difference between a rollup and Solana to me is that rollups have a credible roadmap and momentum/work towards achieving desirable properties (worst case security bound to L1, which can be reasonably operated at home in a pinch). Solana on the other hand is *philosophically* uninterested in optimizing for some of those properties, and Toly actively argues that they're stupid etc. Let's assume for a moment that both are functionally equivalent *today* (they're not, but let's pretend), even so I'd argue the one who has a clear path and credible momentum towards some destination does have something like a moral high ground if we morally care about the properties we're working towards. One has no interest in going there (though can change later), other is actively working towards it and making progress. There's a difference.

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

androidsixteen pfp

@androidsixteen.eth

Related thought: https://warpcast.com/androidsixteen.eth/0x1e646e93 I don't doubt that Ethereum has good technical intentions in its roadmap, but its roadmapping process is convoluted and has a high latency between ideation and deployment Take for example the 7702 hype as of late... I've been tracking this since it was almost left for dead as 3074. Ethereum doesn't respond in a nimble way to the market, and we're at an inflection point where moral credibility & virtue signaling are less important than sheer ease of use and adoption Solana has a completely different governance structure that I wouldn't want to imitate. And it makes the wrong technical sacrifices (in my opinion). But brass tacks, it gets attention because of its ease of use and focus on serving application developers. That's worth learning from, especially as Ethereum once again needs to make the case actively why it's the rightful heir to the throne

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

shazow pfp

I don't disagree about how you describe Solana, and I can even imagine $SOL being worth a lot more -- that's all fine. What I disagree with is the *quality* of criticism that, for example, Base is more centralized than Solana. It's akin to criticizing crypto in eary 2010s that it's just for buying drugs or whatever, completely ignoring trajectory/potential/momentum/progress. If I was going to criticize Solana, it would be for the direction it's headed, not for where it is today. I'd like criticisms for rollups like Base to be similar. Otherwise we may as well all just stop using Farcaster because it's too centralized right now. You may be right that priorities for Ethereum are wrong, or that governance is too slow, or the tradeoffs are incorrect. That can be true, yet I still think it's crucial to consider the direction of where we're headed, not just where we are.

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction