Execution and well-conceived integration are a mandatory minimum of realizing the potential of new innovations. Grab a coffee (or hot chocolate if you're @greg), sit back, and relax, we're going on a deep dive.

I like baking /goodbread and building apps on web3 protocols. DevRel @ ENS Labs. gregskril.com

BDFL of Quilibrium, Eng @ Farcaster, ex-Coinbase, always opinionated, never hydrated

/quilibrium

Amazing thread, this is what I come to FC for. I understood *some* of these words; does it mean that Quilibrium’s commitment scheme offers an alternate way that Ethereum *could* use to face its future scaling challenges post full danksharding, and if so, what’s been the EF’s reaction so far if any? 1000 $degen

PhD in aviation ∩ climate science | Aviator, diver, ETH maxi, nexialist | Host of /diving /ethfinance /eth-staker /geopolitics /science /singapore /thomas

NB: I also didn’t realize that scaling was dependent on the number of active addresses; I had always assumed that it was only contingent on TPS at a given time.

So is that a fact that if 10x more addresses have transactions recorded to the blockchain, that’s a scaling factor as well?

Thanks! So what’s your vision for Quilibrium then: to be a technical proof of concept of how scalability can be done, to serve as a sidechain for existing blockchain designs that struggle to scale, to become a leading L1 with its own utility and use cases, etc?

Making the leap from their existing structure would be the largest undertaking they could ever do. Structurally, even their account model would have to change, so I understand why they didn't do it, because even for their original sharding plan, their account model would still similarly need to change.